MS or Directly PhD in Biostatistics

[biostat43]

Hi, I'll be applying to Biostatistics programs this fall.  I'm finishing my last year of undergrad and my long term goal is to do a PhD in Biostatistics.  However, I have no idea what research topic I would like to go into for what would be my dissertation.  My research projects so far have been fairly narrow and only on one topic in Biostatistics.  Do you recommend that I do a masters first to get an overview of the field and a clear idea of what topic I would like to pursue?  It also seems that a large part of the interviews for PhD programs are based on potential research topics, which I would be blank on.  Any thoughts? 

[twilightgalaxy]

I went from undergrad straight into a Biostat PhD and very few of us, if any, had very concrete idea of research interests. It's definitely not expected that you know what your dissertation topic or even area is going to be from the get go. If you have a few areas that you're interested in (even if you don't know too much about them!) you'd probably be on the same page as a good amount of other applicants. I don't think you'd have a problem applying to PhD programs. It's also worth noting that most Masters programs don't guarantee funding, while PhD programs generally do. My feeling is unless you want to improve your profile in order to try for better PhD programs, if your long term goal is a PhD you should apply for the PhD. 

It's worth noting though that Michigan is a notable exception, since they offer funding for the Masters and do not do direct admits into PhD from undergrad as far as I know. 

Edited July 30, 2016 by twilightgalaxy

[cyberwulf]

The advice from @twilightgalaxy is right on.

Only a handful of PhD programs (notably Harvard, Hopkins, Penn, and Emory) conduct interviews during the PhD admissions process, and they're not expecting you to have identified a research topic when they talk to you.

As for Michigan, while they don't technically accept students directly into the PhD program, there is a "PhD track" in the Masters program (where I believe most/all students are funded) that leads seamlessly into the PhD.

[biostat43]

Thank you @twilightgalaxy and @cyberwulf for your responses.  In that case, I take it that it is not necessary to contact professors or identify them in one's application.

Additionally, I am debating on retaking the GRE and I wanted some advice.  Is it true that an applicant for Biostatistics PhD and MS programs must get above a certain GRE score or range of scores to be seriously considered, but scoring much higher than that will not necessarily help one's application much?  I recently took it and got a 163V and 165Q.  I am wondering if the 165Q would put me at a disadvantage for competitive Biostatistics PhD programs, particularly at Harvard / U Washington / Hopkins.  I have a strong math background (4.0 GPA at top 25 school, math major with some grad statistics/biostatistics courses), but just not a particularly strong GRE quant score.

[cyberwulf]

On 8/26/2016 at 11:52 PM, biostat43 said:

 In that case, I take it that it is not necessary to contact professors or identify them in one's application.

Correct. Applicants often name drop a handful of professors in their personal statement whose areas they say they might be interested in, but establishing contact isn't necessary.

On 8/26/2016 at 11:52 PM, biostat43 said:

I recently took it and got a 163V and 165Q.  I am wondering if the 165Q would put me at a disadvantage for competitive Biostatistics PhD programs, particularly at Harvard / U Washington / Hopkins.  I have a strong math background (4.0 GPA at top 25 school, math major with some grad statistics/biostatistics courses), but just not a particularly strong GRE quant score.

No, don't retake, those scores are fine.