Epidemiology PhD Decisions

[epi_phd]

So I have less than 2 weeks to decide where to go for my PhD in Epidemiology. I have it whittled down to Emory, UNC, and UCLA. Just to give you some background, I received my MPH in infectious disease epidemiology and have been working at the government-level doing HIV prevention research (focusing on the social, behavioral, and clinical epidemiology of HIV/AIDS) for the past 3 years. I've described the pros/cons of each of the programs below. Any advice (on the decisions process) or insight (into the individual programs) from current or prospective students would be greatly appreciated.

Emory:

A big advantage of the program is that all admitted students are fully funded (tuition and stipend) for 4 yrs., which also makes for a smaller program. Students are required to complete 2 research assistantships (aside from their dissertation research) with 2 different faculty, and a teaching assistantship as part of the funding requirements. I've been assigned to a faculty advisor whose research interests are closely aligned to mine. He seems really great and highly invested in the success of his students (but he is also very busy given the large number of projects he’s involved in). Emory has a strong epidemiologic methods program, its strengths in quantitative epi-methods. The faculty overall seem pretty accessible and they help to foster a collaborative and supportive environment. Also, the students seem to be a close-knit group willing to help one another out. One of the major disadvantages of the program is its lack of infectious disease (ID) faculty (however, students often collaborate and work with people at the CDC since it is next door to Emory). I’m not too familiar with Atlanta, but the cost of living is cheaper when compared to Los Angeles, where I currently live.

UNC:

Unfortunately, I wasn’t guaranteed any funding at UNC. Given the downturn in the economy and the school’s reliance on state funding, research assistantships are harder to come by (especially if you’re interested in infectious diseases, due to the large number of students focused in that area). Having said that, all of the current students I talked to mentioned that most, if not all incoming students find some source of funding by their first semester there (but still scary considering I’d have to pay out-of-state tuition if the department isn’t able to help out). UNC has one of the strongest epidemiologic methods program in the country and has a ton of ID faculty doing HIV research. I was assigned a faculty advisor who seems to be very helpful/friendly and has similar research interests (her focus is on HIV prevention efforts internationally, whereas my current and past work has focused on domestic HIV efforts). Like Emory, the faculty seems highly accessible and invested in their students’ well-being. The students seem to work well together in a non-competitive way, due to the program’s emphasis on group work/collaboration. One of the unique things about the program is that it’s geared towards PhD students (few masters-terminal students are accepted into the program; PhD/MSPH-PhD students comprise the majority of people in the program). UNC is also one of the bigger epidemiology programs with ~20 PhD students enrolled each year. All of the students I’ve talked to say they love the program and their experiences there. I’m not familiar at all with the Chapel Hill area, but it seems like your typical quaint, small college town with more of an undergraduate vibe to it (also cost of living there is cheaper).

UCLA:

Like UNC, funding at UCLA is hard to come by due to California’s budget problems. Fortunately, I was able to acquire a modest departmental fellowship for my first year and a partial GSR position (both combined will cover my tuition). Also, it’s likely that I can keep my current job (at a part-time level) to help supplement my income. UCLA seems to also have a strong Epi training program emphasizing theoretical methods. My would-be faculty advisor at UCLA has similar research interests (in behavioral epidemiology of HIV and a good mix of domestic and international work) and seems to be a good overall fit. I plan on going to the upcoming open house where I’ll get more information about the program and the atmosphere amongst students and faculty. The advantage going to UCLA is that it wouldn’t be a difficult transition since I already live in the area and have family and friends in Los Angeles. Although I would likely be a poor student again given how expensive it is to live in the area.

I apologize for the long post, and I don’t want to come off as if I’m complaining about this process. I’m grateful to have the opportunity to choose between three great schools and really don’t think I can make a “bad” decision. Nonetheless, it’s still stressful! I’d greatly appreciate any advise/comments. Thanks for listening and the best of luck with your decisions!

[Stories]

So I have less than 2 weeks to decide where to go for my PhD in Epidemiology. I have it whittled down to Emory, UNC, and UCLA. Just to give you some background, I received my MPH in infectious disease epidemiology and have been working at the government-level doing HIV prevention research (focusing on the social, behavioral, and clinical epidemiology of HIV/AIDS) for the past 3 years. I've described the pros/cons of each of the programs below. Any advice (on the decisions process) or insight (into the individual programs) from current or prospective students would be greatly appreciated.

