Any chances for Ph.D. in Biostat with significant work experience and 2 Masters?

[biostatguy]

Hello All,

Here is my info in brief:

Current status: Working full time as a Sr.SAS Programmer at a major medical device company and concurrently doing Masters in Applied Statistics from a Top 10 public university. I have one more quarter to go and my GPA is most likely going to be 3.7, I know that this GPA is little bit low for Ph.D admissions, but I got "C" in an "Introduction to Numerical Analysis" class, which is an upper division undergraduate math class and has nothing to do with statistics and that did cut my GPA so short. In rest of the classes I got in the range of A- to A+. Since I have to manage my full time job responsibilities along with the classes, it's a bit challenge to get high grades at such a highly competitive institution. I will assume a Sr.Biostatistician position at my current company after the completion of my Masters program.

History: I had done M.S. in Bioengineering with GPA 3.5 from a large state university (not very well known), but I was a research assistant and have published in a very well known and respected journal along with some conference papers/presentations. Then I started my current job in 2007, as a result I have been working for > 5 years now. Prior to that I did Bachelors in Computer Science from a well known university in India. I have gotten an Award from my company for excellent work performance (if that's any added value).

I have not taken GRE yet, but will take few months before I apply for PhD.

My big question is, where should I apply? I would like to work in Biotech/pharma company after PhD. I heard that work experience after Masters helps with PhD admission, but don't know how true that is. I am interested in Survival Analysis/ Longitudial data analysis (and partly Bayesian analysis). Will I be offending the admission committe if I apply to Top 10 universities for Biostatistics like Harvard, JHU, UNC, Michigan, Berkeley, U Wisc, U Minnesota, UCLA, Columbia, Penn etc? I hope to get strong recommendations from my professors.

Any advise/ suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks a bunch.

[cyberwulf]

Will I be offending the admission committe if I apply to Top 10 universities for Biostatistics like Harvard, JHU, UNC, Michigan, Berkeley, U Wisc, U Minnesota, UCLA, Columbia, Penn etc?

You won't be "offending" anyone if you apply, but I think you'll be a longshot for admission at most of the places you list. If your career goal is to work in industry, you won't be harming your future job prospects too much by considering some other schools ranked a bit lower than the top 10.

[hedgie]

You can always apply but why not pick lower schools as cyberwulf suggested. Emory?

Are you set on bio? You can always do stats or applied stats and work in bio? Why not just move up and do the Phd in applied stats at the univ your at? Then Goto bio for a job via a postdo

[biostatguy]

You can always apply but why not pick lower schools as cyberwulf suggested. Emory?

Are you set on bio? You can always do stats or applied stats and work in bio? Why not just move up and do the Phd in applied stats at the univ your at? Then Goto bio for a job via a postdo

Thanks cyberwulf and hedgie for the reply. Both of you have given good suggestions, but my concern with continuing phd at my current institution is that they don't offer biostat and they don't have school of public health. I was more interested in biostat because of my background in bioengineering and relevant work experience. Applying to wider range of schools never hurts though. Thanks again !!

[hedgie]

I am interested in bio as well. But the advice I always heard was to do plain stats because it was more versatile and you can get all the Biostat jobs. I have heard some decent counter arguments to this as well, but others can chime in as I think that was always the general consensus.

Although I think bio programs in general are easier to get into with a strong math background. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

You need to apply lower though for sure. Even the top 40-50 stats schools are getting 300+ apps a year now.

[cyberwulf]

I am interested in bio as well. But the advice I always heard was to do plain stats because it was more versatile and you can get all the Biostat jobs.

I'm not sure this is still the case; with the increasing number of biostat departments, stat departments seem to be drifting in the direction of theory rather than application, so many stat graduates will have had little experience analysing real-world data.

Even the top 40-50 stats schools are getting 300+ apps a year now.

Any source for this claim? I find those numbers hard to believe.

[hedgie]

Cyberwulf...........very true but the OP is in an applied stats program. I have seen some theoretical programs deal with large data sets still so it depends on the school but that's a good point though re: application in seeing messy real world data.

In regards to your second question...yet I applied to 4 of them and they have 250-350 apps unless they blatantly lied...although I don't think so...many are foreign apps though.

[cyberwulf]

In regards to your second question...yet I applied to 4 of them and they have 250-350 apps unless they blatantly lied...although I don't think so...many are foreign apps though.

OK, I am prepared to believe that some departments get >300 applications, particularly when you consider Masters and PhD combined. But I remain doubtful that all (or even most) of them do.

[hedgie]

OK, I am prepared to believe that some departments get >300 applications, particularly when you consider Masters and PhD combined. But I remain doubtful that all (or even most) of them do.

Yeah, maybe but the 3-4 were 250+ for phd's only. But I agree with the rest of your beliefs for the most part it was mixed ms/phd's. they were mostly foreign apps though. Maybe 60-75%.

[cyberwulf]

Wow, if accurate that's pretty crazy.

[biostatguy]

This is very interesting thing I found today. My current department got 152 applications for PhD and they accepted 12 of them (acceptance rate ~9%). Ultimately 5 of 12 have decided to join the department in coming fall. The average GPA of these accepted applicants is 3.96, that is pretty astonishing. This average GPA is even HIGHER than the average GPA of accepted PhD applicants at UNC (Biostat) which is 3.8 (as per their FAQ website). Does it mean that the smaller departments are more competetive? I do agree that my current institution is very very well known (nationally and internationally), but the department is definitely NOT that high. Does it mean that the top programs look for very diverse applicants and GPA is just one of the factors (which does not tell the entire story) ?

[cyberwulf]

This is very interesting thing I found today. My current department got 152 applications for PhD and they accepted 12 of them (acceptance rate ~9%). Ultimately 5 of 12 have decided to join the department in coming fall. The average GPA of these accepted applicants is 3.96, that is pretty astonishing. This average GPA is even HIGHER than the average GPA of accepted PhD applicants at UNC (Biostat) which is 3.8 (as per their FAQ website). Does it mean that the smaller departments are more competetive? I do agree that my current institution is very very well known (nationally and internationally), but the department is definitely NOT that high. Does it mean that the top programs look for very diverse applicants and GPA is just one of the factors (which does not tell the entire story) ?

I suspect that there are a couple of factors at play here. First, the ratio of domestic to international students among admits will affect the summary numbers; in general, internationals will have higher GPAs and higher standardized test scores. Second, and probably more important, is the quality of the undergraduate and Masters institutions attended by those students. The top places tend to attract very good applicants from high-quality schools. Students with 3.7s from elite undergrads are generally excellent students and highly sought after by top biostat programs, but they do "drag down" overall program GPAs.

What is *not* the case is that students with 3.5s and 3.6s are consistently getting into top programs ahead of students with 4.0s (from similar undergrad programs) because of other things on their application like research experience or personal statements.

And of course, sample size issues enter as well; UNC admits something like 30-40 students into their PhD program each year (some unfunded), so their average admitted GPA will be more stable on a yearly basis than a program that admits 12.

Edited September 1, 2012 by cyberwulf

[biostatguy]

cyberwulf and hedgie,

Which schools you would recommend me to apply? BU, Emory, Brown, Yale, Rice, UPitt, UT MD Anderson? or any other?

[hedgie]

I defer to cyberwulf. He knows way more about it than I do. Or anyone else. I think if you read through threads you'll get a good idea. Also apply to a decent amount of programs because if funding issues....especially state schools.