Tronathan

Have you looked into taking these classes somewhere? I think most colleges will require you to have taken the prerequisite courses that are needed to enroll in a course even if you are not seeking a degree. Can anyone confirm if this true? If you are allowed to take a masters level mathematical statistics course without the required background I still think it is a pretty bad idea and you will almost certainly fail it.
 
I think a good strategy may be to look at the prerequisites for the Masters' level mathematical statistics course at UCLA (called 200B at UCLA) or UCI and work backwards. This class will probably require theoretical linear algebra, real analysis, and undergrad math stat. To enroll in those courses you probably need Calculus 3, some type of discrete math/ logic/ intro to proofs class, and upper division intro to probability. The calculus courses are in sequence; you need calc 1 to take calc 2 to then take calc 3.

Yes you can walk home from the bus stop in the daytime safely...as you can in pretty much any city in the US.

OP, I once heard that 80% of questions are really statements in disguise. With that said, I can't help but wonder if what you term as "reverse academic snobbery" is in fact your reaction of those people not oohing and aahing over your prestigious affiliations and accolades as you feel they should be. It's almost as if how dare those with 'less formal education' (which is quite the coded language btw) not find value and subtle enviousness of my achievements, smarts and knowledge --- how are you assuming they don't have any of that themselves? I also have a very hard time believing that the main source of your interactions and conversations with these people surround them bashing your education, and if so, perhaps it is time to forcibly remove yourself from interactions with those people at all costs. I think you downplay your attributes, not as a consequence of their 'reverse academic snobbery', but it is because you realize that you cannot use that arsenal in order to make yourself level, or in most ways, feel superior to them as you internally believe you are. 

(the following is in no way meant to disparage any previous posters)
 
While I'm sure that on occasion reverse academic snobbery exists, I think more often than not it's a phenomenon much like "reverse racism" - in that the very people who feel they are being wronged are in fact simply worried they will not get the advantage they feel they are owed.  I'm not an anti-intellectual, and there is certainly a strange cultural undertow which sometimes makes me feel as if I'm swimming upstream when I strive to be well informed, articulate, and logical.  For example, the constant need for politicians in America to make a big show of being "plain spoken" and folksy.  So in a broad sense, yes, I think culturally there is an annoying smart vs. "real" perception problem. 
 
But, on an individual basis, I have to assume everyone is trying their best.  I just assume an intentional posture of niavete in order to not become an ass-hat myself.  Because for me it is better to assume if someone boasts to me that they would never be bothered to read a book that perhaps they have an undiagnosed learning disability, or an incredible strength in art, or simply a strong preference for auditory learning but they listen to pod casts religiously - whatever, than to assume they are just a big stupid idiot who hates smart people.
 
I barely graduated high school, I'm the only one of my friends from that period of my life who did finish high school, I married a high school drop out, and I spent much of a decade working in a hair salon.  Many of my clients were college students, graduate students, law students, or scientists from the nearby national lab.  The most articulate, interesting, and accomplished people also tended to be the people who just spoke to me like I was a person and were completely unconcerned with impressing me or impressing upon me the importance of education.  Occasionally I had a jackass in my chair, and it's 50/50 that person thought I was an elitist high brow snob or an uneducated idiot rube.  
 
I have strong feelings about this, because I've been on both sides, and have been perceived as being on both sides the entire time depending on who I was with and what I was doing.  In the end I found that as with anything, you won't change anyone who isn't interested, who has their guard up, and the more you push the more they will build up a defense against you and what you represent.  If you have a jackass in your salon chair, or in your life, treat them well until you get get them out the door and don't let them back.  And if you're dealing with a non-jackass, don't push an agenda or a belief system, and if someone is interested in your views, your beliefs, or your value system (including placing a high value on education) they will see that in your actions and ask you directly if they want to know more.  (All this is, of course, just one blue collar lady's opinion)

If you are applying for a PhD program (and particularly if you are interested in academia), the reputation of your dissertation adviser is far more important than the reputation of the program where you did your PhD. Thus, I always tell students not to obsess over rankings, because you would be much better off attending a lower-ranked school and working with a star adviser than attending a higher-ranked school and working with a mediocre adviser. And you also have to consider whether or not a department is strong in the areas in which you are interested. To give a couple specific examples, Michigan's biostat program is a fantastic option if you are interested in genetics, but it's not such a great option for most other areas. Likewise Harvard's stat department is small, but it's definitely the best in the world for missing data and a couple other areas. But it would be a mistake to attend Harvard's stat department unless you are interested in one of the research areas where they are strong.
 
That said, it can be advantageous to attend a higher-ranked department, particularly if you're not sure about your research interests when you start grad school (which in my experience is true of a high percentage of students). Typically the higher-ranked departments tend to have strong faculty in a wide variety of research areas. They also tend to be better-funded, so there is less of a concern about having your funding run out after a couple years. Nevertheless it would be a mistake to choose a PhD program purely based on rankings given that there isn't a huge difference between many of the top programs. My advice would be to carefully examine the research interests of the faculty at each school. It's also worth considering funding, quality of life, and things like that. Rankings would be very low on the list of things that I would consider.
 
Having said all that, if you want my feedback on the rankings that people have proposed earlier, I would put UNC in the top tier for biostatistics. Maybe Michigan as well, although they are hard to rank due to being so heavily focused on genetics. But most people say that UW/Harvard/Hopkins/UNC represent the top tier of biostatistics and sometimes Michigan depending on who you talk to. All of the four aforementioned schools have large departments with diverse faculty research interests so practically any student should be able to find a good adviser at any of those schools. After that, I would say that the research interests of the faculty and availability of funding should be more important than rankings, because many of the remaining departments are strong in a couple areas but very weak in other areas.
 