Emory:

A big advantage of the program is that all admitted students are fully funded (tuition and stipend) for 4 yrs., which also makes for a smaller program. Students are required to complete 2 research assistantships (aside from their dissertation research) with 2 different faculty, and a teaching assistantship as part of the funding requirements. I've been assigned to a faculty advisor whose research interests are closely aligned to mine. He seems really great and highly invested in the success of his students (but he is also very busy given the large number of projects he’s involved in). Emory has a strong epidemiologic methods program, its strengths in quantitative epi-methods. The faculty overall seem pretty accessible and they help to foster a collaborative and supportive environment. Also, the students seem to be a close-knit group willing to help one another out. One of the major disadvantages of the program is its lack of infectious disease (ID) faculty (however, students often collaborate and work with people at the CDC since it is next door to Emory). I’m not too familiar with Atlanta, but the cost of living is cheaper when compared to Los Angeles, where I currently live.

UNC:

Unfortunately, I wasn’t guaranteed any funding at UNC. Given the downturn in the economy and the school’s reliance on state funding, research assistantships are harder to come by (especially if you’re interested in infectious diseases, due to the large number of students focused in that area). Having said that, all of the current students I talked to mentioned that most, if not all incoming students find some source of funding by their first semester there (but still scary considering I’d have to pay out-of-state tuition if the department isn’t able to help out). UNC has one of the strongest epidemiologic methods program in the country and has a ton of ID faculty doing HIV research. I was assigned a faculty advisor who seems to be very helpful/friendly and has similar research interests (her focus is on HIV prevention efforts internationally, whereas my current and past work has focused on domestic HIV efforts). Like Emory, the faculty seems highly accessible and invested in their students’ well-being. The students seem to work well together in a non-competitive way, due to the program’s emphasis on group work/collaboration. One of the unique things about the program is that it’s geared towards PhD students (few masters-terminal students are accepted into the program; PhD/MSPH-PhD students comprise the majority of people in the program). UNC is also one of the bigger epidemiology programs with ~20 PhD students enrolled each year. All of the students I’ve talked to say they love the program and their experiences there. I’m not familiar at all with the Chapel Hill area, but it seems like your typical quaint, small college town with more of an undergraduate vibe to it (also cost of living there is cheaper).

UCLA:

Like UNC, funding at UCLA is hard to come by due to California’s budget problems. Fortunately, I was able to acquire a modest departmental fellowship for my first year and a partial GSR position (both combined will cover my tuition). Also, it’s likely that I can keep my current job (at a part-time level) to help supplement my income. UCLA seems to also have a strong Epi training program emphasizing theoretical methods. My would-be faculty advisor at UCLA has similar research interests (in behavioral epidemiology of HIV and a good mix of domestic and international work) and seems to be a good overall fit. I plan on going to the upcoming open house where I’ll get more information about the program and the atmosphere amongst students and faculty. The advantage going to UCLA is that it wouldn’t be a difficult transition since I already live in the area and have family and friends in Los Angeles. Although I would likely be a poor student again given how expensive it is to live in the area.

I apologize for the long post, and I don’t want to come off as if I’m complaining about this process. I’m grateful to have the opportunity to choose between three great schools and really don’t think I can make a “bad” decision. Nonetheless, it’s still stressful! I’d greatly appreciate any advise/comments. Thanks for listening and the best of luck with your decisions!

I just bolded to me what is the most important aspect of any doctoral work.

I can't tell you how much it puts me at ease to also have a financial guarantee in my studies.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Stories

[epi_phd]

I just bolded to me what is the most important aspect of any doctoral work.

I can't tell you how much it puts me at ease to also have a financial guarantee in my studies.

Hi Stories,

Thanks for the reply. Absolutely...having funding fully guaranteed is a huge advantage and will provide peace of mind knowing that you don't have to stress out about the whole process of finding funding. Having said that, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't acquire funding at the other two schools. Since their public schools, it shouldn't be too hard to find an RA/TA to cover tuition and provide a modest stipend (I'd have to pay out-of-state tuition for 1 yr. at UNC). But, it's definitely still a risk since I don't know for sure if I'd be able to get these positions.

I also want to be comfortable where I am since I'll be spendingt he next 4-5 yrs. of my life there. And that's something that's also important to me aside from funding and program reputation.

