Stat MA/MS vs. MPH in Biostat/Epi

[dag]

Hello,

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts about this. If I am interested in the quantitative fields of public health (biostat/epi) but don't want to be pigeonholed within public health, does it make more sense to get a masters in statistics?

[statsguy]

Hello,

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts about this. If I am interested in the quantitative fields of public health (biostat/epi) but don't want to be pigeonholed within public health, does it make more sense to get a masters in statistics?

I'd go with a PhD in Biostatistics. It's much easier to get a job in any branch of Biostats with a PhD, and the pay is much higher. Also, if you want to advance up the ranks, a PhD is absolutely necessary.

[dag]

I'd go with a PhD in Biostatistics. It's much easier to get a job in any branch of Biostats with a PhD, and the pay is much higher. Also, if you want to advance up the ranks, a PhD is absolutely necessary.

Statsguy,

Thanks for your input. So you're a phd in straight statistics. Do you suggest a phd in biostatistics over a phd in straight statistics because I said I was interested in public health? Would a phd in straight statistics allow for more flexibility in your opinion? And also, what value do you see in a terminal masters in statistics as a professional degree--if any?

Thanks for your thoughts,

dag

[statsguy]

Statsguy,

Thanks for your input. So you're a phd in straight statistics. Do you suggest a phd in biostatistics over a phd in straight statistics because I said I was interested in public health? Would a phd in straight statistics allow for more flexibility in your opinion? And also, what value do you see in a terminal masters in statistics as a professional degree--if any?

Thanks for your thoughts,

dag

A terminal masters will not get you very far in most Biostats jobs, especially in settings such as big pharma. You may be able to get a decent entry level position, but there is a very low ceiling when it comes to advancement if you don't have a PhD. A friend of mine got a job in pharma with an MS in Stats, and while his pay is pretty good (I think around ~60k), he will pretty much be stuck being a SAS programmer forever and is considering going back for his PhD or maybe an MBA. Most PhDs will start around 80-100k and have unlimited potential for advancement. For finance/insurance jobs, having an MS is sufficient.

I've heard pretty good cases for getting a PhD in Statistics vs. a PhD in Biostatistics. If you are absolutely sure you want to stay in the public health/biostats realm for your entire career, then a PhD in Biotatistics is probably slightly more advantageous than the PhD in Statistics. However, when it comes to other more industrial engineering/finance type jobs, a PhD in Statistics is probably more favorable. It's also pretty easy to get Biostats jobs with a PhD in Statistics. Several former students in our department have gone on to work in big pharma/public health with a PhD in Statistics. So to answer your question: yes, the PhD in Statistics is generally a little more flexible.

Edit: As a warning, the curriculum for the PhD in Statistics is usually much more difficult and goes into a much deeper level of Mathematics than the Biostats PhD cirriculum, so keep that in mind if you don't have a strong background in Math (ie Real Analysis, Advanced Linear Algebra, Measure Theory etc...)

Edited May 11, 2010 by statsguy