PhD Biostatistics profile evaluation

[biostat_hopeful]

Hi everyone, 

I just hope to get some opinion about where I stand in applying to PhD biostatistics schools. My undergraduate GPA is kind of low. I did two master degree. One is in statistics, the other is in biostatistics. I am working as a statistician and research assistant these couple years. I have recently did the GRE, but did very poorly since I did not take the time to study for it, will redo soon.

Undergrad Institution: University of Toronto
Major(s): Statistics and Mathematics
Minor(s): Economics
GPA: 3 (upper-division 3.3+)(sorry I know it is kind of low)

Type of Student: Domestic asian male

 

 

Graduated school Institution: McMaster University (Master of Science in Statistics) (canada)
Thesis based: did a thesis like project
GPA: 3.7 (around A)

Courses:  Foundation of Statistics I (A-), Foundation of Statistics II (A-), Categorical Data Analysis (A-), Multivariate Data Analysis (A), Order Statistics (A-), Seminar course (A-)

 

Graduated school Institution: University of Toronto (Master of Science in Biostatistics) (canada)
Thesis based: did a practicum
GPA: 3.6 (around A-)

Courses:  Mathematical Foundation of Biostatistics (A+), Applied Bayesian Methods (B-), Categorical Data Analysis (A+), Survival Analysis (A-),Statistical Genetics (A-), Longitudinal Data Analysis (A+)

 

 

 

GRE General Test:
Q: 148 (will redo soon)
V: below 50th (will redo soon)
W: below 50th (will redo soon)

 

Programs Applying: Biostatistics PhD

 

Research Experience: During my work in the past couple years, I have about 5 to 6 publications related to health in genetics area. No first author paper, one second author, the rest are mostly meta-analysis (so it is one among the 30 or so in the list of co-authors). There is one paper in a good journal called Nature Genetics, the rest are in some so-so health biology related journals like American Journal of Human Genetics, Nature Communications ...

 

Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Not much except some entrance scholarships

 

Letters of Recommendation: 3 letter. Two will come from my master thesis supervisors at McMaster, one will come from my course instructor at Toronto where I got A+ in the course.

Any Miscellaneous Points that Might Help: I've taken some mathematics and statistic courses during undergraduate study

 

Calculus I (83), Calculus II (81), Multivariate Calculus I (78), Multivariate Calculus II (80), Linear Algebra I (81), Linear Algebra II (74), Differential Equation I (72) , Complex Variable I (73), Introduction to Analysis I (68),  Price Theory (91), Group and Symmetry (65), Fields and Group (93),  Stochastic Process (82), Regression Analysis (85), Statistics and Finances (83), Time Series Analysis (75), Classical Plane Geometries and their transformations (74), Introduction to Combinatorics (80)

Schools (in my dream):

- UC LA

- Washington at Seattle

- UC Davis (not sure if all UC schools are same difficulty of getting into)

- UC Berkeley

- UNC Chapel Hills

- John Hopkins

 

Schools (realistically have some chances):

 

- your suggestions is appreiated

- your suggestions is appreiated

- your suggestions is appreiated

- your suggestions is appreiated

 

Don't know yet, please provide some suggestions as to what schools I might have a chance? because I really don't know much about the schools in US.

 

Thank you very much for the time and comments and suggestions!

 

[biostat_hopeful]

Hi, could anyone give some suggestions or opinions based on what they see in my profile. Thank you.

 

If it is not easy to give an opinion based on a school not in US, say if you substitute University of Toronto with an above average like 75th percentile of school in US, could you give some opinions if instead of Toronto, you substitute say University of Iowa. Where would that graduate "from Iowa" stands when applying based on the information here? pretending same grade and same courses.

[cyberwulf]

Realistically, I think you will struggle to get admitted to any U.S. Biostatistics PhD program ranked in the top 20. I would not recommend you spending your $$$ applying to Washington, Hopkins, UNC, or Berkeley; they all routinely reject applicants with records much stronger than yours. UCLA and UC Davis are somewhat less competitive, but not by much. 