[jordanami]

I agree, the three most important factors when choosing a PhD program: Funding, funding, and funding. Atlanta's not bad, nice and warm and congenial. Different from LA, but that might make a nice change for you, take some of the pressure off of living expenses and otherwise. But if you feel like you just want to stay where you are, that is something to consider too. Having been to both LA and Atlanta, I would probably choose Atlanta, just for the friendly vibe (Californians are friendly too though) and the lower cost of living.

[Stories]

Hi Stories,

Thanks for the reply. Absolutely...having funding fully guaranteed is a huge advantage and will provide peace of mind knowing that you don't have to stress out about the whole process of finding funding. Having said that, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't acquire funding at the other two schools. Since their public schools, it shouldn't be too hard to find an RA/TA to cover tuition and provide a modest stipend (I'd have to pay out-of-state tuition for 1 yr. at UNC). But, it's definitely still a risk since I don't know for sure if I'd be able to get these positions.

I also want to be comfortable where I am since I'll be spendingt he next 4-5 yrs. of my life there. And that's something that's also important to me aside from funding and program reputation.

Even if it's likely you'd get funding, it's not a guarantee. Personally, I'm not a risk taker when it comes to education because who knows what might happen with the current congress slashing budgets everywhere? There's been talks of reductions upwards of 40% in NIH funds which would directly translate to a reduction in funding of faculty which in turn limits potential funds to get RA help.

Also, the quality of life you have when you're guaranteed an income is worlds better than being extremely poor. Unless you might consider taking out student loans to live on.

I don't want to persuade you too much, particularly if you're not fond of being at Emory, but money is a really scary subject. Guarantees mean *a lot*.

[mezmerized7]

Did you decide yet? Go to EMORY!

So I have less than 2 weeks to decide where to go for my PhD in Epidemiology. I have it whittled down to Emory, UNC, and UCLA. Just to give you some background, I received my MPH in infectious disease epidemiology and have been working at the government-level doing HIV prevention research (focusing on the social, behavioral, and clinical epidemiology of HIV/AIDS) for the past 3 years. I've described the pros/cons of each of the programs below. Any advice (on the decisions process) or insight (into the individual programs) from current or prospective students would be greatly appreciated.

Emory:

A big advantage of the program is that all admitted students are fully funded (tuition and stipend) for 4 yrs., which also makes for a smaller program. Students are required to complete 2 research assistantships (aside from their dissertation research) with 2 different faculty, and a teaching assistantship as part of the funding requirements. I've been assigned to a faculty advisor whose research interests are closely aligned to mine. He seems really great and highly invested in the success of his students (but he is also very busy given the large number of projects he’s involved in). Emory has a strong epidemiologic methods program, its strengths in quantitative epi-methods. The faculty overall seem pretty accessible and they help to foster a collaborative and supportive environment. Also, the students seem to be a close-knit group willing to help one another out. One of the major disadvantages of the program is its lack of infectious disease (ID) faculty (however, students often collaborate and work with people at the CDC since it is next door to Emory). I’m not too familiar with Atlanta, but the cost of living is cheaper when compared to Los Angeles, where I currently live.

UNC:

Unfortunately, I wasn’t guaranteed any funding at UNC. Given the downturn in the economy and the school’s reliance on state funding, research assistantships are harder to come by (especially if you’re interested in infectious diseases, due to the large number of students focused in that area). Having said that, all of the current students I talked to mentioned that most, if not all incoming students find some source of funding by their first semester there (but still scary considering I’d have to pay out-of-state tuition if the department isn’t able to help out). UNC has one of the strongest epidemiologic methods program in the country and has a ton of ID faculty doing HIV research. I was assigned a faculty advisor who seems to be very helpful/friendly and has similar research interests (her focus is on HIV prevention efforts internationally, whereas my current and past work has focused on domestic HIV efforts). Like Emory, the faculty seems highly accessible and invested in their students’ well-being. The students seem to work well together in a non-competitive way, due to the program’s emphasis on group work/collaboration. One of the unique things about the program is that it’s geared towards PhD students (few masters-terminal students are accepted into the program; PhD/MSPH-PhD students comprise the majority of people in the program). UNC is also one of the bigger epidemiology programs with ~20 PhD students enrolled each year. All of the students I’ve talked to say they love the program and their experiences there. I’m not familiar at all with the Chapel Hill area, but it seems like your typical quaint, small college town with more of an undergraduate vibe to it (also cost of living there is cheaper).

