Columbia vs. Michigan vs. Minnesota Biostatistics Masters

[updog99]

I'm currently debating between Columbia,  Michigan, and Minnesota's Biostatistics Masters program, and was wondering if anyone else is in the same boat. 

In terms of financial costs, both Columbia and Michigan's programs cost about the same amount for me (an arm and a leg since no funding was provided and I'm out of state, so I will have to take out loans). Both programs have also updated their curriculum within the last few years to incorporate more applied data science courses, which I'm excited about. Minnesota's program on the other hand is ranked higher and their tuition and cost of living is much cheaper compared to Columbia and Michigan. However, if it were to come down to location, I would much rather prefer to live in NY than Michigan or Minnesota. 

Does anyone have any insight in terms of how easy/difficult it would be to secure a TA/GSR position at any of these institutions? Or how these programs are viewed in industry?

Edited March 6, 2019 by updog99

[Stat Assistant Professor]

I would go with the cheapest option which sounds like UMinnesota. Minneapolis is not a bad place to live, and you only need to be there for two years if you find you don't really care for it. Living in NYC is really expensive, and it doesn't seem like UMN grads are at any disadvantage getting jobs outside of the greater Minneapolis region (that might be an issue if it was a no-name MS program but UMN is quite well-regarded for its biostat program).