fraulein_x9

I'm pretty undecided, but with a bias towards theoretical work. In a theoretical biostat department, are the applications still paramount?

What goes into an advisor's reputation? Can I get a good idea by looking at their h-score on Google Scholar? If I do theoretical work, but my advisor is well-known for his/her applied work, would their reputation still carry over when it's time to look for jobs?

Which of those two would be better? UNC Bio is ranked much higher, but is that only useful for biostat positions? UNC is one of the more theoretical biostat departments. Is the UFL department going downhill? It used to have a pretty high reputation.

No, actually top 30-50 would be fine. I just don't want to be hired at a program without an established stat department. Does that mean that lots of tenure-track hirings are based on potential, since most people only publish 2-3 papers by the time they defend? What if your advisor is only moderately well-known, but your papers are as good as someone from a top 5 school? Would advisor's reputation matter? Do faculty selection committees evaluate how consistent your publishing topics are? Can you publish one paper in time series and another in empirical processes and it will seem like a positive? Or will it seem like you are not too organized?

If I want to be hired tenure-track at a top 30 stat/biostat, would I have to get a PhD from a top 10-15 stat/biostat program?

Does PhD program matter for an academic position? Do only your publications matter? What is the benefit of a higher-ranked program? Can one be hired for a good position from any of (UFL, Ohio State, UNC Bio)?