Hi, I looked into Columbia's MPH programs, which are unfortunately not part-time friendly, and pretty much impossible to do if you have a 9-5 job. I don't know about NYU's Epi program, but what I like about Hunter's is that they combine both Epi and Biostat in one program, and you can choose which one you want to focus on, but still study both. When compared to Columbia, Hunter's faculty also seem much more committed. I've taken some classes at Columbia's SPH and always felt that nobody really cared much for me being there. From talking with faculty at Hunter, I got the impression that they are all putting a lot of work into building the new School of Urban Public Health, and really want to work for its reputation. For example, one professor I spoke to seriously wants to work with students to help them get their master's projects published. At a place at Columbia, my impression is that they are quite content with the reputation the school already has, and some faculty I know are just not that committed to their students. I recently took a class there taught by a PhD student who just didn't know very well how to teach - is this the quality one gets for $4K per class? All in all, I don't have any concerns about the quality of the Hunter program, and as such, I'm very unwilling to pay much much more for NYU or Columbia - I'm just not convinced they're worth the money. I'm quite new to the field, so this is my reasoning. If you're already committed to a specific issue or there is a research area you want to focus on, choosing another school for their specific faculty or resources may certainly make a lot more sense.
