How to stand out for Biostatistics

[Goodwillhunting2]

Hello Biostatistics people on this forum!

From what I've heard about biostatistics PhD admissions, the admissions commitees look at (1) If you have taken high level math (Advanced Calc + Real Analysis), (2) research experience, (3) letters of rec, (4) GPA, although it seems like if your above a reasonable threshold (~3.7?) then your fine.

I understand that these are all very important aspects. However, it seems like the majority of students applying to biostatistics programs have these qualifications. What are the factors beyond these main points that allow top schools to choose between a very competitive applicant pool?

My thoughts: they want students who are a good research match, however I do not think that this can not filter many applicants out, as it is assumed that if they are applying to the program that they are interested in the research. This means that publication record can be a deciding factor. However, at least in my experience, it is extremely difficult to publish a statistical methods paper (or any paper) as an undergrad. This inherently gives applicants with a masters degree a great advantage. There also may be weight on a good personal statement, but I havent heard much emphasis on this (I obviously will make it as good as possible, but this may not be something that gets you in).

Is it worth it to get a masters degree first? What can make an undergraduate applicant stand out (besides the obvious points made in the first paragraph)

I'm intereted to hear any thoughts on this!

Edited July 24, 2018 by Goodwillhunting2

[cyberwulf]

From what I've heard about biostatistics PhD admissions, the admissions commitees look at (1) If you have taken high level math (Advanced Calc + Real Analysis), (2) research experience, (3) letters of rec, (4) GPA, although it seems like if your above a reasonable threshold (~3.7?) then your fine.

(1) Yes, (2) A bit, (3) Yes, (4) Yes (but there is a big difference between a 3.7 and a 4.0)

I understand that these are all very important aspects. However, it seems like the majority of students applying to biostatistics programs have these qualifications. What are the factors beyond these main points that allow top schools to choose between a very competitive applicant pool?

My thoughts: they want students who are a good research match,

Nope, not something that is considered strongly.

This means that publication record can be a deciding factor.

Nope, because...

it is extremely difficult to publish a statistical methods paper (or any paper) as an undergrad.

Bingo!

This inherently gives applicants with a masters degree a great advantage.

Most Masters students don't have papers, either.

There also may be weight on a good personal statement, but I havent heard much emphasis on this (I obviously will make it as good as possible, but this may not be something that gets you in).

This varies from program to program, but it's unlikely to be a major difference-maker.

Is it worth it to get a masters degree first?

Depends on what the weaknesses in your application are. If you are an excellent student but lack math background, a Masters may allay some concerns about your quantitative ability. Otherwise, it's not easy to radically change how an adcom sees you after one year of Masters coursework.

What can make an undergraduate applicant stand out (besides the obvious points made in the first paragraph)

There's a reason those points are "obvious"; they really are the main considerations. Applicants who stand out are the ones who are strong across all those points; good prep, stellar academic performance, and glowing letters. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by cyberwulf