juilletmercredi

I do not have direct experience with transferring. I had a colleague in my PhD cohort who transferred to our program after finishing three years in a different program. He had to start over - literally, start over. He finished with me in my cohort after six years. Your advisor passing away, and no one else in the department to adequately advise you, is probably a situation that warrants transferring. But there may be other options that you can quickly consider. You said that you got a new advisor that helped you, but they were unfamiliar with your topic. Is there another advisor in your department who is at least a little more familiar with your area and/or your work? If not, is it possible that someone in the department can serve as your nominal advisor for paperwork purposes, but you could have an outside person with expertise in your area serve as your actual advisor? This usually only works if you have an established relationship with an outside/external researcher, though. If none of those is possible or feasible, then transferring may be your best bet. Many PhD programs may make you repeat some coursework, though. You do need at least one person (and preferably, two people) from your current department who can vouch for you, though.

Michigan has great name value and resources as well. I work for a large tech company and we have more new hires from Michigan than we do from Columbia. Part of that is sheer size, but most of it is because Michigan has an excellent reputation as a research university that prepares great tech talent. I would not enter a master's program with the intention of transferring. You should either enter a program with the intent of staying in it, OR you should wait a year and reapply. The reason is because 'transferring' at the master's level is rarely a straightforward transfer - usually, graduate programs will accept up to a semester's worth of credit from the other program, and sometimes not even that. So you spend a whole year (and $$$) on your classes and then you only use half of that or less in your new program. Plus, the business analytics program at Columbia is only three semesters, so it'd be a waste to transfer when you could just spend one more semester and be done. The only way I would even consider this is an intra-university transfer - for example, going from Columbia's business analytics program into Columbia's data science program. The chances that you can use most of your existing coursework in the new program is much higher. (And actually, looking at it, it's really not - there's no overlap between the required first-year courses in the MSBA and the required core courses in the Columbia data science MS.) But I still wouldn't attempt it, personally - I'd say that if you 100% knew you wanted a data science program, then choose Michigan or wait another year and reapply. I was trying to do a straight comparison between the programs, but it's difficult. At first and second glance, the Michigan program seems more technical and more of a straight/traditional data science program. But Columbia's industrial engineering/operations research department is very technical and well-respected, and a lot of the classes that have names that seem less deep in statistics actually might be quite deep and technical. I think it's probably mostly dependent upon the electives you choose to flesh out your Columbia program - you could theoretically take really technical coursework (like Bayesian Modeling & Computation, Applied Multivariate Statistics, or Data Mining for Engineers) or less so (like Managerial Negotiations, or U.S. Healthcare System, or New Product Development). Michigan doesn't have as many diverse electives - the ones you can take are all clearly focused on statistics and computer science. I think a lot of this is also dependent upon the type of internship you do over the summer, because that's where you'll learn the tools and skills to solidify the knowledge and make you more appealing to employers. But you could get a great internship from either place.

For posterity, this depends on the employer. Most employers aren't going to be willing to wait more than a few weeks. But employers/teams that are used to hiring academics and PhDs are sometimes willing to wait a little longer, although usually not more than a few months (2-3 max, usually). Four to five months would be too long for most employers, but this is a university, and they might be more or less expecting you to start on an academic year schedule anyway.

My PhD is in public health. Yes, JHU's school of public health is ranked #1 in the field, but different schools and programs have strengths in different areas, and I wouldn't automatically go to JHU just because it's number 1. I chose Columbia (#4) over JHU because of its strengths in my research area, and I didn't even bother applying to Harvard (#2) because none of its concentrations or research appealed to me. However, if expense is your primary concern, that doesn't seem to set JHU apart. UPenn's MPH tuition is easily $40K a year, which for a 2-year program will come out to $80K (not including living expenses). JHU's 11-month MPH program is $70K. They're not that different in price. Drexel and Temple are both considerably cheaper for their whole program. If you intend to live in Philadelphia after you graduate, there's also something to be said for the local networking/connections you can make there if you stay.

