Admissions Results

[StatPhD2014]

Looks like Michigan has sent out a few acceptance letters for statistics. Congrats to those who got in!

 

I haven't gotten an e-mail yet. :-/ Could any of those who were admitted let us know if the e-mails you received were 'personal' or rather generic congratulations letters?

 

 

The email was sent by one of the professors there, saying they were very impressed with the application, the day for visits, and said I will be fully funded and the details of that provided in a future email

[HappyGen]

The email was sent by one of the professors there, saying they were very impressed with the application, the day for visits, and said I will be fully funded and the details of that provided in a future email

[HappyGen]

Have you contacted the professors in Michigan before or during the application? I also applied for the Michigan, havent gotten an e-mail, so I am just wondering. BTW, congratulations!

[probstats]

Have you contacted the professors in Michigan before or during the application? I also applied for the Michigan, havent gotten an e-mail, so I am just wondering. BTW, congratulations!

 

I was also accepted to Michigan. No, I didn't ever contact any of the professors.

 

The email was sent by one of the professors there, saying they were very impressed with the application, the day for visits, and said I will be fully funded and the details of that provided in a future email

 

Congrats! Do you think you will attend the visit day?

[probstats]

Looks like Michigan has sent out a few acceptance letters for statistics. Congrats to those who got in!

 

I haven't gotten an e-mail yet. :-/ Could any of those who were admitted let us know if the e-mails you received were 'personal' or rather generic congratulations letters?

 

The email is from the Graduate Chair and is quite generic. Good luck to you!

[StatPhD2014]

I was also accepted to Michigan. No, I didn't ever contact any of the professors.

Congrats! Do you think you will attend the visit day?

I didn't contact any of the professors there either. Not sure if I'll visit just yet. How about yourself

[Stat Assistant Professor]

Congrats. I'm a bit nervous now, as I did not receive e-mails from Harvard (was a stretch) or Michigan (slightly better chance here)... I will try to remain optimistic though, lol. C'mon Minnesota, UCLA, and/or UNC-Chapel Hill!

[probstats]

I didn't contact any of the professors there either. Not sure if I'll visit just yet. How about yourself

 

I think I will attend unless I am offered a conflicting visit from one of the schools higher up on my list.

[Science_Nerd]

What really frustrates me about the PhD application process is the amount of information us as applicants have. For example, what candidates do the schools actually want? Who are making the admissions decisions? How are we filtered? Do they read every reference letter carefully? What about our statement of purpose? How important are advanced math courses, what about research experience? etc etc.

 

We have very little to base our knowledge of graduate applications/graduate programs on. Just a website, and some FAQs (which are usually useless) and forums and discussions with our professors. How do we know if a professor is going to write us a good letter? Sometimes older professors who have not written letters in a while do not know the difference between a strong and a lukewarm letter. For example one of my letter writers asked me who my other letter writers were and I said Professor A and Professor B. She said: "Oh don't use Professor A, I have read his letters before and they are very uninformative." If not for this warning, I would never have known. I would have used Professor A's letter and it could have potentially ruined my chances at many top schools. In which case I would apply again next year and may STILL use Professor A.

 

There is such a lack of information, it's really quite frustrating and scary.

 

However at the same time I understand the admissions committee have the same problem. They don't understand the transcripts of international students, they don't know what type of student we are, reference letters can be uninformative, etc etc...

 

 

 

I completely agree with you about the letters.

I always waive my right to see the letter contents just because I don't know the consequence to my application if I don't waive my right.

 

While we have a control of what we write in the SOP and other short essay questions, GRE or MCAT scores (somewhat depending on how much we study, right?), and so on, but the LOR is completely out of our hands. 

I know some professors make you write a brief template which they use to write a full version, in which case we may have a little control. But that's not always the case.

[cyberwulf]

What really frustrates me about the PhD application process is the amount of information us as applicants have. For example, what candidates do the schools actually want? Who are making the admissions decisions? How are we filtered? Do they read every reference letter carefully? What about our statement of purpose? How important are advanced math courses, what about research experience? etc etc.

 

We have very little to base our knowledge of graduate applications/graduate programs on. Just a website, and some FAQs (which are usually useless) and forums and discussions with our professors. How do we know if a professor is going to write us a good letter? Sometimes older professors who have not written letters in a while do not know the difference between a strong and a lukewarm letter. For example one of my letter writers asked me who my other letter writers were and I said Professor A and Professor B. She said: "Oh don't use Professor A, I have read his letters before and they are very uninformative." If not for this warning, I would never have known. I would have used Professor A's letter and it could have potentially ruined my chances at many top schools. In which case I would apply again next year and may STILL use Professor A.

 

There is such a lack of information, it's really quite frustrating and scary.

