Seeking Advice: UNC Biostat Phd vs. Colorado Biostat Phd vs. Michigan Biostat M.S. (all funded)

[ajw]

Hi all,

I have received fully funded (and relatively comparable in $$$) admission offers to the UNC Biostatistics PhD program, Colorado Biostatistics PhD program, and University of Michigan M.S. program. I'm having a tough time discerning differences between the programs and would appreciate comments on the strengths, weaknesses, and possible reasons to favor each program. I'm currently having a hard time deciding between the three, but I will choose to attend one of the listed programs.

I don't necessarily have a particular research interest, but I think my end goal is to get an industry job focused more in data science. This might play into picking PhD vs. masters or vice versa, but I'm not sure.

I'm definitely looking for a collaborative environment, a good place to live, and a school that has strong job placement outcomes (isn't that the goal of this anyway?). From what I know, UNC and Michigan are ranked 4 & 5 behind Harvard/Hopkins/Washington so they're definitely more well-regarded in the field. Colorado is most intriguing due to the location in the Denver area with mountains close-by and their laidback community. I've had a chance to visit both UNC and Colorado, but my campus visit to UM was cancelled due to the coronavirus.

I appreciate any insight that can be given on the three programs to help me with my decision!

[bayessays]

If you were interested in an academic job as a tenure track professor, Denver probably would not be the place to go (although their chair is pretty well known, I'm not sure they have other faculty in the same league as Michigan and UNC).  In this case I'd probably say Michigan vs UNC depends on what kind of weather you like, but if you're interested in cutting edge genetics research (the type where you're publishing papers in Nature), then Michigan is the place to go.

I'd ask yourself how sure you are of your career goals and interests. You will have more academic options out of Michigan or UNC, but they won't necessarily help you get a data science job.  Especially if you like the Colorado area, there is a big tech scene there so it would be easy to stay in the area and not move again after 5 years.  At Michigan and UNC, you will have to take extremely theoretical courses that will not help you at all in analyzing data.  If you go to Colorado, the extra time you're not spending on that could be used to learn Python and work on collaborative projects that will help you get jobs after.  Most professors would probably tell you to go to UNC or Michigan to give you the most options, but you only live once and 5-6 years in the mountains sounds great if it will allow you to accomplish your goals.

[clairedare]

Michigan is a great program, but I would personally not recommend it unless you are super interested in genetics. All their funding + energy is devoted to genetics. And their PhD qualifiers are very hard as well, so I’ve heard. Reapplying to PhD from the MS is an added stressor IMHO. 
You may want to consider average graduation time as well. UNC’s is on the higher side, about 5.5-6 yrs, Mich is about 4-5 years after the masters. I’m not sure about Denver, but I would hazard a guess that it’s easier to graduate from there than the other two.

Edited March 20, 2020 by clairedare

[rfan]

To the posters above, it seems like the person's admission was to Michigan's MS in biostats, not its PhD.

In that case, North Carolina seems like a pretty clear choice. I don't go to there, but I am in the Triangle area and there are many good paying data science jobs, partially due to the presence of Duke, UNC, and NC State in the area. I believe also that UNC is supposed to have some people working on ML types of problems (Kosorok is an example of this). A friend of mine is in the program and she says there has been a strong push into data science type of coursework recently, if that is of interest.

And for what its worth, North Carolina is a really nice place to live in my opinion. A bit of every season, mountains in the west and the beach to the east.

[rfan]

To add to what I said above, I will say this about @bayessays comments above....

I originally worked in essentially data science (it wasn't really called that back then) with a masters in statistics. Most of the work is data science isn't far out of the reach of someone with a masters. The orientation is a bit different though, as being able to deploy production level code is often a more valuable skill than knowing some theoretical properties of a model. With that being said, moving up the ladder without a PhD can be somewhat hard, even if the tasks are still doable with a masters. Employers like seeing the PhD. It is why I went back for one, and I have zero regrets about it. It is especially true in any health related work. I am a data scientist in the healthcare industry, and it is quite hard to reach senior level positions without a PhD unless the work group sways more to software engineering (check out the data science team at RTI international as an example of this). For example, Duke has the Duke Clinical Research Institute, and they hire people for essentially data science roles, but it is challenging to do much without a PhD.  

[likewater]

It should be noted that Michigan qual's have been changed within the last year; the material is now on the 600-level required courses (i.e. the Master's courses) at the level of Casella-Berger, not the 800 levels. Theoretically this should make them easier. By contrast, UNC qual's have a bit of a reputation of being difficult and test the more advanced inference courses.

Michigan has a pretty big data science focus on all levels of the school and recently introduced a health data science concentration for the MS/PhD in biostat. However, for data science jobs I think Ann Arbor as a location probably pales in comparison to the Research Triangle and Colorado. Really I think it depends on whether or not you want a Masters vs. PhD; I think if your career goals do not absolutely necessitate a PhD, Michigan would be the best choice because of the opportunity cost and the ability to move on to the PhD program (although this may not be guaranteed) if you change your mind later. Otherwise I think it makes sense to go to the program in the location where you'd want to work in the future.

[rfan]

5 hours ago, likewater said:

It should be noted that Michigan qual's have been changed within the last year; the material is now on the 600-level required courses (i.e. the Master's courses) at the level of Casella-Berger, not the 800 levels. Theoretically this should make them easier. By contrast, UNC qual's have a bit of a reputation of being difficult and test the more advanced inference courses.

Michigan has a pretty big data science focus on all levels of the school and recently introduced a health data science concentration for the MS/PhD in biostat. However, for data science jobs I think Ann Arbor as a location probably pales in comparison to the Research Triangle and Colorado. Really I think it depends on whether or not you want a Masters vs. PhD; I think if your career goals do not absolutely necessitate a PhD, Michigan would be the best choice because of the opportunity cost and the ability to move on to the PhD program (although this may not be guaranteed) if you change your mind later. Otherwise I think it makes sense to go to the program in the location where you'd want to work in the future.

To add on to this, I think it is likely that UNC and Colorado would allow you to master out if you decide you do not want to continue on to the PhD (can anyone with more knowledge of these programs confirm this?). So if you prefer think of either of these schools similarly to Michigan, I would say those might be better offers because you are guaranteed the PhD is you decide you want it but you don't have to worry about potentially applying for PhD programs again in a year in case it falls through at Michigan.

I would say UNC and Michigan seem relatively comparable in terms of biostatistics programs (or really whole university in general). I would say UNC is a bit better rounded but Michigan is really great at genetics if that is what you like (UNC is no slouch but Michigan would be the best genetics outside of Washington). In general, I think these two schools fall in the 3-5 range for biostat departments with John Hopkins behind the top two (Harvard and Washington), but obviously personal preference comes into play here.

[StatsG0d]

I don't think jobs around where you work are relevant. Companies recruit PhDs nationwide, so being in Michigan / NC is not going to constrain you.

I'll echo the others and say that the choice of UNC vs Michigan really boils down to whether you want to do genetics or not. I'd contend that Michigan is the best in the world at genetics. UNC offers everything, so you could do genetics there as well, but UNC is not as focused as Michigan.

[bayessays]

To clarify, I mostly meant that the location is relevant if you have a preference for living somewhere long-term and setting down roots.  Also if you're working with collaborators at your university, I know people who get jobs continuing working with those people after finishing the PhD.  You can certainly move anywhere after your PhD, but there are a few advantages thinking about location.