Top 3 Biostatistics vs top 10 Statistics Ph.D.

[statcan]

Hi everyone,

I am really fortunate and have received two offers so far. One from UW Biostatistics, and the other from CMU Statistics. Even if I receive no other offers, I'll have a really hard time deciding on a program. 

I'm not exactly sure what I'd like to do for research, but I've been generally interested in high-dimensional statistics, statistical computing, nonparametrics, statistical genetics, causal inference, epidemiology, and a few other rather niche areas.

My ultimate goal would be to obtain a faculty position, but if that market tightens by the time I graduate, I'd also be very happy to work in industry. Also, I don't think this will be an issue in either department, but I really want to be in a friendly environment that is more collaborative than competitive. 

I know that UW Biostatistics ranks ahead of CMU and has a great track record of placing graduates in academia. However, I feel like CMU is a slightly better (i.e. near-perfect) research fit. I hope to visit both campuses but I just thought I'd seek out advice from you knowledgeable folk first.

[bayessays]

They're both fantastic departments and you can't go wrong. In terms of competitiveness, I've heard UW biostat has two sets of pretty grueling qualifying exams, whereas I don't think CMU does but you should learn more about that from actual students. I think your decision should come down to research fit, whether you would like the biomedical research environment of a biostat department, and where you would like to live. 

[statcan]

1 hour ago, bayessays said:

They're both fantastic departments and you can't go wrong. In terms of competitiveness, I've heard UW biostat has two sets of pretty grueling qualifying exams, whereas I don't think CMU does but you should learn more about that from actual students. I think your decision should come down to research fit, whether you would like the biomedical research environment of a biostat department, and where you would like to live. 

I'm fine with having to write tough qualifying exams as long as their purpose is to make the students stronger, rather than weed people out.

[realllllJulia]

1 hour ago, bayessays said:

I think your decision should come down to research fit, whether you would like the biomedical research environment of a biostat department, and where you would like to live. 

I second it.

I think the possible mentors, as well as the culture (or atmosphere) of their labs, is really important when making your decision. To get an idea about his kind of things, I strongly recommend to visit both programs and talk with faculty and students there.

[OptimisticCynic]

Congratulations on these two acceptances. Both are very good programs.

If you want to attain a faculty position, then it is probably in your best interest to go to the highest ranked program that you can get into. Program prestige can be more important than research or advisor when hunting for faculty position. For that reason, UW might be the better option.

Also, UW is doing exceptionally strong research in "high-dimensional statistics, statistical computing, nonparametrics, statistical genetics, causal inference, epidemiology," etc. (a rather broad range of interests I might add). So is CMU of course, but don't write UW off because you don't think it fits your research interests.

Edited February 5, 2018 by OptimisticCynic

[abstract_art]

I think there might've been a topic or two in the past asking this question, so it might be worth looking back through the forum for some older perspectives. I was in a similar situation last year and, for me, visiting the programs, talking to current students/professors, and interacting with other accepted students who are going to be your future cohort were the most important parts of the decision process. UW and CMU are both top schools that have good placement records, with professors working in all of your areas of interest, so you really can't go wrong choosing either.

[bayessays]

Agreed with marmle. The idea that one of these programs is obviously more prestigious than the other seems crazy to me.  Going to UW because it's ranked higher when it's not even the same type of program doesn't make sense; CMU is at least as prestigious of a program.  

[phdhopeful1995]

Not really related to the thread. But how do you guys know which schools are in the top10 ? Do you use the US News Ranking?

Edited February 5, 2018 by phdhopeful1995

[Jiageng]

8 minutes ago, phdhopeful1995 said:

Not really related to the thread. But how do you guys know which schools are in the top10 ? Do you use the US News Ranking?

US News puts stats and biostats in the same ranking so you have to either click the university's name or hover over the link to see whether it's stats or biostats. In this case, UW ranks 3rd in biostats and 7th in stats. 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Jiageng
typo

[statcan]

9 hours ago, OptimisticCynic said:

If you want to attain a faculty position, then it is probably in your best interest to go to the highest ranked program that you can get into. Program prestige can be more important than research or advisor when hunting for faculty position. For that reason, UW might be the better option.

This is what I was afraid of. I've heard the opposing opinion from my mentors though. They say prestige matters somewhat, but research output (and to a lesser extent, one's adviser) trumps all when they consider who to hire. 

[bayessays]

59 minutes ago, statcan said:

This is what I was afraid of. I've heard the opposing opinion from my mentors though. They say prestige matters somewhat, but research output (and to a lesser extent, one's adviser) trumps all when they consider who to hire. 

Your advisor and your research are what matters.  Again, I think your perception of UW biostat as a more prestigious program is just wrong - if anything, CMU is a more highly regarded program. If you go work with Larry Wasserman at CMU, you will end up better off than some no-name prof at UW. If you work with Daniela Witten at UW, you'll end up better than working with some no-name CMU prof.

You sound like you want to go to CMU - if you think it is a better fit but turned them down because of "prestige", you would be making an incredibly uninformed and misguided decision. 

[Gauss2017]

@statcan what is your background besides the two admissions?

[statcan]

27 minutes ago, bayessays said:

Your advisor and your research are what matters.  Again, I think your perception of UW biostat as a more prestigious program is just wrong - if anything, CMU is a more highly regarded program. If you go work with Larry Wasserman at CMU, you will end up better off than some no-name prof at UW. If you work with Daniela Witten at UW, you'll end up better than working with some no-name CMU prof.

