Does PhD program matter for an academic position? (UFL vs Ohio State vs UNC Bio)

[fraulein_x9]

Does PhD program matter for an academic position? Do only your publications matter? What is the benefit of a higher-ranked program? Can one be hired for a good position from any of (UFL, Ohio State, UNC Bio)?

[ANDS!]

I wold say it depends on where you want to go. There are a finite number of Ivy League graduates, so someone is hiring these other graduates.

[fraulein_x9]

I wold say it depends on where you want to go. There are a finite number of Ivy League graduates, so someone is hiring these other graduates.

If I want to be hired tenure-track at a top 30 stat/biostat, would I have to get a PhD from a top 10-15 stat/biostat program?

[ANDS!]

My question would be, is there any reason you JUST want to look at a Top 10 university for an academic position? Harvard looks like they only pull from Harvard or Stanford, and I doubt Stanford is any better. Regardless of where you go, getting into either school has got to be a challenge. I should say ones chances are much better at the Top 50 range, as it should be, and should be where the focus is.

So short answer. No. BioStats might be different as there aren't many independent BioStat programs out there, and the majority aren't ranked. Here is a good source for NRC rankings on Public Health/BioStat programs.

Edited April 7, 2012 by ANDS!

[mathgeek282]

I actually think it does matter to an extent. Your advisor's reputation as well as your publications is going to matter the most when getting postdoc/assistant professorships. Barring that you are an absolute rockstar during your publishing, reputation of university and especially advisor is pretty paramount. So i would urge you to choose a program that has the best advisors for what you want to do. It happens that a lot of advisors that are amazing are concentrated at really great schools (and that is where you see the correlation happening). However, there are certainly certain niche professors that are at certain lesser known universities with a great reputations that would be just as impressive. So i think these are the things to consider when picking the school.

[abpost]

I visited Florida and got an email about where their graduates are placed academically (this list goes back to 2005):

Prof at Oregon State

Postdoc at Yale

Postdoc at European Bioinformatics Institute

Prof at WPI

Prof at West Virginia University

Prof at University of Iowa

Prof at University of Iowa

Prof at Iowa State University

Prof at Valencia College (Orlando)

Prof at Louisianna Lafayette

Prof at LSU Biostat

Prof at Nebraska

Prof at Sookmyung Women's University in South Korea

Postdoc at Harvard Department of Health Care Policy

Prof at Medical College of Georgia

Prof at U of Florida Biostats

Prof at University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguezri

Prof at Missoui

Prof at Michigan State

Prof at Duke

Postdoc at UCLA biostats

I really liked the school and it was my second choice but I got into my top so I will not be going there. I would assume OSU is the same. I hope this helps!

Edited April 7, 2012 by abpost

[Pauli]

What? Who's spreading around these myths that the reputation of a university matters? That's so shallow, and very unrealistic as its not the reputation of the university, but instead on a much broader range of factors such as the specific strengths of the program's specialization, the reputation of your advisor, the list of your publications and the strength of that conference or journal submitted to, and your overall academic package. Whoever tells you that the faculty selection is decided on the prestige of a university is ignorant, as no decent faculty selection committee would be that shallow.

[fraulein_x9]

My question would be, is there any reason you JUST want to look at a Top 10 university for an academic position?

No, actually top 30-50 would be fine. I just don't want to be hired at a program without an established stat department.

I actually think it does matter to an extent. Your advisor's reputation as well as your publications is going to matter the most when getting postdoc/assistant professorships. Barring that you are an absolute rockstar during your publishing, reputation of university and especially advisor is pretty paramount.

Does that mean that lots of tenure-track hirings are based on potential, since most people only publish 2-3 papers by the time they defend? What if your advisor is only moderately well-known, but your papers are as good as someone from a top 5 school? Would advisor's reputation matter?

What? Who's spreading around these myths that the reputation of a university matters? That's so shallow, and very unrealistic as its not the reputation of the university, but instead on a much broader range of factors such as the specific strengths of the program's specialization, the reputation of your advisor, the list of your publications and the strength of that conference or journal submitted to, and your overall academic package.

Do faculty selection committees evaluate how consistent your publishing topics are? Can you publish one paper in time series and another in empirical processes and it will seem like a positive? Or will it seem like you are not too organized?

[ANDS!]

Ahh. Well yes that is a concern. Then a degree from Ohio or UNC Bio would, I think, be "worth" more than one from UFL when it comes time to look for academic positions.

[mathgeek282]

I think it is naive to think that the reputation of your university doesn't matter at all. The correlation between graduate university strength and the tier of the university of the professorship you end up getting is pretty strong (of course there are cofounders...but nevertheless it is present). Your advisor connections are pretty meaningful, the overall reputation of your institution and your papers. of course overall reputation like i said is not the only key thing, but it will be hard to get a professorship at lets say stanford mit, harvard or berkeley stats or harvard biostats, coming from a low ranked institution with a pretty unknown advisor.

Nevertheless there are plenty other great non-tier1 universities for which i am sure this doesn't hold and there are plenty of exceptions to every rule. I would pick based more on advisor than institution and work my butt off...my two cents. And this isn't meant to sound elitist, i am just trying to be honest with what i have observed and heard from many phD's and professors i have talked to.

[ANDS!]

Confounders. . .o_0

[fraulein_x9]

Ahh. Well yes that is a concern. Then a degree from Ohio or UNC Bio would, I think, be "worth" more than one from UFL when it comes time to look for academic positions.

Which of those two would be better? UNC Bio is ranked much higher, but is that only useful for biostat positions? UNC is one of the more theoretical biostat departments. Is the UFL department going downhill? It used to have a pretty high reputation.

[fraulein_x9]

I would pick based more on advisor than institution and work my butt off...my two cents. And this isn't meant to sound elitist, i am just trying to be honest with what i have observed and heard from many phD's and professors i have talked to.

What goes into an advisor's reputation? Can I get a good idea by looking at their h-score on Google Scholar? If I do theoretical work, but my advisor is well-known for his/her applied work, would their reputation still carry over when it's time to look for jobs?

[ANDS!]

Two different departmental focuses; what do you want to actually want to do?

[fraulein_x9]

Two different departmental focuses; what do you want to actually want to do?

I'm pretty undecided, but with a bias towards theoretical work. In a theoretical biostat department, are the applications still paramount?

[cyberwulf]

If you *really* want to do theory, you should probably go to a stats department.

What distinguishes programs is *selection*, on two important dimensions:

1. Selection of research topics. Most faculty in stat departments work on theoretical topics, most in biostat on methods/applied topics.

2. Selection of "high-profile" advisors. Higher-ranked programs generally have a larger number of "famous" advisors whose name and research program will get you interviews at elite departments. Lower-ranked programs may have only one or two (if any!) such advisors, so you may be limiting your "upside" if you attend these programs, particularly if the handful of "big name" faculty are very busy or nearing retirement and not willing to take you as a student.