Admissions Results

[StatPhD2014]

Yeah the website shows nothing for me

 i wonder what that means, they did do two rounds last year but it started a lot earlier

[probstats]

I'm declining Minnesota. Hopefully soon enough that someone else can be accepted and attend the open house on the 7th.

[StatPhD2014]

Today I received an invitation to the University of Arizona's recruitment workshop.  I don't know if I will be able to attend the entire time because it would require me to take 3 days off of work.  Would asking to leave a day early be considered a snub of their program or affect my chances?  

have you been accepted yet, if not i dont think itll look good

[Stat Assistant Professor]

I logged onto the Minnesota applyyourself site and see that the status was changed to "final review." So I expect those of us who have not heard from MN yet will most likely receive rejection or waitlist e-mails this week. To anyone who is interested, I will decline Minnesota if I am waitlisted, since Florida is a comparable program and cost of living is higher in Minneapolis.

[coffeehouse]

I logged onto the Minnesota applyyourself site and see that the status was changed to "final review." So I expect those of us who have not heard from MN yet will most likely receive rejection or waitlist e-mails this week. To anyone who is interested, I will decline Minnesota if I am waitlisted, since Florida is a comparable program and cost of living is higher in Minneapolis.

 

I got admitted into Minnesota and my status also just changed to Final Review.

 

So I would take it with a grain of salt.

[Stat Assistant Professor]

Oh, hmm. I was inferring that it was likely rejection/waitlist, since it sounds like Minnesota already sent two rounds of acceptances and funding information to boot. ::shrug::

 

If it happens to be an acceptance, I'll consider it further. But if it's a waitlist, I'll ask to be removed from waitlist so someone else has a chance.

[Stat Assistant Professor]

(For those who care a lot about rankings, I think the NRC rankings are considered slightly more credible than the USNWR)

[StatPhD2014]

(For those who care a lot about rankings, I think the NRC rankings are considered slightly more credible than the USNWR)

Why do you say that

[Stat Assistant Professor]

It gives a general "range" which seems more accurate. Additionally, some of the rankings seem to better reflect popular opinion, e.g. the relative rankings of UMich, Wisconsin, Cornell, etc. seem better reflected in NRC than in USNWR.

[Stat Assistant Professor]

Obviously there is variance in opinions and sub areas of stats would produce different rankings though (e.g. if only social science statistics is considered, Washington would be the "best", Duke for Bayesian, Carnegie Mellon better than some of the "top tier" for applied stats and ML, etc.)

[probstats]

I agree that UMich is under-ranked in us news. Some school rankings seem more accurate in NRC, but other schools seem better ranked by us news. For example, NRC would tell you that there is a huge disparity between the quality of Harvard and CMU. Not only is this gap overblown, but it could be the other way around from what the Harvard stats chair tells me. They lose quite a bit of their admits to CMU. In short, have salt aplenty when looking at rankings, and look at other factors when choosing your school.

[Stat Assistant Professor]

True. I wish I had applied to Carnegie Mellon Stats. I applied to the machine learning department there instead, which was likely a mistake since the most competitive candidates to ML have more research experience, publications, etc. I have not heard back yet, but they have already sent out acceptances and the profiles of those accepted have much more research experience than I do.

[StatPhD2014]

 

I agree that UMich is under-ranked in us news. Some school rankings seem more accurate in NRC, but other schools seem better ranked by us news. For example, NRC would tell you that there is a huge disparity between the quality of Harvard and CMU. Not only is this gap overblown, but it could be the other way around from what the Harvard stats chair tells me. They lose quite a bit of their admits to CMU. In short, have salt aplenty when looking at rankings, and look at other factors when choosing your school.

 

 

Also agree on the Umich rankings, most programs i talked to put it higher than US news ranking, their faculty as well is impressive.

[effhorses]

I agree that UMich is under-ranked in us news. Some school rankings seem more accurate in NRC, but other schools seem better ranked by us news. For example, NRC would tell you that there is a huge disparity between the quality of Harvard and CMU. Not only is this gap overblown, but it could be the other way around from what the Harvard stats chair tells me. They lose quite a bit of their admits to CMU. In short, have salt aplenty when looking at rankings, and look at other factors when choosing your school.

 

Agreed. Without factoring funding differences, I had Harvard ranked below CMU and Washington and about at the same level as Michigan (interested in social stats research). Harvard seems like a very strong overall program but without anything super special to set it apart or a ton of strength in any one particular area of research. CMU and Washington seem much more committed to interesting interdisciplinary research, and all three of CMU, Washington and Michigan seem to have stronger faculty. Given, this is just my impression from poring over their websites during the pre-application process, and it's possible my perspective was colored by my assumption that Harvard would undoubtedly reject me.

[coffeehouse]

So all Harvard phd rejections should come by mail right, not email? Anyone still waiting for the postal mail? I'm fairly positive I'm rejected.

I'm also waiting for Michigan. Anyone apply to NYU Stern?

[CauchyProcess]

Agreed. Without factoring funding differences, I had Harvard ranked below CMU and Washington and about at the same level as Michigan (interested in social stats research). Harvard seems like a very strong overall program but without anything super special to set it apart or a ton of strength in any one particular area of research. CMU and Washington seem much more committed to interesting interdisciplinary research, and all three of CMU, Washington and Michigan seem to have stronger faculty. Given, this is just my impression from poring over their websites during the pre-application process, and it's possible my perspective was colored by my assumption that Harvard would undoubtedly reject me.

 

I'd rank Harvard higher, simply due to its name appeal to uninformed employers and faculty.

