[Epidemiology PhD Decisions]

Did you decide yet? Go to EMORY!

So I have less than 2 weeks to decide where to go for my PhD in Epidemiology. I have it whittled down to Emory, UNC, and UCLA. Just to give you some background, I received my MPH in infectious disease epidemiology and have been working at the government-level doing HIV prevention research (focusing on the social, behavioral, and clinical epidemiology of HIV/AIDS) for the past 3 years. I've described the pros/cons of each of the programs below. Any advice (on the decisions process) or insight (into the individual programs) from current or prospective students would be greatly appreciated.

Emory:

A big advantage of the program is that all admitted students are fully funded (tuition and stipend) for 4 yrs., which also makes for a smaller program. Students are required to complete 2 research assistantships (aside from their dissertation research) with 2 different faculty, and a teaching assistantship as part of the funding requirements. I've been assigned to a faculty advisor whose research interests are closely aligned to mine. He seems really great and highly invested in the success of his students (but he is also very busy given the large number of projects he’s involved in). Emory has a strong epidemiologic methods program, its strengths in quantitative epi-methods. The faculty overall seem pretty accessible and they help to foster a collaborative and supportive environment. Also, the students seem to be a close-knit group willing to help one another out. One of the major disadvantages of the program is its lack of infectious disease (ID) faculty (however, students often collaborate and work with people at the CDC since it is next door to Emory). I’m not too familiar with Atlanta, but the cost of living is cheaper when compared to Los Angeles, where I currently live.

UNC:

Unfortunately, I wasn’t guaranteed any funding at UNC. Given the downturn in the economy and the school’s reliance on state funding, research assistantships are harder to come by (especially if you’re interested in infectious diseases, due to the large number of students focused in that area). Having said that, all of the current students I talked to mentioned that most, if not all incoming students find some source of funding by their first semester there (but still scary considering I’d have to pay out-of-state tuition if the department isn’t able to help out). UNC has one of the strongest epidemiologic methods program in the country and has a ton of ID faculty doing HIV research. I was assigned a faculty advisor who seems to be very helpful/friendly and has similar research interests (her focus is on HIV prevention efforts internationally, whereas my current and past work has focused on domestic HIV efforts). Like Emory, the faculty seems highly accessible and invested in their students’ well-being. The students seem to work well together in a non-competitive way, due to the program’s emphasis on group work/collaboration. One of the unique things about the program is that it’s geared towards PhD students (few masters-terminal students are accepted into the program; PhD/MSPH-PhD students comprise the majority of people in the program). UNC is also one of the bigger epidemiology programs with ~20 PhD students enrolled each year. All of the students I’ve talked to say they love the program and their experiences there. I’m not familiar at all with the Chapel Hill area, but it seems like your typical quaint, small college town with more of an undergraduate vibe to it (also cost of living there is cheaper).

UCLA:

Like UNC, funding at UCLA is hard to come by due to California’s budget problems. Fortunately, I was able to acquire a modest departmental fellowship for my first year and a partial GSR position (both combined will cover my tuition). Also, it’s likely that I can keep my current job (at a part-time level) to help supplement my income. UCLA seems to also have a strong Epi training program emphasizing theoretical methods. My would-be faculty advisor at UCLA has similar research interests (in behavioral epidemiology of HIV and a good mix of domestic and international work) and seems to be a good overall fit. I plan on going to the upcoming open house where I’ll get more information about the program and the atmosphere amongst students and faculty. The advantage going to UCLA is that it wouldn’t be a difficult transition since I already live in the area and have family and friends in Los Angeles. Although I would likely be a poor student again given how expensive it is to live in the area.

I apologize for the long post, and I don’t want to come off as if I’m complaining about this process. I’m grateful to have the opportunity to choose between three great schools and really don’t think I can make a “bad” decision. Nonetheless, it’s still stressful! I’d greatly appreciate any advise/comments. Thanks for listening and the best of luck with your decisions!

[PhD epidemiology Hopkins]

I agree with you epidemic, I thought admission into a PhD program somewhat meant automatic funding...definitely not the case! By the way, where did you get that information on "Foreigners can only be hired (a) as GSRs on federal grants, or (b on pharma studies." I'm international too

"Foreigners can only be hired (a) as GSRs on federal grants, or (b on pharma studies.The difficulty is not because you are not a competitive candidate but because NIH is funding far fewer grants than before and when they do so they cut at least 20% from the proposed budget. In the old days (not that long ago) people had more money. Also, if you had a green card you would easily get into a training grant which would pay your tuition fees and a stipend."

Now I am wishing I had a green card.Whatever that is.

I started the whole application process thinking PhD meant automatic funding.....

Has funding become difficult for US citizens also? Or is it just for international students?