 

However at the same time I understand the admissions committee have the same problem. They don't understand the transcripts of international students, they don't know what type of student we are, reference letters can be uninformative, etc etc...

 

To answer some of your questions, here's how we do things in my department. I would expect that things are not too different elsewhere:

 

- The admissions committee is composed of about 5 faculty.

- All members read each PhD application; there is no "pre-filtering", though it's unlikely your application will be read in great detail if your "top-line" numbers (GPA, GRE, TOEFL for international students) are way out of line with department norms. We receive translations of international transcripts, and can usually get a decent handle on how good these students are.

-  Some number of applicants are "obvious admits", their profiles being simply outstanding in all or most respects. Usually these "slam dunks" occupy about 20-40% of the offered spots. The "good" and "very good" applicants compete for the remaining spots.

- After scoring the applicants, the committee meets to focus on the applicants who are "in the discussion" for PhD admission. Factors working in favor of (e.g., really positive letters) and against (e.g., lower grade in an advanced math class) each applicant are discussed and weighed. Sometimes, a faculty member will "go to bat" for a student they think highly of, even if that student ranked a bit lower in the initial scoring.

- As I've noted before, applicants worry way too much about research experience and the personal statement. This is not to say that having research experience isn't helpful, or that a strong personal statement isn't an asset, but rather that it is generally much easier (and, in my opinion, more reliable) to rank applicants based on other factors like grades and letters of recommendation. This is particularly true in stat/biostat, where meaningful research experience is relatively rare and it's considered completely acceptable for incoming PhD students to not have much of an idea what they'd like to do research on. 

 

Overall, the process really isn't that mysterious: we are trying to identify the most talented students, with an eye towards balancing research "upside" with likelihood of success in the program. The strongest predictors of success in graduate school remain grades, letters of recommendation, and to a lesser extent standardized test scores. Nobody wants to hear that because applicants would like to think that they can dramatically alter their prospects by crafting the perfect personal statement, but the reality is that your fate is mostly sealed by the time you come to prepare your application.

 

A lot of people contend that "admissions is a crapshoot," but that attitude is simply inconsistent with the remarkably high intra-individual correlation observed in individual admissions results across programs. With a few exceptions, an applicant who applies to a set of schools of similar strength is likely to get into either all/most of them or none of them.

[coffeehouse]

To answer some of your questions, here's how we do things in my department. I would expect that things are not too different elsewhere:

 

- The admissions committee is composed of about 5 faculty.

- All members read each PhD application; there is no "pre-filtering", though it's unlikely your application will be read in great detail if your "top-line" numbers (GPA, GRE, TOEFL for international students) are way out of line with department norms. We receive translations of international transcripts, and can usually get a decent handle on how good these students are.

-  Some number of applicants are "obvious admits", their profiles being simply outstanding in all or most respects. Usually these "slam dunks" occupy about 20-40% of the offered spots. The "good" and "very good" applicants compete for the remaining spots.

- After scoring the applicants, the committee meets to focus on the applicants who are "in the discussion" for PhD admission. Factors working in favor of (e.g., really positive letters) and against (e.g., lower grade in an advanced math class) each applicant are discussed and weighed. Sometimes, a faculty member will "go to bat" for a student they think highly of, even if that student ranked a bit lower in the initial scoring.

- As I've noted before, applicants worry way too much about research experience and the personal statement. This is not to say that having research experience isn't helpful, or that a strong personal statement isn't an asset, but rather that it is generally much easier (and, in my opinion, more reliable) to rank applicants based on other factors like grades and letters of recommendation. This is particularly true in stat/biostat, where meaningful research experience is relatively rare and it's considered completely acceptable for incoming PhD students to not have much of an idea what they'd like to do research on. 

 

Overall, the process really isn't that mysterious: we are trying to identify the most talented students, with an eye towards balancing research "upside" with likelihood of success in the program. The strongest predictors of success in graduate school remain grades, letters of recommendation, and to a lesser extent standardized test scores. Nobody wants to hear that because applicants would like to think that they can dramatically alter their prospects by crafting the perfect personal statement, but the reality is that your fate is mostly sealed by the time you come to prepare your application.

 

A lot of people contend that "admissions is a crapshoot," but that attitude is simply inconsistent with the remarkably high intra-individual correlation observed in individual admissions results across programs. With a few exceptions, an applicant who applies to a set of schools of similar strength is likely to get into either all/most of them or none of them.

 

Thanks Cyberwulf, that was very helpful.

 

Another thing is that I guess as applicants, it's tough to have an idea of what the applicant pool is like. Like how many 3.8+ GPA, real analysis I and II, and math GRE 90+ percentile students are there? At least judging by the results page, it seems a decent portion of the students have high math GRE scores for example (at top schools, for example UW this year and previous years)

 

How are lukewarm reference letters viewed? I have a feeling my low real analysis grade, and lukewarm letters are hurting me. My school has a small statistics department (approximately 15 faculty members) and it's tough to get 3 strong letters when many of your courses are taught by lecturers who do not do research, and not professors.

