Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'decision-making'.
Hi! I have received admissions to a few MS in Biostat programs, and I narrowed down to UNC and Duke. I am an international student and hope to find a job in the bioindustry in the US after graduation, and I currently have almost no intention of pursuing a PhD in Biostat. In college, I majored in biomed and took an interdisciplinary program on Biostat, which covered the math prerequisites and also Intro to Stat, Intermediate Stat, and some programming courses in R and SAS. The pros and cons of the 2 programs for me are as follows: UNC Pro - Better program reputation - Solid training - Leaves the door open for PhD opportunities - Chapel Hill is a safer area Con - Courses are very rigorous, not sure if a non-stats background like me can handle - Funding is limited so RA positions are competitive, some people end up as volunteers - Most students continue to a PhD degree so not much assistance in finding a job - Unsure of employment rate for non-PhD pursuing people Duke (w/ 2.5k scholarship) Pro - Better school reputation - Many faculties to do paid RA for master's project - Career coaching sessions, heard that employment rate for non-PhD pursuing was nearly 100% - More alumni connection in the industry Con - Unsure of course quality - The discrimination incident What concerns me most about UNC is the course load, I'm afraid I can handle it. Surely, going to Duke would cause less academic pressure, but I still hope to learn useful things to prepare me well for my future career. I wonder whether the program reputation will affect landing a job significantly? Please give me some advice, I'm currently torn between the two, and Duke wants us to reply earlier. I appreciate any reply!
First, I'm grateful for many peoples' genuine effort to support one another through this forum. I have been encouraged to know that I am not alone in this process. I feel absolutely honored to having received a couple of offers (which was totally not expected.) I am in a place where I need to make some important and difficult decisions here. I'd greatly appreciate your responses. Especially, I'd appreciate it if you could also share how certain/uncertain you are with the information, so that I can weigh on your information accordingly. Thanks again. Reputation of the program: I know that having a super star PI would definitely give me UPs for my future in all I do. But what about the reputation of the program itself? How is the reputation of the program perceived after graduation when getting jobs in medical/academic settings? Aside from obvious names such as Harvard/Yale/UCLA, I'm wondering how others are perceived. I'm thinking about the schools that may be listed 60-70 in US NEWS clinical psych rank. (The methodology that was used in this ranking system is obviously not the most scientific but it seems like it gives a general ranking of the program in the US) R1, R2, R3: I'm curious to hear about peoples' perspectives (especially the ones who have been in the field after grad school) on R1,R2,R3 system of the school. In my brief research, this system meant more back in the days. Would R1 recognition give one more advantage in either academic or medical settings? Clinical vs. Scientist-Pracitioner: I am planning on pursuing research/clinical work (and also teach on the side) in medical school or children's hospitals affiliated with universities upon graduation. I'm aware that a lot has to do with my own productivity during the program. But I wondered if attending Clinical Science modality program (rather than Scientist-Pracitioner model) would give me more advantage. Academy of Psychological Clinical Science: Lastly, GENERALLY, among clinical science programs, would the the ones that are part of Academy of Psychological Clinical Science, be more prestigious than the ones who are not part of the program? Thank you for your time and your support!
So as I understand it, PhD programs in clinical psychology are ideal for students interested in both research and clinical training. I am wondering if current students (or anyone really) can comment on the best way to achieve this balance in practice during the PhD? Also what is the role of the supervisor in helping the student with this balance? Is it a bad thing to have a supervisor who is more on the scientist side of the scientist-practitioner model???