You sound like you want to go to CMU - if you think it is a better fit but turned them down because of "prestige", you would be making an incredibly uninformed and misguided decision. 

I appreciate your honesty. Truly, they are both great research fits and I think they're both awesome programs. I just wanted to hear the grad cafe's opinion on the whole thing.

[bayessays]

Something that I don't hear talked about much here is the environment of the two types of departments. At UW, you'll be in a school of public health, and most of your fellow students will care about making an impact to genetics/public health in addition to statistics and professors will be very involved in large biomedical research collaborations. At CMU, more students will care about math, computer science, and a wider range of research - a much more liberal arts environment. 

[rand93]

The idea of UW biostat being a more prestigious program than CMU is just wrong. First, UW is a biostat program, which may restrict you from faculty positions at some stat department. Second, CMU is just as well-recognized as UW, if not any better. I don't think the CMU name will eliminate the chances of getting faculty position at ANY university. It all comes down to research interest. I think given your interest, CMU seems a better fit. Plus, CMU is one of the strongest in machine learning/comp bio, which are related to your research interest, if you ever consider going into these areas. 

[Stat Assistant Professor]

One thing to consider is that if you become especially interested in biostatistics/public health applications, you can always complete a postdoc in a Biostatistics Department. My PhD will be in (theoretical) statistics, but I have applied to several biostatistics postdocs. These postdocs are still in my general area of research (high-dimensional statistics), but with a particular focus on developing methods for problems like analysis of electronic health records (EHR), missing data, and causal inference. And even then, I still have the opportunity to collaborate with faculty members on theoretical foundations of these methods (mostly in the schools' Statistics/Math departments), while learning more about the methodology in Biostats.

[statscan9]

@statcan Coincidence that I live about an hour from you (go to Western) and have also been accepted into the Stats PhD at CMU. I can't really help you with your question because I'm grappling with a similar problem -- whether I choose CMU for the prestige of their stats department or McGill, which is less prestigious but has a prof who really wants to supervise me and is doing research in EXACTLY what I want. From asking other grad students on this forum and elsewhere (i.e. r/GradSchool), I've gotten the impression that having research that really fits your interests is more important than the prestige as decided by US News. Congrats on the acceptances, good luck with whatever decision you make, and know that I commiserate with you!

Edited February 6, 2018 by statscan9

[Bayesian1701]

Personally I would go for fit.  Pick the department that is best for you both research wise and in general.  I don’t think you could go wrong either way.  I am kinda in the same boat with UT/A&M so it definitely is difficult to choose between multiple great programs.  I might end up rolling a die or something.  If I don’t like the result then I will then know I really liked  the other program better.  

[SheldonCopper]

Based on your research interest, I think CMU is a better fit for you. They have more faculties working on high dimensional statistics, nonparametrics and statistical computing(I think they are relatively less strong in Causal inference and Statistical genetics compared to UW). Among them, you can find an advisor whom fits your work style. Such practical consideration would be much more important factor at this point. CMU also has a nice epidemiology lab. I double the argument that reputation doesn’t matter much at the level of CMU and UW in statistics. Anyway, both programs are fantastic and congratulations again! 

Edited February 7, 2018 by SheldonCopper

[statcan]

@statscan9 Congratulations on your offers! Have you applied for a Masters or Ph.D. at McGill? Best of luck with your decision, and if you end up at McGill, enjoy the lovely Montreal.

[a563]

On 2/5/2018 at 8:09 AM, rand93 said:

 First, UW is a biostat program, which may restrict you from faculty positions at some stat department. 

well this is entirely false

[bayessays]

6 minutes ago, a563 said:

well this is entirely false

I mostly agree with you but think there is a hint of truth. It is harder to move from a biostat PhD to a stat faculty position than vice versa.  Someone who works with a top theoretical faculty member in a biostat department won't have much trouble moving to a stat department, but the average biostat graduate would. 

[statscan9]

@statcan Thanks! It's a masters with the option to "fast-track" into the PhD after one year, which would likely be my strategy. Definitely the idea of living in Montreal vs. Pittsburgh is something I'm heavily considering, as while Pittsburgh looks quite nice Montreal is one of my favourite cities.

[StatsG0d]

I don't think it's wise to choose CMU just because it's statistics and UW's is biostatistics. I definitely have seen firsthand this "arrogance" of being in a statistics department. In my opinion, it's what you research in rather than where you do your research.

While the conventional wisdom is that a statistician can do a biostatistican's job but not the other way around, I would say that depends on what you do / where you do it. If you're going to say, Harvard Biostats (a great applied program), then yes--that is probably true. But Washington is one of two biostatistics programs that teach measure theory in the country (that I know of--the other being UNC). So I definitely think that this conventional wisdom is not valid, or at least it does not apply in this case since Washington does train its students in hardcore probability and statistical theory.

Given your research interests (very biostat / medical themed), it seems obvious to me that you should choose Washington. If you really are torn between the two, choose whichever location would make you happier (again, I feel Washington gets the edge here). At the end of the day, people in biostats will tell you to go to biostats and people in stats will tell you to go to stats. As a final note, I definitely think biostatistics professors make (much) more than their statistics counterparts.

[bayessays]

But biostat professors also tend to have 12 rather than 9 month contracts and have to raise almost their entire salary through external grants.  Not a fair comparison, and not true at every school that biostat professors make more.