North

If you're interested in groups like Duke Decision Science, then that's going to be significantly more quantitative than what most programs in 'strategy' would be. I was in a somewhat similar situation when I was applying. From my perspective, there aren't all that many pure decision science groups that are actually listed as 'decision science'. One potential way to find more like-minded groups though would be to look at programs like Duke and GWU and see where their graduates are. The departments where they are might have a good fit even if they are listed as part of an operations or management science department/group. For example, I was in a similar situation when I was applying. I personally felt that Duke DS was too methodologically focused for my tastes. Instead, I picked a group that has slightly less focus on methodology, but my advisor and our co-author are both Duke DS grads.

I think some of how your profile is perceived will depend on what your research interests are. You haven't really given a good indication of what you're interested in or why you want to study those things. If you give a bit more detail it might help. In terms of your questions: 'Academic' letters are in general better, because the person writing the letter should understand what it takes to publish good research, and the qualities that a good PhD student would need. Industry references don't necessarily have that. If your industry references are doing publication level research, have PhDs, etc. then some of that distinction goes away. E.g. someone who works at Google Research would be as good as an academic reference (all else being equal). As others have said, PhD applications are some what of a crap shoot, and a lot of it does come down to fit. For example, our PhD Program director for Operations tries to pick people who aren't just good, but coming to our school in particular will help them more than going somewhere else. So that means they might pass on some top candidates if they aren't good fits, or pick someone who on paper looks a little bit weaker but has a great fit. So if you think there is a good fit with those schools, then definitely apply. Unless the application fees are overly burdensome, there isn't that much to lose from applying. With respect to the GRE score and your background, I see them as sort of a related factor. It isn't necessarily an issue, but some profs might see it as a concern. It isn't that you need to have taken real analysis (I didn't, and I got into some of the schools you listed), but the field is reasonably quantitatively demanding. In my case, not taking real analysis wasn't an issue, because I had a math degree from a school that is fairly well known for math. That meant that there weren't any questions about my quantitative ability. In your case, you don't have a math/engineering degree. That means you need to show your quantitative ability in other ways. Some of that can be taking courses like the ones you've listed. However, it would also depend on how those courses were designed - e.g. are they proof based probability courses or are they more stats for business type courses. If they are the former, and you took a bunch of them and did well, then that probably eliminates most (or at least some) of the potential concern about your quantitative skills. If they are the latter, then that is a bigger potential concern. So how does your GRE play into this? Like Brazilian said, 1 or 2 points won't make or break you - if everything else is equal. The issue, is that if a prof isn't convinced by your quantitative skills and they think your GRE score is low, then they may not believe you have the right background for the program. In this case though, I don't think getting a higher (even perfect) score would help significantly, so it probably isn't worth it to re-take.

What exactly do you consider 'decision science'? Depending on who exactly you talk to there are some subtle differences, and that could mean certain programs are much better fits than others. E.g. at Duke are you specifically looking at the Decision Sciences group? If you are, then that's a significantly more quantitative program that is maybe more on the methodology side than the application focused side. In terms of people working on sports, there are a few at some good schools, but it would depend a little bit on what type of sports problems you want to look at - e.g. dynamic ticket pricing, betting/fantasy sports, scheduling. There aren't as many people working on direct applications to things like on-field strategy. There are some, but there are also some challenges with this because most of these projects require data, and that data is often proprietary which can make it hard to publish.

I narrowed down where I applied to a lot based on potential fit, so I only applied to 5 programs. I got into 4 of them. Didn't get an interview at the fifth (though afterwords I found out one of the main profs I was interested in working with left the school, so it was for the best anyways)

Currently a 1st year student in an Operations Research PhD program in the US. I was also admitted to Western's program last year, so I'll try to give you what insight I can from my experience last year. The one thing that isn't clear from your post is what type of research questions you are looking to answer, because that will have a big bearing on what schools you might want to look at, why there are not as many applicants etc. I think that Xanthus is right about the MIS track generally shrinking, but depending on what areas in Management Science/OR you are interested in, that trend can be very different. The field is very broad and interdisciplinary, so that is sometimes another reason why you don't see as many programs/applicants for those specific tracks. If you update what (even in general) your research interests are, that might help others guide you more. In terms of what I can say about your profile: - You will probably want to bring up your GRE scores. Depending on your specific research interests the quant score is probably fine (although obviously higher is always better, but it isn't the #1 thing) but your verbal score has a fairly low percentile. Most Management Science programs are more on the quantitative end so you don't need a top verbal score, but right now you wouldn't meet some programs cut-offs (e.g. Western wants 75th percentile and above for both sections) - You have more formal research experience than I did last year so that is definitely a positive. From the interviews I had and the other students I talked to, you would be ahead of a decent chunk of applicants in having something published already. - GPA is fine, though some of that needs to be contextualized based on where you got your degrees (e.g. if the average student has a GPA of 2.5 at your undergrad school then a 3.4 looks a lot better than if the average student had a 3.2 GPA) - Teaching experience is nice, though some schools won't care all that much about it - If you can frame your work experience around interesting problems that you looked at/solved then it can help build your narrative around what type of research you want to pursue and already having expertise in it Finally, (and this will depend again on what specific research areas/programs you are looking at) if you are looking at more quantitative Management Science programs (e.g. Western Management Science, not Information Science) you will probably need to show some level of background math knowledge. I know in my program I am the only person who had any formal business background (I did a Bachelors of Business Admin, though I also did a Bachelors in Mathematics), everyone else either has a Math/Stats degree or an engineering degree.