I don't want to be too negative, but the fact that you got a 148 Q score on the GRE after having done the volume of quantitative coursework that you have will be a major red flag unless you can dramatically elevate your score on the retake.

It's hard to know what programs to suggest, because I'm not very familiar with the admissions practices of low-ranked (or unranked) biostatistics programs, but I think those are the ones you'll have to target if you're set on doing a PhD.

[biostat_hopeful]

40 minutes ago, cyberwulf said:

Realistically, I think you will struggle to get admitted to any U.S. Biostatistics PhD program ranked in the top 20. I would not recommend you spending your $$$ applying to Washington, Hopkins, UNC, or Berkeley; they all routinely reject applicants with records much stronger than yours. UCLA and UC Davis are somewhat less competitive, but not by much. 

I don't want to be too negative, but the fact that you got a 148 Q score on the GRE after having done the volume of quantitative coursework that you have will be a major red flag unless you can dramatically elevate your score on the retake.

It's hard to know what programs to suggest, because I'm not very familiar with the admissions practices of low-ranked (or unranked) biostatistics programs, but I think those are the ones you'll have to target if you're set on doing a PhD.

Thanks a lot for your reply Cyberwulf. But just wondering say if I could get around 163 or more in my coming retake for the quantitative part of GRE, do you think I stand any chance in those good schools that you said I should forget about?  because I really did not study for it and was kind of tired and not able to concentrate on that day. Thank you for your comment.

 

[biostat_hopeful]

44 minutes ago, cyberwulf said:

Realistically, I think you will struggle to get admitted to any U.S. Biostatistics PhD program ranked in the top 20. I would not recommend you spending your $$$ applying to Washington, Hopkins, UNC, or Berkeley; they all routinely reject applicants with records much stronger than yours. UCLA and UC Davis are somewhat less competitive, but not by much. 

I don't want to be too negative, but the fact that you got a 148 Q score on the GRE after having done the volume of quantitative coursework that you have will be a major red flag unless you can dramatically elevate your score on the retake.

It's hard to know what programs to suggest, because I'm not very familiar with the admissions practices of low-ranked (or unranked) biostatistics programs, but I think those are the ones you'll have to target if you're set on doing a PhD.

Sorry for breaking down my sentences. Sorry I am just wondering does even a 167 or more will not help?  Does it mean nothing much I can do to improve my chance even if I get a much better GRE quantitative score? Thank you again for your comment.

[Biostat_Assistant_Prof]

I'm an older graduate student that serves on my department's admissions committee this year (outside of the top 5 schools, that's all I'll say). Looking over your profile with the information you provided, here are the two big concerns:

1) Your GRE quant score of 148. Yes, it has already been addressed in the above comments, but I'm going to drive the point home... regardless of anything else on your application, a 148 would immediately push your application to the "outright reject" pile in my eyes. As cyberwulf noted, that low score coupled with your extensive background of MS stat/biostat courses and undergraduate math courses is a huge 'red flag', i.e. if you have that much time spent in quantitative courses and still score lower than the 50th percentile on a basic logic/math section of a standardized test ... that's a huge concern.

2) Low 80's and high 70's in your core math classes from undergrad (i.e. calculus, linear algebra, and analysis) are certainly underwhelming. You have extensive statistics coursework under your belt, but from what I can tell, those are mostly applied classes and don't indicate to me you can handle theoretical classes. In a PhD program, you will be expected to work through and understand the theory of it all, requiring strong calculus and linear algebra skills... and this isn't evident. 

My advice... Get your GRE Quant score up to 160+. If you get your score to 160+, I'd guess you won't be immediately dismissed from some application piles, and personally, I would probably read further into your application, looking at your letters of recommendation and to a lesser extent, your personal statement in this case would be deciding factors to give you a chance for an interview. I would want to see you address your 'subpar' performance in some of those key math classes, and further, with your background, 2 MS degrees and a BS, I would expect you to have 'strong' LoRs. 