[lidon]

I'd rank Harvard higher, simply due to its name appeal to uninformed employers and faculty.

 

Though this may be true for a limited number of employers in industry, I think you'll find that

 

(1) Most within the statistics community will be aware of the reputation of the individual department.  The fact that Harvard is Harvard will mean nothing when trying to get a job (particularly in academia).  Those industry employers that would be impressed by the industry name generally wouldn't be too picky about where you get your doctorate anyway.

 

(2) When developing the tools needed to be a successful researcher, the lack of research exposure and rigorous coursework that you'll get as a PhD student there will do you more harm than any benefits you might have just from being at Harvard.

[clurp]

 

(2) When developing the tools needed to be a successful researcher, the lack of research exposure and rigorous coursework that you'll get as a PhD student there will do you more harm than any benefits you might have just from being at Harvard.

 

... what? That's silly. 

[effhorses]

Though this may be true for a limited number of employers in industry, I think you'll find that

 

(1) Most within the statistics community will be aware of the reputation of the individual department.  The fact that Harvard is Harvard will mean nothing when trying to get a job (particularly in academia).  Those industry employers that would be impressed by the industry name generally wouldn't be too picky about where you get your doctorate anyway.

 

(2) When developing the tools needed to be a successful researcher, the lack of research exposure and rigorous coursework that you'll get as a PhD student there will do you more harm than any benefits you might have just from being at Harvard.

 

With regards to (1), while I'd argue that name probably matters more than you think, I agree it is overrated as a criterion for choosing schools.

 

With regards to (2), I think you're conflating a program being overrated with it being low-quality.

[wine in coffee cups]

Though this may be true for a limited number of employers in industry, I think you'll find that

 

(1) Most within the statistics community will be aware of the reputation of the individual department.  The fact that Harvard is Harvard will mean nothing when trying to get a job (particularly in academia).  Those industry employers that would be impressed by the industry name generally wouldn't be too picky about where you get your doctorate anyway.

 

(2) When developing the tools needed to be a successful researcher, the lack of research exposure and rigorous coursework that you'll get as a PhD student there will do you more harm than any benefits you might have just from being at Harvard.

I mostly disagree. Based on their alumni page (http://www.stat.harvard.edu/alumni/PhD.html), I would still say that those coming out of Harvard stat who get academic jobs tend to place pretty well, comparable to the academic positions graduates get coming out of other top stats departments whose names don't rhyme with Cranford or Twerkeley. I am surprised by how many graduates go into non-academic positions, though, particularly in finance. My guess is that students who enrolled hoping to use the Harvard name are more or less getting what they want. Personally, those finance positions sound incredibly unappealing to me, but someone who is interested in Wall Street after a stats PhD (and for whatever reason isn't studying something more directly relevant) would have a good landing after Harvard.

 

There are big drawbacks with Harvard stat that applicants aren't necessarily aware of (I wasn't), but not really (or solely) the things you've identified. It's more that (1) assistant/associate professors rarely get tenure at Harvard, so you can't count on many faculty being there for the duration of your PhD, and some of the senior faculty are approaching retirement, so the composition of the department 5 years from now is a big question mark, (2) there are some, diplomatically speaking, "personality quirks" among some of the senior faculty and strange research rivalries at play that isolate Harvard students from people who do work in the same field elsewhere, and (3) these political issues extend to working with the biostat department, so the physical and political separation of the programs means they are not nearly as integrated there as they are at other universities with great stat and biostat departments (e.g. UW, Michigan, UNC) and students lose out on broader perspectives/resources.

 

I would generally recommend that future applicants to statistics programs who are interested in Boston-area programs make sure the biostat department isn't a better fit before sending out an applicant to Harvard stat. I am happy with how my applications went and where I ended up, but if I could change one thing, I would have applied to Harvard biostat instead of stat.

[agent229]

So all Harvard phd rejections should come by mail right, not email? Anyone still waiting for the postal mail? I'm fairly positive I'm rejected.

I'm also waiting for Michigan. Anyone apply to NYU Stern?

I got a reject from Harvard in the mail on Friday, which was expected. After getting other offers, I don't really care either. I haven't heard from Michigan.

[StatPhD2014]

Though this may be true for a limited number of employers in industry, I think you'll find that

 

(1) Most within the statistics community will be aware of the reputation of the individual department.  The fact that Harvard is Harvard will mean nothing when trying to get a job (particularly in academia).  Those industry employers that would be impressed by the industry name generally wouldn't be too picky about where you get your doctorate anyway.

 

(2) When developing the tools needed to be a successful researcher, the lack of research exposure and rigorous coursework that you'll get as a PhD student there will do you more harm than any benefits you might have just from being at Harvard.

 

 

Yeah generally dont agree with many of these either, industry employers in many fields do care about the school name and the connections it has, this is especially true in finance/consulting. As for your second point, i really doubt harvard is a low quality program

[CauchyProcess]

Looking back at past years, this coming week is the week that many results have been announced.

 

By now I've given up hope on: Stanford, Brown, UC Berkeley. Hoping to hear back from some of the other places I've applied to to see what kind of other options I have, if any.

[statisticsfall2014]

Yeah I'd imagine they must be coming soon.. excited to get some closure

[Stat Assistant Professor]

I am just waiting for CMU (machine learning), UCLA, Minnesota, UNC-Chapel Hill, Berkeley, and Rice at this point.

 

It seems like I should get a definitive answer from CMU, Minnesota, Berkeley, and Rice this week or next, but it appears as though UCLA and UNC-Chapel Hill keep long reserve lists and may contact people in mid-March with offers if not enough people have accepted at that point. So who knows how those will turn out.