Edited February 3, 2014 by coffeehouse

[StatPhD2014]

To answer some of your questions, here's how we do things in my department. I would expect that things are not too different elsewhere:

 

- The admissions committee is composed of about 5 faculty.

- All members read each PhD application; there is no "pre-filtering", though it's unlikely your application will be read in great detail if your "top-line" numbers (GPA, GRE, TOEFL for international students) are way out of line with department norms. We receive translations of international transcripts, and can usually get a decent handle on how good these students are.

-  Some number of applicants are "obvious admits", their profiles being simply outstanding in all or most respects. Usually these "slam dunks" occupy about 20-40% of the offered spots. The "good" and "very good" applicants compete for the remaining spots.

- After scoring the applicants, the committee meets to focus on the applicants who are "in the discussion" for PhD admission. Factors working in favor of (e.g., really positive letters) and against (e.g., lower grade in an advanced math class) each applicant are discussed and weighed. Sometimes, a faculty member will "go to bat" for a student they think highly of, even if that student ranked a bit lower in the initial scoring.

- As I've noted before, applicants worry way too much about research experience and the personal statement. This is not to say that having research experience isn't helpful, or that a strong personal statement isn't an asset, but rather that it is generally much easier (and, in my opinion, more reliable) to rank applicants based on other factors like grades and letters of recommendation. This is particularly true in stat/biostat, where meaningful research experience is relatively rare and it's considered completely acceptable for incoming PhD students to not have much of an idea what they'd like to do research on. 

 

Overall, the process really isn't that mysterious: we are trying to identify the most talented students, with an eye towards balancing research "upside" with likelihood of success in the program. The strongest predictors of success in graduate school remain grades, letters of recommendation, and to a lesser extent standardized test scores. Nobody wants to hear that because applicants would like to think that they can dramatically alter their prospects by crafting the perfect personal statement, but the reality is that your fate is mostly sealed by the time you come to prepare your application.

 

A lot of people contend that "admissions is a crapshoot," but that attitude is simply inconsistent with the remarkably high intra-individual correlation observed in individual admissions results across programs. With a few exceptions, an applicant who applies to a set of schools of similar strength is likely to get into either all/most of them or none of them.

Thank You for this extremely insightful post, as well as your other equally helpful posts on this forum.

[Stat Assistant Professor]

cyberwulf,

 

Just a few questions...

 

1) to what extent do grades in non-advanced math/stat classes matter? My undergrad major was not in math or statistics and it was good but not excellent (3.5ish overall, just under 3.7 in major). I only took through linear algebra and Calc III in undergrad. However, I later took upper division math classes as a non-degree student in order to gain admission for a Master's program in Applied Math. I did well in all of these math/stat classes (I ended up taking 19 math/stat classes total from these non-degree classes, plus grad level courses in graduate school). So if you look at only my record in math and stat, the grades were all A- or higher.

 

2) to what extent can a stellar Master's record make up for an undergrad record? Again, my undergrad wasn't *very* weak but perhaps not the most outstanding (however, it was from an Ivy League school that is known for rigorous grading, not grade inflation). But my Master's grades were really good. However, I am not sure how impressive this is, given the different grading scale and grade inflation in grad school.

 

Just curious if you could offer some insight. Thanks!

Edited February 3, 2014 by Stat Applicant

[Stat Assistant Professor]

Additionally, I echo what others above me have said. I thank you very much for your helpful comments. Much appreciated!

Edited February 3, 2014 by Stat Applicant

[StatPhD2014]

cyberwulf,

 

Just a few questions...

 

1) to what extent do grades in non-advanced math/stat classes matter? My undergrad major was not in math or statistics and it was good but not excellent (3.5ish overall, just under 3.7 in major). I only took through linear algebra and Calc III in undergrad. However, I later took upper division math classes as a non-degree student in order to gain admission for a Master's program in Applied Math. I did well in all of these math/stat classes (I ended up taking 19 math/stat classes total from these non-degree classes, plus grad level courses in graduate school). So if you look at only my record in math and stat, the grades were all A- or higher.

 

2) to what extent can a stellar Master's record make up for an undergrad record? Again, my undergrad wasn't *very* weak but perhaps not the most outstanding (however, it was from an Ivy League school that is known for rigorous grading, not grade inflation). But my Master's grades were really good. However, I am not sure how impressive this is, given the different grading scale and grade inflation in grad school.

 

Just curious if you could offer some insight. Thanks!

