2019 Stat/Biostat Ph.D Applicant Judgment

[cyclooxygenase]

Thanks for any feedback, good luck to all other applicants!

 

Undergrad:  Large Public University in the US, Top-75 on US News but not really a science powerhouse
Majors:  Statistics, Neuropsychology
GPA:  3.80

Programs Applying:  Statistics Ph.D./Biostatistics Ph.D. (Statistical Genetics/Pharmacogenomics, hopefully)

Type of Student:  Domestic Caucasian Male

Relevant Courses:  Linear Algebra for Physics/Engineers (A), Residue Calc & Linear Algebra for Physics/Engineers (A), Integral Calc (B+), Multivariable Calculus.(A-), Diff Eq (A), Intro to Analysis (A-), Basic Proofs (A), Mathematical Biology (A), Regression Analysis (A), ANOVA/Experimental Design (A), Math Stat (A), Programming in R & SAS (A), Genetics (A-), Neural Genetics (A-), Neurobiology (A), Psychopharmacology (A-)

GRE: 168V / 170Q / 3.0W

Research Experience:  Working with a statistician fairly recently, have some research background via psychology.  Have some student presentations in psychology, weren't qualitative/nonstatistical but weren't especially intensive mathematically/computationally.

Recommendation Letters:  Not super strong, will probably be professors from classes who know me well enough.  Research is either too recent or too far back to be super helpful for letters.

Coding Background:  R, SAS, and Java

Applying to:  Carnegie Mellon (Stat), NC State (Stat), Iowa State (Stat), Minnesota (Biostat), Wisconsin (Biostat), Yale (Biostat), UPenn (Biostat), Emory (Biostat), Duke (Biostat), Brown (Biostat) -- haven't finished researching lower-ranked options

Notes:  I'm taking Real Analysis and Statistical Inference this fall (Real Analysis =/= Intro to Analysis, for clarity), hopefully Measure Theory and Numerical Analysis in the Spring, along with some more genetics and biology.

 

So, how realistic are the schools I've picked out so far?  Any recommendations for schools from those who are also aspirant statistical geneticists?  I'm open to suggestions of lower-ranked schools than mentioned, I just haven't finished picking those out yet.

[GoPackGo89]

I would be careful choosing your letters of recommendation. If you impressed the statistician (are they an academic?) and your other research advisors, those letters could go a long way. 

Based on past profiles/results I think your list looks fine. If you're interested in statistical genetics you should put Michigan on your list. UNC and Ohio State as well. Don't put too much weight in the rankings and definitely do not associate lower ranking with increased odds of acceptance. Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I think your chances are much better at NCSU, Minn, Wisconsin, UNC, Michigan, Iowa State than they are at the Ivy/Ivy+ you listed

Edited August 8, 2018 by GoPackGo89

[cyclooxygenase]

Thank goodness, a response, and from another Packers fan too!

The letters of recommendation are (understandably) what I'm most concerned about, so your circumspect reply is unsurprising. 

As for your school recommendations, thank you!  I am interested in looking at data within the next 6 years, though, hence why I've left UNC off the list in particular.

[abstract_art]

1 hour ago, cyclooxygenase said:

I am interested in looking at data within the next 6 years, though, hence why I've left UNC off the list in particular.

Almost certain @GoPackGo89 meant UNC (and Michigan) biostats (regardless there are faculty in both stats and biostats at UNC that don't just do theory, so this comment seems a bit odd).

[GoPackGo89]

17 minutes ago, marmle said:

Almost certain @GoPackGo89 meant UNC (and Michigan) biostats (regardless there are faculty in both stats and biostats at UNC that don't just do theory, so this comment seems a bit odd).

You are correct. I meant UNC biostats and Michigan biostats. OP, what did you mean by "looking at data within the next 6 years" ?

[cyclooxygenase]

I was given to understand that UNC, certainly in statistics but potentially in biostatistics as well (hard to suss out from individuals' comments), was so given to theoretical study that Ph.D. students would spend their entire time in the program without doing anything involving real-world data.  That particular anecdote may be relating the statistics/operations research department, in which case I'll agree that my comment is odd.  I'd heard other reasons I wouldn't be a good fit with UNC Biostats from other people, but give that such accounts are just as anecdotal as yours (or perhaps moreso), I'll happily give it another look, so thank you for your input!

That's it!  As for Michigan, a cursory examination of their biostat faculty didn't turn up any pharmacogenomics research at first, hence my leaving it off, but I'll give it some more passes.  Thanks guys!

Edited August 9, 2018 by cyclooxygenase
Falling on swords is unhealthy

[Stat Assistant Professor]

29 minutes ago, cyclooxygenase said:

I was given to understand that UNC, certainly in statistics but potentially in biostatistics as well (hard to suss out from individuals' comments), was so given to theoretical study that Ph.D. students would spend their entire time in the program without doing anything involving real-world data.  That particular anecdote may be relating the statistics/operations research department, in which case I'll agree that my comment is odd, but I'd heard sufficiently unsavory characterization of UNC biostat (in stark contrast to UNC stat/OR, which for all its anecdotal aversion to applications I've never heard anything similar about) that I've just written UNC off.  I'm glad to hear, however, that UNC's stat/OR department appears to have changed somewhat.

That's it!  As for Michigan, a cursory examination of their biostat faculty didn't turn up any pharmacogenomics research at first, hence my leaving it off, but I'll give it some more passes.  Thanks guys!

I think many reputable programs put you through pretty intense theory classes for the coursework portion of the program, especially in the second year... including many of the schools on your list.

But once you are done with courses, the PhD research needn't be super theoretical. The department where I earned my PhD focused on theory heavily for courses (including two semesters of probability theory -- though there is a possibility that it may be condensed to one semester beginning in 2020). Even so, there was one PhD graduate this year wrote their thesis on statistical modeling of power theft detection and power demand forecasting in the smart grid. And there was one from last year whose thesis was on Bayesian calibration for near infrared spectroscopy.

 

I imagine if there is a big group working on statistical genetics, you can find enough faculty who focus on applied/computational aspects instead.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Applied Math to Stat

[cyclooxygenase]

I'm glad to hear!  I'm quite in favor of heavy theoretical training, I just find applications being involved to provide some extra motivation.