Shostakovich

Wow nice verbal score. I don't think the 166Q is that bad, it's still an 800 (or very close to it) on the old scale. As long as the committee doesn't think you're cheating or something (as I heard it happened in my home country for the SAT exams recently) first score would be better. I mean your profile is almost as perfect as can be, but we never know with international admissions. I might also apply to some Biostats since they seem to take more internationals and have higher admit rates (and since many of the schools on your list seem to lean that way anyway).

I heard Stanford's MS program is terminal, i.e. difficult to continue on to the PhD after the MS. Could be wrong though. I think their Stat program is a couple notches above their Biostat program, despite being a somewhat smaller program. They accept less applicants and have better placement in academia, unlike their Biostat which seems more geared towards industry.

I had nowhere near your stats (although I'm domestic and had some 'this guy is kinda unique' kind of things on the application) and still got into 3 of the top 5 for Biostat which I think are usually considered to be Harvard, UW, Johns Hopkins, UNC, and Michigan. Only Johns Hopkins was a straight rejection and I ended up applying to the MS at Harvard which I declined eventually. One thing that might be a weak point in your app especially for Stats programs is the lack of Real Analysis. I'm not sure if Advanced Calculus refers to that, but I think it's pretty common for even Biostat applicants to have multiple quarters of it as well as multiple quarters of Linear Algebra. Since international admissions are very competitive, that may have knocked you down from the very top programs. Even so I think you're in very good shape for Biostats programs. I think they have lower bars for admission because (1) they get less applications (also less 'close to perfect' applications) and (2) they have more funding to take chances with somewhat 'borderline' applicants. UW publishes admission data (http://www.grad.washington.edu/about/statistics/summaries/2012/rptGsisAnnual_Dept2012.pdf) and it's pretty clear that you're competing with less people for admission in Biostats (261) compared to Stats (394). Good luck!

Arent Penn State and CMU sorta on the other side of the continent? Looks like it's not purely for "closer to home" reasons One of the faculty members (cyberwulf or biostat_prof) could probably give you a decent feedback, but you realize that many schools won't really give you course credit for a lot of what you've already taken right?

I'm not aware of any specifics on funding for MS students at UW. Just heard it might be running short soon, but I would still apply and see if they give you funding along with the acceptance letter. I also know Columbia has a 1-year accelerated masters program with some funding available for students who get in, but I think you're pretty much expected to apply to their PhD program for the coming year.

I think it's possible that the state school system uses a more stringent system of grading for their science courses, or that the kids in the system tend to not do as much work. Probably would say both based on personal experience. I remember majoring in math at a UC system it was pretty standard for the classes to be curved to a C+ or B-. For my brother's graduating class this year (also at a UC campus) he was telling me GPA's in the high 3.6's were already eligible for Cum Laude, which is something like top 10-15%.

There are some MS programs known to provide full funding for a good % of their students. UW, Michigan, and Berkeley come to mind (but I think UW may discontinue doing that in the future). If you're in-state in California UCLA might be around 15k to attend per year.

UCLA also has a solid Stats program. The other UC's besides Berkeley and LA have decent programs (Davis, Irvine, etc.) but they are smaller and not as reputable. I'm not sure about Canadian programs but I heard UBC is also worth a look.

http://probablystatistical.wordpress.com/ Hopefully we'll all be able to update for years to come

I think it might be a good idea to focus on math courses even at UCLA and UCI, and make sure that you have multiple courses in Linear Alg and Real Analysis completed before you go for other courses. One other thing to remember might be that you only really need three good letters of recommendation, so it could be advantageous to take multiple courses with one prof (and build a good relationship with them). UCI has a small Stats department in their Informatics/CS department (although with some faculty quite active in Stats/Biostats research) and taking their Stats 120 series (upper div intro probability/stat theory) could be a great way to meet some of them. The problem might be that they don't offer too many upper div Stats courses and you'd have to either go up to the the graduate courses or take related courses in the Math department. From what I understand, UCLA Stat is way bigger and even offer a Statistics major so you'd probably have a more diverse experience there. Good luck!

Personally I'd take the Calculus series at a community college (and also the lower division linear algebra) since those are normally huge classes with similar education anywhere. But if money isn't an issue, I would take all of the upper division courses (Real Analysis, Linear Algebra, Stats/Prob Theory, other electives) at UCLA or UCI since you could meet professors who could write you good recommendation letters. I'm familiar with programs at both schools and they have multiple profs who are quite active (and well known) in the Stats/Biostats discipline. Not sure about other UC's or CSU's.

Maybe some lower ranked Biostat programs? Pittsburgh might be one since it's right next to CMU and they are (probably) well connected. Looks like their dept has some people doing machine learning. Also think Minnesota Biostat might be somewhat easier to get into than Minnesota Stat (not sure how true this is though, and might not cater to your research interests). Your list does look pretty top-heavy but probably a lot of bad luck involved as well.

1. If you are attending a school without a good Math/Stats department and you want to do your PhD at a top program, it might be to your advantage to go do your masters at a more prestigious institution (MS programs at lower ranked institutions don't seem to be THAT respected in the eyes of PhD program admissions committees). cyberwulf explained it somewhat here as well as on other threads: 2. From what I've heard, REU probably won't help too much unless you can get some papers published in a reputable journal (preferably first-authored). A lot of people get accepted with close to zero research experience, and a lot of people get rejected with a lot of research experience. But obviously still better to have experience than to not have experience 3. Reputation of your undergrad institution matters, but you don't have to be from an ivy or a top math department to be considered for admissions. It might be easier to get accepted coming from a top undergrad school, but I've also seen students coming from schools ranked a bit lower who put up good numbers and softs. 4. Not having a course on measure theory probably won't sink your application, but I heard somewhere that two courses in real analysis is somewhat standard for a PhD applicant. If you don't feel super strong on your Math background, Biostat programs seem to be somewhat more lenient on the Math requirements (and in general less competitive). It's possible to work in Bayesian/ML/data mining type of research at Biostat programs also, so it could be a good idea to take a look. Good luck!

Yeah moving trucks can be expensive, I would recommend just buying everything in Seattle unless you have a lot of furniture that you can't really get rid of. My parents have done the move from LA to Seattle (and back to LA) and I'm pretty sure we paid something like $2000-3000+ for each trip. Pretty sure I'm just going to carry stuff like clothes/computer in my car and purchase everything else once I get there. Anyone thinking about a furnished studio? The drawback seems to be that most of them come with shared kitchens and are really small, but could be a clean/economical option to start out in Seattle.

Like wine in coffee cups said, the problem for you is that many students getting into the schools you mentioned perform really well in just about every class they take. There would really be no reason for the admissions committee to go with a 3.38 when they have a bunch of 3.8's and 3.9's, all other things equal. They do look at your application as a whole so if you could basically put up straight A's for the next 2 years or so (assuming that you're going into junior year) you might have a shot at Duke or UW. There is an applicant profile thread on this site as well as mathematicsgre.com where you could get an idea of what successful applicants are doing, and how your application might stack up against the competition at different programs. Starting with a masters somewhere is a good option, where a good performance based on grades and research experience could qualify you for decent PhD programs.