Please Advise: Stanford vs Berkeley

[statistics]

Hello All.

I was fortunate to be admitted to both Stanford University MS in Statistics and UC Berkeley MA in Statistics. I am having a difficulty deciding which program to attend. 

I intend to pursue a phd in statistics or computer science to do machine learning research. I did not apply to doctorate programs this year because I did not believe I was competitive enough. As a result I would like to attend a program that will not only provide me with rigorous coursework but also research opportunities to prepare me for phd. Here is my reasoning so far; I would be very grateful for any advice. Thanks !

Berkeley MA:

• Pros:
  • I am able to pursue a formal thesis if I am able to find an advisor and committee on my own
  • I am able to substitute the MA coursework for much of the phd sequence
• Cons:
  • Coursework otherwise is very limited and I would not be able to explore my interests through coursework almost at all
  • Short program - 3 semesters at most
  • I am unsure how doable taking phd sequence whilst working on a thesis is
  • Potentially problematic "MA" title when applying to phd

Stanford MS:

• Pros:
  • Coursework is very rigorous and I would be able to not only take phd sequence but also many depth and breadth courses to explore my interests; many more courses than Berkeley
  • Moderate length program - 6 quarters at most
• Cons:
  • Independent research course/opportunities are available but do not guarantee a paper - unlike Berkeley thesis option

 

Both seem like great options and I am beyond grateful for having these opportunities. I understand that both rigorous coursework and research potential are important in phd applications. Although at both unis I would be able to take the phd sequence, I seems to be in a dilemma: at UCB I have a potential formal thesis but no supplementary coursework - and at Stanford I have fantastic coursework options but uncertain research opportunity with amorphous form it could take, i.e. not a formal opportunity.

 

I would love any advice ! Thanks 

 

Edit: prestige is not a factor for me unless placements would be very different from one over the other because of it

Edited March 16, 2021 by statistics
clarification

[bayessays]

I think the main benefit from research opportunities comes from forming some sort of relationship with the advisor who can then write you a good letter of recommendation.  I wouldn't put much weight into the paper itself or the formality of the thesis -- will Stanford allow you to do research that will allow you to get such a letter?  I am sure Berkeley's program is fine and it's a great department, but from what you are saying it does sound like you'll get to learn a lot more at Stanford with the courses.  I'd also obviously consider the costs of the two programs.

[statistics]

53 minutes ago, bayessays said:

I think the main benefit from research opportunities comes from forming some sort of relationship with the advisor who can then write you a good letter of recommendation.  I wouldn't put much weight into the paper itself or the formality of the thesis -- will Stanford allow you to do research that will allow you to get such a letter?  I am sure Berkeley's program is fine and it's a great department, but from what you are saying it does sound like you'll get to learn a lot more at Stanford with the courses.  I'd also obviously consider the costs of the two programs.

Thanks for your insight. I see, that does make Stanford seem like a better option then.

Although the reason I valued writing a formal paper is for the computer science phd application setting. It seems that applicants have numerous first author papers written in top conferences. Surely these are not all from formal opportunities/thesis, but I worry that if I were to attend Stanford and research under an advisor but not publish/finish a formal paper then that would make me less competitive - even though I would have a recommendation letter from them. Perhaps this is unproductive overthinking however ...

Would appreciate any insight !

[bayessays]

Ah yes, I am not sure what the case for computer science PhDs would be and if that would affect your decision - meaningful publications before the PhD are pretty rare for statistics students (although I have seen some more lately), but it still seems to be far from necessary even for the top programs.

[MLE]

Congrats on your options! Very exciting!

I seriously doubt anyone will care if your degree is an MS or an MA. If you are concerned about taking on PhD coursework while writing a thesis at Berkeley, I don't imagine that the experience will be different balancing PhD coursework while doing research at Stanford. In both locations it might be challenging as a masters student to find faculty willing to take you on; current or graduated students would be able to tell you more, or you could try reaching out to faculty you are interested in. I imagine it's a bit easier to get involved in research at Stanford, and while the thesis at Berkeley does have a concrete form, I wouldn't underestimate the hurdle of finding an advisor. Also, I think I saw someone on this board did a Berkeley masters with the intention of doing a PhD, not sure if they still hang around here.

At Berkeley, many masters students do the third semester and take on additional coursework, usually electives and PhD level courses. Poking through the course catalogs at both Berkeley and Stanford, I honestly don't see too big of a difference between course offerings at both departments, topically speaking. Stanford will always have more courses/topics/titles since it's on the quarter system, so some things that are two quarter courses at Stanford might be merged into one long semester course at Berkeley. Honestly it's a bit easier to learn a bit about everything on the quarter system since everything goes fast! I think Berkeley's offerings might be a bit obscured since many special topics courses don't have dedicated course numbers, or are in the school of public health/CS/Econ without cross-listing in the stat department, whereas Stanford's offerings are mostly labeled as statistics. Basically, you might have to work a bit harder to find the course you're looking for at Berkeley since the labels are bad.