UCLA:

Like UNC, funding at UCLA is hard to come by due to California’s budget problems. Fortunately, I was able to acquire a modest departmental fellowship for my first year and a partial GSR position (both combined will cover my tuition). Also, it’s likely that I can keep my current job (at a part-time level) to help supplement my income. UCLA seems to also have a strong Epi training program emphasizing theoretical methods. My would-be faculty advisor at UCLA has similar research interests (in behavioral epidemiology of HIV and a good mix of domestic and international work) and seems to be a good overall fit. I plan on going to the upcoming open house where I’ll get more information about the program and the atmosphere amongst students and faculty. The advantage going to UCLA is that it wouldn’t be a difficult transition since I already live in the area and have family and friends in Los Angeles. Although I would likely be a poor student again given how expensive it is to live in the area.

I apologize for the long post, and I don’t want to come off as if I’m complaining about this process. I’m grateful to have the opportunity to choose between three great schools and really don’t think I can make a “bad” decision. Nonetheless, it’s still stressful! I’d greatly appreciate any advise/comments. Thanks for listening and the best of luck with your decisions!

[rebec_anne]

Hi!

I know I'm jumping in a little late here, but given your post-you've been through what I'm going through now. I am applying for PhD programs in epi with a focus on behavioral epi, HIV research. I was wondering if you had any advice to offer on the process. I will be applying to UNC, emory, UC Berkeley, U of Washington, and Columbia.

I am most curious as to the competitiveness of the process, what the programs seem to be looking for, etc.

Thanks so much for any help you can give me!!

[epi_phd]

Hello,

Seems like we have similar research interests, and seeing that you're going through the same process I went through a year ago, this information may prove to be helpful (but just note that this is just my perspective on the whole process...other people may have well had completely different experiences with the application process).

I think the most important factor (at least I think this was the case for me) was that I was able to find a mentor/advisor at some of the schools I applied to that aligned well with either my current research interests or matched up with what I envisioned on doing in the future. I basically emailed these professors and talked to them over the phone over the course of a couple months to get acquainted with them and their work. In some cases, these talks will go well and the professor will show genuine interest in you. Other times, it may not be a good fit. The reason that this is so important is that: 1) If the person you talked to likes you enough, he/she will vouch for you when it comes down to making decisions on admissions. That person may contact the admissions committee and encourage them to admit you on the basis that you are a good fit with the program and the research interests of the faculty (this works even better when the person you're talking to is on the admissions committee). 2) Getting to know the faculty also puts a face to the many applications they receive. Undoubtedly, many of the applicants will be similar in terms of GPA, GRE scores, research experience etc. That's why it's a good idea to make yourself more recognizable to them so that when they come across your application, your not just a bunch of statistics on a piece of paper, but an actual person that they can relate to.

In my case, I made good connections with faculty at Emory, UCLA, UNC, and Columbia and not surprisingly, I got admitted to all of these schools. Now, this isn't to say that GPA and GRE scores aren't important. More than likely, the applicants you'll be competing against will have strong GPAs and GREs. But if it came down to an applicant with better GPA and GRE scores vs. a person whose research interests and goals align well with a certain faculty of the program, I would put money on the person whose research interests aligned well with faculty to get admitted (give that the disparity b/w GPA and GRE scores aren't astronomical).

All of the schools you plan on applying to are very strong programs. UNC, Berkeley, UW, and Columbia have an especially strong infectious disease epidemiology program and have a lot of faculty doing HIV research both domestically and abroad. I also applied to Berkeley and UW, but didn't get into those programs. I decided to go to Emory mainly b/c I wanted to work with a particular faculty there whose research I thought matched up really well with what I was doing before and what I wanted to do in the future. Another reason I chose to go to Emory was that they provide full funding (tuition and stipend) for four years. Emory doesn't have that many faculty focused on infectious disease epi, but if you're interested in HIV, there are definitely some faculty here that do great work. Pamina Gorbach at UCLA is one faculty that comes to mind that you may be interested in - her focus is on behavioral epi of HIV. If you want, I can point you towards some other faculty at these programs that you may want to contact.

Let me know if you have any other questions and good luck!