Were these classes you took at a non-degree student also at the same ivy-league institution? If not what kind of school was it.

 

What kind of school did you go for your masters? Were the classes you took part of the first year core PhD sequence ?

[Stat Assistant Professor]

Hi StatPhD2014,

 

The non-degree classes were not at the same Ivy League school. I took them at several different schools in the area where I was working at the time (I was working in finance at the time I took them). Only one of these schools was one that might not be recognizable at all to adcoms.

 

The Master's school is top 70 for math, according to U.S. News. It is not a T1 school for math, but I thought it was a good program. I took undergrad analysis as part of my grad program here. I took the grad level probability/statistics sequence and PhD level classes in applied math and statistics that other PhD students took.

 

Maybe prestige does matter a lot though... had I taken the classes at more top tier schools and/or gotten my Master's at a higher-ranked school and did similarly well, maybe my chances would have been better. I don't really have any idea, that's why I was curious if cyberwulf (or anyone else) can give some idea.

 

Thanks!

(Also, it's possible my letters of recommendation weren't as strong too. I don't discard that possibility)

[echlori]

echlori- damn, that is the worst. It shows pretty great character that you didn't get flustered and you're right back at it again this year. 

But yeah, i think everyone who wants to get in a PHD program and passes a certain threshold should get in somewhere. Especially given the costs of applying, not to mention how stressful it is. 

 

If only I really weren't flustered. Some pretty big personal factors on the table.

[cyberwulf]

Another thing is that I guess as applicants, it's tough to have an idea of what the applicant pool is like. Like how many 3.8+ GPA, real analysis I and II, and math GRE 90+ percentile students are there? At least judging by the results page, it seems a decent portion of the students have high math GRE scores for example (at top schools, for example UW this year and previous years)

 

How are lukewarm reference letters viewed? I have a feeling my low real analysis grade, and lukewarm letters are hurting me. My school has a small statistics department (approximately 15 faculty members) and it's tough to get 3 strong letters when many of your courses are taught by lecturers who do not do research, and not professors.

 

Gauging the applicant pool is tough for us from year to year as well, especially recently as stat/biostat have become higher-profile disciplines and attract more applicants. The best thing you can do to figure out the expected level of competition is look at incoming class summary statistics (where reported) and do a little "CV snooping" on current graduate students who have web pages.

 

Mediocre/lukewarm reference letters can be a problem, particularly if you are part of the "in the yard" group being discussed for admission. Unfortunately, "praise inflation" is rampant in academia and very positive letters are the norm, so something less than that may hurt your chances. Of course, *one* less-than-stellar letter can be dismissed as an outlier (or the rare professor who writes more honestly), but if faint praise becomes a pattern across multiple letters, that's more of an issue.

 

Also, on a related note, people worry WAY too much about the "name" of the person writing them a letter. The vast majority of applicants have all their letters from people whose names we don't recognize, and it doesn't hurt them one bit. Sure, a handful of students have letters from "famous" statisticians, but that only confers an advantage if the letter is fairly strong. It's much better to have enthusiastic letters from "no-name" professors who know you well than a so-so letter from an eminent statistician.

Edited February 3, 2014 by cyberwulf

[coffeehouse]

Thanks Cyberwulf, I really appreciate it.

Looks like Minnesota sent an acceptance out last week that just got posted? Wonder what that means...

[faerare]

Update: Harvard biostat will be making their decisions "fairly soon". I'm not sure how long that'll be, but my hope is that we will hear back by the end of the week.

[Stat Assistant Professor]

Did anyone else hear back from Minnesota? This was one of my top choices and one of the schools I thought was a little bit more within reach (but given the competition this year, definitely not a sure bet). Please let us know if the letter was personalized or a rather generic one sent by the department head.

Thanks.

[coffeehouse]

Looks like I may be rejected everywhere

Michigan seems to be done too, there's 7 acceptances on the results page. That's around how many they gave out last year.

[StatPhD2014]

Looks like I may be rejected everywhere

Michigan seems to be done too, there's 7 acceptances on the results page. That's around how many they gave out last year.

 

They did do several rounds of admissions last year it seems though. On another note, Im wondering what is happening with Wharton, it could be possible that they sent out their acceptances already, since it is a small program no one here could have updated the results page

[coffeehouse]

They did do several rounds of admissions last year it seems though. On another note, Im wondering what is happening with Wharton, it could be possible that they sent out their acceptances already, since it is a small program no one here could have updated the results page

That's how I feel about Wharton too, very possible none of the 5 people know about this website/posted. Last year someone called them early Feb for their results. Let us know if anyone decides to do this!

[statisticsfall2014]

Damn, yeah I thought Michigan was my best bet after talking to one of the professors and having a quite positive response. At least a lot of others got their first acceptances!