Severina

What I've seen in the biotech/pharma world is that both masters and PhD biostatisticians are very employable. The masters people tend to be the worker bees who eventually rise to level of say manager. But those who rise to be department head or director level very often have PhDs. I don't see a saturated job market for either. In fact jobs for talented, experienced biostatisticians often go begging. The PhD degree by itself gurantees nothing. The main advantage to having a PhD is that you won't ever be held back or passed over for the big promotion for not having one. So I say if you want a PhD and you can financially afford to stay in school for another 2-3 years, go for it. The opportunity costs to your career in the short run are moderate and potential pay-off in the long run is significant. (Disclaimer: the above assessment is for Biostats. I am less familiar with the situation for straight Statitistics grads in a non-biotech labor market.)

UCLA Biostats decisions are coming out. Got an acceptance e-mail late this afternoon.

Some possible questions to consider: 1. Is the department very social? Do the students/profs/staff do stuff together outside of school? 2. How common is it for new grad students struggle or fail? 3. When they do struggle or fail what are the most common stumbling blocks? 4. What are the things you like most and least about the department, the university, and the town?

I've met Jessica Utts, the department Chair, and she is a very smart woman and a good teacher. But I don't know anything about the quality or reputation of the UCI program overall. Most UCs are at least respectable.

Berkeley results are coming out. I got accepted this week - on Wed. 2/4, to Biostats masters. Very happy!