Apply for a masters or a PhD? - Biostatistics

[Immy]

I'll try to make a long story somewhat short.

 

Me: Graduated in 2009. Major Psychology, minors in biology and writing. GPA 3.2 - low I know. I did conduct my own research study with the advisement of the head of the psych dept. Was one of two psych students in my graduating class to receive honors. Also received college honors. I took a graduate course for fun the spring after I graduated (Epidemiology and Biostatistics and received an A)

 

I love epidemiology, but fear not being able to find a job. Biostatistics appears to have a good number of job postings, and it also interests me. 

 

It terms of work experience:

 

Worked for two years as a case manager for a mental health agency after I graduated.

 

Now working at a hospital research center, where I work on multiple research studies involving weight loss.

 

I will be going back this spring semester to take the required math classes I need - Calc I, II, III, linear algebra to meet requirements as most schools. I plan on applying the fall of 2014. 

 

It seems like there isn't a lot of difference in some school between applying for a masters or for a Ph.D, same classes required in some. 

 

While I will be absolutely applying for masters programs, would applying for PhD be reasonable with my background?

I ultimately hope to work for a large company ( clinical trials, pharmaceuticals, or large scale research)

 

Any and all feedback is appreciated, thank you! 

[Quant_Liz_Lemon]

You should consider quantitative psychology.

[Immy]

Why do you suggest that? 

[Quant_Liz_Lemon]

You already have a background in psych and have some quantitative skills. The market for quant psychologists is beautiful. See: http://www.apa.org/research/tools/quantitative/index.aspx And: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/education/05testers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Biostat_Assistant_Prof]

If you do well in your math classes (calc and linear algebra), then it may not be totally out of the realm of possibility to get accepted into some of the lower ranked Biostat PhD programs, but your shot at the top 6 (Washington, Harvard, Hopkins, UNC, Michigan, Minnesota) are probably out of the question with your GPA... Of course your LORs, GRE quant score, and School reputation will also play a role...

As for Masters, I'm not the expert around here by any means, but I think you would have a decent shot at acceptance at quite a few places, maybe not the top 3, but everything else could be possible...

From what I know, if you want to work in industry, a masters can be sufficient, but a PhD will get you further in the long run. Also, Phd programs are usually funded, whereas Masters programs are usually not, so that's something to consider as well... But as you know, you'd be looking at ~5 years vs 2 years.

I actually have a similar goal as you, in that, my interest in academia after grad school is not high. I want to work in industry with clinical trials/Pharmaceuticals, but I'm still pursuing a PhD for these reasons: 1) no glass ceiling I'm terms of my career 2) funding 3) I'm fascinated with statistics and want to learn as much as possible 4) the idea of teaching when I'm a bit older is appealing and could be an option 5) I'm young enough so that I have plenty of time after grad school to get established (assuming 5 years, I'll finish around my 26th birthday) 6) Dr. Noco7 has a nice ring to it

Edited January 6, 2013 by Noco7

[ANDS!]

PhD prgrams aren't out of the realm of possibility.  Masters is even more likely.  Why not Epi?  I personally disliked the course I took on it, but that was more form than content I'm thinking.  Also I doubt most epi's get jobs with a job title of "Epidemiologist".  That  is likely to cloud your pre job-search.  Biostats definitely has a more evident job market, but that doesn't mean Epi. is a bad road to take.

 

As for course difference, the divergence usually starts in the second year. 

 

Also, don't get overly bummed on ranking.  If you go the Biostats route its all math; you're learning the same stuff as the folks at Hopkins.

[Biostat_Assistant_Prof]

Also, don't get overly bummed on ranking.  If you go the Biostats route its all math; you're learning the same stuff as the folks at Hopkins.

From what I understand, this seems to hold more true for industry (which is what Immy is primarily focused on). But to cover all bases, I think it's good to point out that the Univeristy one attends does plays a role for job prospects for research positions at Universities, if he/she ever chooses to go that route.

[bayessays]

Also, don't get overly bummed on ranking.  If you go the Biostats route its all math; you're learning the same stuff as the folks at Hopkins.

 

This is simply not true.  Look at the curriculum at Hopkins and then look at Pittsburgh and tell me you are learning anything remotely similar.

[cyberwulf]

There is a huge gap both in the amount and rigor of mathematical coursework between the top handful of biostat places and those ranked outside the top 15. That being said, even lower-ranked places can do a fine job of preparing you to work as an applied biostatistician in industry. What you get at an elite biostat program is the coursework and research opportunities that will position you for an academic position. 

 

OP, I think your best bet is to start with a Masters at a quality program; from there, you can decide what type of PhD program would best fit your needs.

[Immy]

Thank you everyone for your replies. Someone asked "why not epi?" Basically because I worry that the job market isn't as plentiful. Thinking about it lately, and I may reconsider Epi, among my many options.