As for target schools, have a look at the following list (I'm copying and pasting directly from this thread, which separates biostat programs based on USNWR rankings). I'll be the first to say that rankings are not important as long as you have a good mentor, but they provide a general list of "competitive" to "least competitive" places you could apply. I'd guess there are an equal number or even more programs in the US that are not listed, and in most cases they would be about as competitive as the lowest schools on this list (minus a few notable exceptions like Vanderbilt, which is a good program, just small and relatively new). If I were you, I'd focus on the schools ranked below 15 on this list and programs that are unranked for your best shot at getting admitted. 

BIOSTATISTICS

1-2. Harvard, Washington (tied), 3. Johns Hopkins, 4-5. Michigan, UNC-Chapel Hill (tied), 6. UC Berkeley, 7. Minnesota, 8. UPenn, 9-10. Columbia, UCLA (tied), 11. Yale, 12. Emory, 13. Brown, 14-15. Iowa, Rochester (tied), 16. Pittsburgh, 17. Boston University, 18-20. Medical College of Wisconsin, UIllinois-Chicago, UTexas-Houston (tied), 21. Case Western, 22. Medical College of South Carolina, 23-25. SUNY Albany, Alabama, SUNY Buffalo (tied), 26. South Carolina, Virginia Commonwealth

Edited October 27, 2016 by Biostat_student_22

[cyberwulf]

11 hours ago, biostat_hopeful said:

Sorry for breaking down my sentences. Sorry I am just wondering does even a 167 or more will not help?  Does it mean nothing much I can do to improve my chance even if I get a much better GRE quantitative score? Thank you again for your comment.

A 167 will help you, but not at most/all of the schools you listed. The average entering undergraduate GPA for students at UW, UNC, Hopkins, etc. is around 3.9, and having Masters degrees (with what is, frankly, fairly average performance given the grading scale in graduate school) will not help you that much. You're also facing the challenge of being an international student, so the bar is even higher than what the overall student profile at these schools indicates.

[biostat_hopeful]

13 hours ago, Biostat_student_22 said:

I'm an older graduate student that serves on my department's admissions committee this year (outside of the top 5 schools, that's all I'll say). Looking over your profile with the information you provided, here are the two big concerns:

1) Your GRE quant score of 148. Yes, it has already been addressed in the above comments, but I'm going to drive the point home... regardless of anything else on your application, a 148 would immediately push your application to the "outright reject" pile in my eyes. As cyberwulf noted, that low score coupled with your extensive background of MS stat/biostat courses and undergraduate math courses is a huge 'red flag', i.e. if you have that much time spent in quantitative courses and still score lower than the 50th percentile on a basic logic/math section of a standardized test ... that's a huge concern.

2) Low 80's and high 70's in your core math classes from undergrad (i.e. calculus, linear algebra, and analysis) are certainly underwhelming. You have extensive statistics coursework under your belt, but from what I can tell, those are mostly applied classes and don't indicate to me you can handle theoretical classes. In a PhD program, you will be expected to work through and understand the theory of it all, requiring strong calculus and linear algebra skills... and this isn't evident. 

My advice... Get your GRE Quant score up to 160+. If you get your score to 160+, I'd guess you won't be immediately dismissed from some application piles, and personally, I would probably read further into your application, looking at your letters of recommendation and to a lesser extent, your personal statement in this case would be deciding factors to give you a chance for an interview. I would want to see you address your 'subpar' performance in some of those key math classes, and further, with your background, 2 MS degrees and a BS, I would expect you to have 'strong' LoRs. 

As for target schools, have a look at the following list (I'm copying and pasting directly from this thread, which separates biostat programs based on USNWR rankings). I'll be the first to say that rankings are not important as long as you have a good mentor, but they provide a general list of "competitive" to "least competitive" places you could apply. I'd guess there are an equal number or even more programs in the US that are not listed, and in most cases they would be about as competitive as the lowest schools on this list (minus a few notable exceptions like Vanderbilt, which is a good program, just small and relatively new). If I were you, I'd focus on the schools ranked below 15 on this list and programs that are unranked for your best shot at getting admitted. 

