Igotnothin

Nice site!

I agree with jenste. Sorry to hear about your bad experience and here's to hoping in 12 months you find yourself in a much better situation.

Cyprusprior, I think you've got great creds and should shoot for the moon. Because even if you miss... well you get the picture. Harvard and UW are the consensus top-2 for biostats, and I think you're in great position for either (this is coming from someone who got rejected from both!). You've got a really well-rounded and impressive application. Very good math background, real-world experience, great programming skills, international experience, letter from well-known biostats profs, a publication. OK now I will stop flattering you. Everyone I know at UW loves it. Seattle is a great city and the biostats department is as good as any. Also they have a pretty big department, so you can expect to be a part of a reasonably sized cohort, which is nice. Based on the department reputation and Cyberwulf's info on UW's big-data emphasis, you might take a closer look at their program. I know much less about non-biostats programs, but I will say that in general applicants tend to under-estimate themselves. I can't tell you how many people I met on the interview trail at top programs who really didn't expect to be there. You might as well put down the $60 or whatever it is to apply to programs like Stanford... it's not like 10 years from now you're going to look back and regret applying. I also think you should consider $$. You'd be surprised at the heterogeneity in stipends across top schools. Last I checked Harvard was $28,500, UW $21,000 (increasing this year). Hopkins $22,000. If you end up with 2 programs that you're really split between, a $7,000 difference in stipend might sway you. That's some good beer money right there. Good luck!

Hi there, First of all you might want to re-post this in the Math & Stats section: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/48-mathematics-and-statistics/ . There are a lot of helpful people over there that I'm sure will give you their opinion. I'm in a PhD program in biostats at a mid-ranked program, but don't have any experience with USC or Northwestern. If you're set on biostats you might be better off getting a degree in biostats rather than biostats/epi... Although personally I really like epi so I wouldn't necessarily advise you against the biostats/epi degree. It's a tough decision. If both are unfunded and job placement is similar you might want to save the $30k and go to the 1-year. Then again you might get a better education and have a more substantial experience in the 2-year program. I guess my advice is to consider the degree (biostats vs. biostats/epi), finances, department reputation, and apparent research fit, i.e. whether one place has faculty members doing research that you're more interested than the other. The last one is a little tricky because you don't want to be too narrow-focused and pick a program just because of a particular research project. Chances are once you start the program you will gain exposure to a lot of different areas, and your eventual area of research for your thesis might be one that you really didn't expect coming in. Good luck!

Haha OK I guess I got zinged? I wasn't trying to be rude. Honestly I have known people who have bluffed to try to get MS funding. Shady thing to do, but people do it. Glad it worked out for you and best of luck.

sounds like they're calling your bluff

I see what you're saying wtncffts. TA'ing is a worthwhile activity for any grad student. I just think that if you multiple the OP's yearly opportunity cost of TA'ing by 5 or however many years the program is, you'll see a number that's really hard to walk away from. But anyway we arrived at the same conclusion - although you got there without undermining the importance of TA'ing Good luck with your planning and decision making callista.

Hi callista, Tough decision. From my personal experience, I would expect that most academics would encourage you to drop your job and TA instead. There's a general feeling in academic that you should give little consideration to $$ and make decisions based on what's good for your career long-term, etc. I personally disagree with that sentiment 100%. I was choosing between PhD programs last year and I was in a situation where there was a $7,000 per year difference in stipend between one school and the other. The school that paid less was slightly higher ranked but not much, and I was not at all convinced that attending that school with give me any advantage. Certainly not to the point where I would sacrifice $35,000 to go there. For your situation, yes TA'ing is considered somewhat important.... But it is not a life-changing, esssential activity that is worth losing $25,000 a year or whatever to pursue. Ask any grad student who TA's about TA'ing, and they'll probably shrug and say, "It's a requirement." You can always TA 1 or 2 courses later in your program, maybe when your schedule is easier, you're done with your own classes, etc. Good luck!

I got it! E/E E/E E/E I'm not sure this day could go any better!

At least the stipend is a concrete, objective piece of information. Other factors are much more subjective. Did I like this city that I visited for two days, the majority of which was spent in the school of public health? Did I find the current students welcoming - based on the five or six that I actually had a conversation with? Is there a faculty member doing research in my specific area of interest - which, if I'm coming straight out of college, is based on maybe one substantial research experience? I didn't take a poll but at least half of the students I met on the interview trail did not have well-defined research interests, which I presume makes it difficult to assess research fit. I gave US News ranking and stipend the two highest priorities. Highly ranked schools will have great faculty in a wide variety of areas and will provide a solid education. High stipends will allow you to live comfortably and not penny-pinch. Other factors tend to be qualitative, subjective, and hard to gauge. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

I would add Wisconsin to the list of underfunders. They seem to accept a lot of people with no funding (this guy included). Bad practice in my opinion, it can put applicants in a tough situation if they have no other options. Apply next cycle with no guarantee of a better outcome vs. enroll, take loans, and hope for funding in later years of the program. It seems that the majority of good biostats PhD programs will either accept with guaranteed funding or reject. I think the size of the stipend is a reasonable factor to consider. If you're deciding between programs like Michigan and UNC, you're looking at a similar cost of living and $26,500 vs. $20,000 after student fees. If someone offered to pay me $32,500 to go to Michigan rather than UNC, I'd do it!

I e-mailed quite a few programs about funding as I decided which schools to apply to. Here are a few stipends for PhD biostats programs: Harvard - $28,500 Yale - $30,000 UNC - $22,000 - fees Michigan - $26,500 Johns Hopkins - $22,000 U Penn - $24,500 U Wisconsin - $20,400 Emory - $21,600 U Washington - $21,000 A few comments: - UNC's student fees stood out to me as being very high ($900/semester I believe). It gets you free buses... Also UNC was the only program that could not guarantee funding for the duration of the program, even if you are accepted with funding for the first year. - Most require 20 hrs/wk during the school year and 40 hrs/wk during the summer of research, but none of the schools I visited actually keep track, according to the current students. - The difference between Harvard and Washington is surprisingly big considering they're tied for #1 and are both in expensive cities.

Very interesting post

Interesting to hear your take on SIBS cyberwulf. It may have been that the applicants I observed had great credentials aside from SIBS. I just remember being surprised at the number of students coming directly from undergrad with not much research, and a few had done SIBS so my perception was that it boosted their apps. Even at top-5 biostats programs there were a number of applicants coming straight from undergrad that had only done "internet research." For what's it's worth, again it's just my perception. My impression from this past app season was that prospective students have a better shot at some of the top programs than they might expect. Michigan and UNC in particular accept a lot of students. I know that UNC accepts about 2x as many students as they expect to enroll, and they enroll something like 25-30 per year (I'm talking PhD).

I think you're in good shape, especially with the SIBS program. I just went through the app process for PhD biostats programs and there were several other applicants at top schools that didn't really have research experience, but did SIBS and apparently the admissions committees liked that. Do you have to say anything about your first undergrad experience on your app? If not, your app is a 4.0 in mathematics from undergrad (maybe not a reputable school, but that won't kill you), great GRE scores, and SIBS. I think you'll have a great success rate applying for Master's, even the very top schools, and depending on whether it's in line with your goals, you could probably get in to PhD programs as well. Whether you apply for MS or PhD, though, I would recommend applying to the schools that do SIBS, as they will naturally be pleased to see applicants coming out of their summer prep program. Should boost your chances. Also I would think you could try to get to know some of the NCSU profs during SIBS and see if you can establish a good enough relationship with one of them to get a letter.