Another point to consider is that the connection between Berkeley Stat and EECS is very strong, many faculty members have joint appointments. These connections could possibly make it easier to pivot from Berkeley Stats to Berkeley EECS for a PhD if you have the right advisor. Possibly- I don't actually know of anyone doing this for EECS (only biostat), but it seems feasible. There could totally be these connections at Stanford too, but it's a bit harder to tell since they don't have a public alumni page for masters students. For both places it seems uncommon for masters students to continue to the PhD. More common at Stanford, but it looks like these are exclusively Stanford undergrads who obtained a concurrent or co-terminal masters degree.

Edited March 16, 2021 by MLE

[DanielWarlock]

The answer would be Stanford for me by a very long mile. The program is very elite, much more so than Berkeley's program in my opinion. The fact that you are from the Stanford program would be already impressive on your PhD application--not so much for Berkeley MA. The reason? Firstly, Berkeley MA admission is much less competitive. Simply getting into Stanford MS indicates you are elite undergrad, a class above anyone else from a master program. The distinction to me is very clear.

Second, Berkeley's master course is watered down from their regular PhD version. Sure, you can substitute for PhD equivalents on your own initiative but if you apply elsewhere people may just assume that you have less rigorous coursework.

To put it plainly, my first impression would be Stanford MS students are of a higher calibre. 

You do not need to worry about no "formal thesis" at Stanford. The thesis formality is simply putting together a document that, at master level at least, no one will care. It could be of very high calibre or just some reading notes, but the thesis itself as a document does not matter either way. The only way your master research factors into phd admission is (i) having a strong recommendation from renown profs who specifically comment on the quality of your work (ii) publish it at top venue of your field before phd application is due.  Both (i) and (ii) have nothing to do with whether you have a formal thesis or not. Actually it is better to not to have it because the only difference is you spending like two weeks to type it up from work already done. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by DanielWarlock

[trynagetby]

An important consideration is that Berkley is an extremely graduate (read: PhD) focused school. Generally aside from Masters programs that are pipelines to PhDs (which I don't think Berkely MA in Stats is), Masters students are on the same priority as undergrads if not lower. Schools like Stanford which value teaching and education are more likely to provide more ample research experiences outside of PhD students. I speak as someone who did their BA  from a very graduate orientated school.

[bob loblaw]

I went to Berkeley as an undergrad. It seems that Berkeley's program is designed to be two semesters long. They made the change to a shorter program recently to better serve students looking for industry jobs (~2016). In fact, MA students used to TA but no longer have time for anything but coursework. 

Also, I don't think a year is nearly long enough to do these things simultaneously: take PhD level courses (Berkeley PhD courses are no joke), connect with potential letter writers, and start a project. I would feel that you'd be fighting an uphill battle given that the MA website clearly states that: "(i)n extremely rare cases, a thesis option may be considered by the MA Chair".   In my experience, Berkeley doesn't make anything easy (you have to test in for their BA program for christ's sake lol) so when they say "it's extremely rare" I would take their word for it. ?

I would elect Stanford (longer program) or another option that enables you to connect more with potential letter writers and take more theoretical courses.  Like @DanielWarlock said, having a paper is not important. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by bob loblaw

[insert_name_here]

I think the Berkeley masters program is great, but it is worth noting that the following sentence is written in bold at the top of the program's homepage: "The focus is on tackling statistical challenges encountered by industry rather than preparing for a PhD." 

Unless you've had specific assurances beforehand, it would seem ambitious to plan on doing research in such a program. I don't know Stanford's program as well, but in general it's best to assume that being a masters student in a department won't help you get in as a PhD student, and that you'll have a hard time finding meaningful research work. (I would expect, but can't verify, that neither of those departments has had a single masters student move onto their stats PhD program in the past 5 years).

[kingduck]

just wanted to point out. 6 quarters is about the same amount of classroom time as 3 semesters?

[PhysicsKid]

8 hours ago, kingduck said:

just wanted to point out. 6 quarters is about the same amount of classroom time as 3 semesters?

Hi Kingduck, the quarter system is a bit confusing since it counts the Summer Quarter. Really 6 quarters would be the same as 4 semesters since two semesters typically cover the Autumn, Winter, and Spring quarters. 

In terms of the Stanford vs Berkeley Masters programs it would seem that Stanford's is more geared toward future PhDs than Berkeley's, but I definitely would agree it seems tough to assume anything about possible research work at either school.