As for statistics, I'm less familiar with the gossip about the quality of the various statistics programs. That said, even among the top-ranked schools, one should consider the research interests of the faculty and how they align with your interests. Some departments have the reputation of being more theoretial (e.g. Berkeley, Chicago) whereas others are more applied (e.g. Stanford, CMU), for instance. But I'm basing this largely on gossip that I heard years ago, so take it for what it's worth. I recommend that you carefully research the faculty research interests of each department you are considering.

I don't think there is any clear it system, but these tiers are just kind of arbitrarily defined and accepted by the (Stat/Biostat) academic community; there is room for argument about specific programs, but the bulk of it is a pretty good guideline. Just from what I gather having been reading this forum over the past year, I think they are mainly based off off things like faculty research/recognition and student placement in academia after they earn their PhDs..... I remember reading a few months ago a post Cyberwulf made bout biostat Tiers; I'll repeat what I can from memory.... Good grads from Tier 1 departments will find positions at other Tier 1s, Tier 2s, and so on. Excellent grads from Tier 2 departments may find jobs at Tier 1s, but are most are more likely to find jobs in tier 2s, tier 3s and less. Outstanding grads from Tier 3s may find positions at tier 2s, but more likely tier 3s and less. Tier4/everyone else will rarely find academic positions in 1-3 tier department, and will usually have positions at other un-tiered schools...... For industry, it matters less.
....I've spent way too much time on these forums this past year, lol

I respectfully disagree. 
 
I was waitlisted last year, and it almost physically HURT. I got on the waitlist of my (at the time, #1 program) on April 4th. Yes. I remember the day, and the sour weekend following that. I was happy thinking "Hey, they kind of liked me. Almost there!" Then by that Saturday, April 7th, my thought turned dark "Why?" "How long will I have to wait?" etc. I finally decided to email them on Monday April 9th. They (secretary/coordinator) CALLED me back saying that they definitely wanted me -- funding issues -- my POI was running a crowded lab but may try to take me on etc. Now starts the most painful rollercoaster ride of my life. April 10th, this time the department chair emails me a super sympathetic email. "I know how hard it it to wait, but good news is there is a high possibility that someone will come off the waitlist, and it has happened in recent years.." and a similar vein. It was also obviously not a form email (in different font/style from previous form emails he had sent before). April 11th. The secretary confirms with me that I am on the waitlist through email. I shoot back an email replying Yes, and asking "why" she lets slip that one/two of their accepted students show hesitancy, and that again this is a good sign for me. April 12th. Radio silence. I'm letting myself feel happy around this point. "Maybe.. there's a chance!" April 13th. The Department chair and secretary sent me emails saying that one spot was vacated and the waiting list's first person got accepted. At this point they inferred that I was the second position on the list -- well now the first. Then April 14th. Keep in mind, this was a SATURDAY. I received a call saying that "I regret to inform you.." My heart dropped, and I really couldn't hear what he had said and had to ask for him to repeat. He said that "We will be unable to offer you admission to our PhD program this year. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this year had an extremely competitive applicant pool." I thanked him and sort of phoned it in that day. I was planning to set up lesson plans for my TAing gig, and run some analyses for my thesis project. I did not have the functioning capabilities to do that. Instead, I indulged in comfort foods. I recall calling my mother and sister crying, but I can't remember what I said. I was devastated. I had been rejected everywhere else, except for one school that was way down the list, and I was considering saying No to regardless of the results. 
 
This school had raised my hopes and then brought it crashing back down on reality. I would have been happier not being in almost daily communication with them (though granted, they initiated it on some days. But I got the ball rolling). I really am not the sort of person to just fall apart like that, but the emotional rollercoaster just made it happen. I really think now I would have been happier if I had been flat-out rejected. I WISH I had been rejected. 
 
Sorry for the long story. Just ignore it. This was a bit cathartic for me (it still kind of hurts). I just wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy, let alone you congenial people of TGC. Good luck to anyone waitlisted out there, and I hope you don't go through the mental hell I went through in just a little over a week's time last year.

this is most likely the worst and least helpful forum on internet, waste of internet space... no one helps or replies.

And yet you want to go into Applied Math? I mean it's more than likely a good number of your courses are going to be just that simply by design (not the memorize proofs bit, but definitely the sit and be taught at). I mean depending on what you are interested in long term (career wise), the classes might be more interactive and applicable than something exposed in say a topology course, but it's not like grad. school all of a sudden becomes a Math drum circle (ESPECIALLY if your cohort is a lot of international students).

This is rapidly going down the rabbit hole. I'm not aiming to be mean or insensitive, I'm just finding this sequence hard to treat credibly.

Folks have given you very reasonable advice for the problem you presented in the opening post. Follow it or don't.

What you are bringing up now is a new and more serious issue, which is whether you and your prof do not have effective professional boundaries. But based this whole series of posts, you seem to be reading a whole lot into this guy (paraphrasing, 'hurt/fearful expression' from opening post, "he is possessive of me" above). It is hard to tell whether there is a problem here, or if you are making something out of nothing. Your tendency towards hyperbole, tangents, and social awkwardness in these posts makes me suspect the latter.

However, if your prof actually is treating you possessively and looking/speaking to you inappropriately, you need to take this up right away with your University ethics panel or department chair. If you have an ombudsman you could talk to him/her in confidence first to confirm that others perceive this situation the same way you do, and you aren't about to drag both of you into an unpleasant situation.