BIOSTATISTICS

1-2. Harvard, Washington (tied), 3. Johns Hopkins, 4-5. Michigan, UNC-Chapel Hill (tied), 6. UC Berkeley, 7. Minnesota, 8. UPenn, 9-10. Columbia, UCLA (tied), 11. Yale, 12. Emory, 13. Brown, 14-15. Iowa, Rochester (tied), 16. Pittsburgh, 17. Boston University, 18-20. Medical College of Wisconsin, UIllinois-Chicago, UTexas-Houston (tied), 21. Case Western, 22. Medical College of South Carolina, 23-25. SUNY Albany, Alabama, SUNY Buffalo (tied), 26. South Carolina, Virginia Commonwealth

Thanks a lot for your honest opinion. I did not know my application is so bad until I come here to post my "transcript". I will try to get as high of GRE Quantitative as I can coming soon then. But I think I won't give up applying to one of the UC schools just want to give a try. But yes I will definitely pay more attention to the ones below ranks of 15th as what you suggest.

But say just for a scenario:

if I can get the GRE quantitative to around 163+, and if I have two strong letter of references, do you think I have any chance of the schools in the 15 to 20 areas?  And also just wondering how important is the GRE quantitative? do schools screen out (or even directly filter out) applications by GRE (for example they have a person who would basically throw away applications with  GRE Quant of less than say 160 if the number below 160 is spotted on an application?).

 

 

 

[biostat_hopeful]

12 hours ago, cyberwulf said:

A 167 will help you, but not at most/all of the schools you listed. The average entering undergraduate GPA for students at UW, UNC, Hopkins, etc. is around 3.9, and having Masters degrees (with what is, frankly, fairly average performance given the grading scale in graduate school) will not help you that much. You're also facing the challenge of being an international student, so the bar is even higher than what the overall student profile at these schools indicates.

Thank you for your comment. I think I will just try to aim for the highest GRE possible and then try to apply to some 15 or below schools.  Thank you very much. But someone also mentioned there could be people admitted to good schools but not so exceptional lol, so I will treat applying to those schools above 20 or above as buying a lottery ticket.

[Biostat_Assistant_Prof]

12 hours ago, biostat_hopeful said:

Thanks a lot for your honest opinion. I did not know my application is so bad until I come here to post my "transcript". I will try to get as high of GRE Quantitative as I can coming soon then. But I think I won't give up applying to one of the UC schools just want to give a try. But yes I will definitely pay more attention to the ones below ranks of 15th as what you suggest.

But say just for a scenario:

if I can get the GRE quantitative to around 163+, and if I have two strong letter of references, do you think I have any chance of the schools in the 15 to 20 areas?  And also just wondering how important is the GRE quantitative? do schools screen out (or even directly filter out) applications by GRE (for example they have a person who would basically throw away applications with  GRE Quant of less than say 160 if the number below 160 is spotted on an application?).

 

 

 

GRE Quant is important to the extent that it does provide a threshold to screen applicants. At the very least, it provides insight into the applicants ability in basic math, logic, and reasoning - the type of intelligence needed for an advanced quantitative degree. Anything less than 155 just doesn't make the cut in the pool of applicants. 155-160 wouldn't be an immoderately disqualification at all places, !but definitely the top ones. After about 160 it really doesn't matter too much, that's about 80th percentile and if you fall in the top 20% your pretty much on a level playing field with everyone else and other things become distinguishing factors. Biostats is an applied and collaborative field, and GRE Verbal is telling about your ability to communicate... I wouldn't look for 160+, but I'd like to see at least mid 150s, and at the very least, 150. 

 

If let's say, you do get a 160+, other factors become the key players. Id look for at least an adequate GRE verbal, and if you had two strong letters, I could imagine you would get at least an interview and/or waitliated at a couple of schools if you applied to all those under the top 15, and possibly accepted at those under 20

[ecomath]

A 3.3 might not be too bad if admissions committees know that the average GPA at U of T is generally much lower than comparably ranked schools in the States. 3.2+ at U of T is Distinction, so you should emphasise that in your statement somewhere.