It's not even just the prestige (and with the prestige of Oxford, I really don't think you'd have an issue breaking into the academic market stateside) but it's also the fact that your research doesn't match at Toronto but does at Oxford. Who are these people who are suggesting that you don't move to Oxford?

Yeah, I'm going to agree with the above sentiments - it doesn't sound like your daughter is shying away because it's too hard; it sounds like she is not interested in economics and doesn't want the emphasis on economics at JHU. The economics won't 'enhance' her career if she doesn't want to do anything economics-related. I'm also kind of curious about your thoughts on what makes a school "transformational". International experience alone doesn't do that. George Washington has one of the best and most well-respected public policy programs in the world. I certainly wouldn't characterize GW as "easier". I do not agree that a top-notch institution doesn't matter after undergrad (on the contrary, your graduate degree matters a lot more than your undergrad degree, especially in certain fields), but GWU is definitely top-notch in this area.

Yes, I would absolutely contact your programs of interest and ask if that changes things. POIs for sure, but I'd also contact the departmental secretary in each department and they can direct you to the appropriate person who can officially reconsider your application.

No, unless the program explicitly says otherwise. The purpose of a deferral is not for you to eliminate any risk to yourself while you shop around for other options. The purpose of a deferral is for you to hold a spot that you know (or are reasonably sure) you intend to take while you take care of either unforeseen circumstances or something that will enhance your studentship. For example, lots of students defer to complete military service; others defer for medical or family reasons; still others might defer because they got a Fulbright or into the Peace Corps. If you defer for the first reason, you're tying up a spot that the university could grant to another student when you're not even sure you will go (and actually, are pretty sure you won't attend, unless you get nothing better). Now, whether or not you do it is a different question. But that's not what deferrals are intended for, and is the reason some universities actually limit the reasons you can take a deferral.

Look at the curriculum and required course sequences. There may be 10+ courses in human rights at Harvard, but how many of them will you actually be able to take, after you factor in required courses and any divisional or special requirements? However, I will also say that I wouldn't take size as a sole determination of how personalized your experience will be, especially at well-resourced universities like Harvard and Princeton. Harvard may have more students, but they may also have more faculty members, greater personnel numbers in the career center, bigger spaces, etc. You may get just as much or even more personal attention at Harvard as you would at Princeton as long as they have the resources for that. I also wouldn't assume that accessing things may be harder, because your classmates' interests may be much more diverse. For example, Harvard may have 200 MPP students but they may make up their class so that you've got 50 interested in human rights, 30 interested in public finance, 70 interested in development, etc. So for the human rights-related stuff, you may be competing with the same amount or fewer students as you would at Princeton - but for more resources. Also, 200 is still a small enough number that I don't think you'll get "lost in the crowd" unless you are an especially timid, shy person. If you're not going into any debt I'd say it's really up to you and your preferences. Both are competitive and excellent programs. $18K is quite a bit to leave in your savings, but it could be worth it for you. Personally, I know that for a master's program I would prefer a bigger program with more opportunities - more networking, and more chances to really personalize my experience.

What do you want to do? Work in industrial engineering? What I'd suggest you do is check out the prerequisites for master's degrees in industrial engineering at several different colleges/universities. What do they require? If all of them require that you have a bachelor's in engineering, you have your answer: you'll need a second bachelor's. If they don't require that you have a bachelor's in engineering BUT they require so much engineering coursework as prereqs that you essentially need a second bachelor's, then you should also probably just go for the BS. But if there are some good programs that will admit you after taking some math, science, and engineering classes, it may make sense for you to take those as a non-degree student and then try an MS program.

In academia...not really. It's going to be more about the university and program itself; Duke is pretty well-respected in health. In industry/job market - maybe a little, although where you go outweighs that. For example, Johns Hopkins offers MHS degrees instead of an MPH for their applicants with no experience, but it's also Johns Hopkins, so few people care that it's not an MPH. I'm from Atlanta, and I went to undergrad there. I also got into Emory's MPH program (and only turned it down because I got into a PhD program at Columbia; otherwise I totally would've gone there). Atlanta is a great city - vibrant with lots to do, but not outrageously expensive (yet). There are so many young professionals in the Atlanta area to socialize with and make connections. And of course, there are tons of public health jobs in Atlanta, which makes interning and networking easier. It is quite spread out and a car makes everything easier; I wouldn't advise living in Atlanta without one, personally. Michigan also has an excellent MPH program. I have lots of friends who went to Michigan and they all love Ann Arbor; half of them are trying to get back there in some shape or form, including a couple of Michigan alumni I know who said they want to retire there lol. It is a college town but there are business and companies that have outposts there because of Michigan. I don't know much about Boston - never been - but BU does have a great MPH program too.

These are all very personal decisions and considerations. It's really up to you what you think is most important, and it depends on your level of tolerance for certain things. I know people who would rather live in a hole in the wall in order to do the exact research they want to do, and others who are more willing to make compromises so they can live somewhere exciting for five years. But let's dig apart your impressions. I am having some difficulty understanding how you say that you like the school and program at School B better than School A, when you had great interviews and love the research at School A but didn't like talking to the faculty at School B. In graduate school, your department basically is your experience; the overall university matters a whole lot less and is mostly important in terms of resources to allow you to do your degree (e.g. libraries, facilities, connected departments). What is it that gives you the impression that you like School B overall better? As for the degree program - I'd need a little more information about that, because it might not matter depending on what the coursework is. For example, one could be a PhD in organizational behavior and the other could be in industrial-organizational psychology, but at the core the coursework, research, and post-graduation opportunities might be nearly identical. So it wouldn't matter than the exact program name is a little different. But you might have something like "business analytics" vs. "data science," which could be functionally very different even though they have some similarities - where a data science degree typically gives you more technical education and prepares you for different kinds of positions than a business analytics degree. As for your concerns about safety - most big cities in the United States are actually quite safe, and concerns about safety in specific areas are often due more to unfamiliarity than anything else. Not saying that your concerns are not valid, but I'd talk to some students who live in the area to get their thoughts.

Never do a PhD without funding. While you're waiting for other programs, contact CMU and Berkeley and ask them how other students have typically funded themselves. There are a few programs that do not technically fund their students centrally, but students are funded from year 1 by their PIs. Usually that information is communicated when you're accepted, though, so if you haven't gotten that yet it's still a little iffy. If most people at CMU are receiving fellowships to cover their costs and you didn't, I'd take that as a bad sign and turn down the program.

I work in the tech industry and we employ a tremendous number of data scientists. Michigan has enormous name value and resources; I'd be willing to bet that my large tech company employs more Michigan alum than Columbia alum (probably by sheer numbers, but their alumni network is very, very strong!). The geographical location of Columbia is a huge boon when it comes to internships or part-time jobs or networking, but lots of companies come recruiting at Michigan. I think the important thing is the actual education you'd get. I don't know about Columbia's business analytics program, but some business analytics programs are less technical and more about understanding the basics - you get a little business and a little statistics/CS, but not enough of the latter to be a full data scientist unless you do a lot of additional work. So I'd look into the curriculum and ask about post-graduation placement at the program to understand what kinds of roles people do afterwards.

Well, I think it depends on what you want to do post-graduation and how bored, exactly, you think you'd be in a small town. I did my PhD in a very large city and it was a great experience; I wouldn't trade it for the world. I did my postdoctoral fellowship for one year in a small college town (bigger than Ames, and within 3-4 hours' driving distance of several large cities), and while it was OK for a short period and there were some very charming things about living in a small college town, I remember thinking I was glad I didn't do a PhD in a small town like that. It was also one reason I exited academia - I knew I didn't want to end up teaching in a small college town indefinitely. However, there are some small college towns - like Ann Arbor and Ithaca - that I've heard offer amazing experiences. Not everyone loves urban life, and small towns are much less expensive. But most importantly, if academia is your aim, a higher-ranked program is usually better for placement. In statistics it may not matter as much - there's high demand for statistics PhDs, and Ohio State's program is still very good. But it still has an effect! Have you visited either? I would strongly encourage visiting if you can, and see if you can picture yourself living there.