Stats program by tiers?

[tutublbl1234]

I would like to know generally what schools are considered tier I, tier II, and tier III in statistics program?

 

Would it be fair to say the following?

TIER I

Stanford; UC - Berkeley; Harvard; UW - Seattle;

 

TIER II

Chicago; CMU; Duke; Wharton; UW - Madison;

 

TIER III

UM - Ann Arbor; Cornell; Columbia; UCLA;

 

 

As I am hearing back from some of the schools listed above, it is becoming increasingly harder to pick a school... I think tier-ing it up or knowing the reputation of the program would help me evaluate the programs better.

 

I looked at many sources, including popular ranking measures and posts/blogs.

 

It would be awesome to get some feedback on the validity of the above lists by tiers. Does it seem reasonable, or are some schools out of place?

 

Also, from above, what schools have finished reviewing applications?

[Lelouch Lamperouge]

From my opinion, I would move UM-Ann Arbor to the Tier II. But I agree that it is increasingly harder to say which is better than another. Actually they are all very good schools and your performance in PhD study may be related to which topic you are gonna work and which professor you choose to follow. 

[applyin&prayin]

should UW really be that high? it seems their student outcomes tend to be worse than even schools on the 2nd tier. Very few academic placements. MIchigan should be in the 2nd tier imo

[Rob1234]

I would make the following tiers

 

Tier I : Stanford, UC-Berkeley, Harvard (Biostatistics)

Tier II : Washington-Seattle, Chicago, Duke, UPenn

Tier III : CMU, Harvard(Stat), UW-Madison, Michigan, Columbia

Tier IV : NCSU, Rutgers, Iowa State, Cornell, UCLA

 

However a lot depends on personal interests, depending on which the tiers may change. Go through the webpages of the schools that have offered you, look at the research interests of the faculty members and then take a call whether or not to accept it.

[health_quant]

Their placements in biostats departments are quite good (high numbers of graduates in well-ranked programs), but I know less about their placements in stats departments.

 

should UW really be that high? it seems their student outcomes tend to be worse than even schools on the 2nd tier. Very few academic placements. MIchigan should be in the 2nd tier imo

[cyberwulf]

Stats and biostats departments should really be ranked separately. 

 

For stat, my rankings would be:

 

TIER I

Stanford; UC - Berkeley; Harvard; Chicago;

 

TIER II

UW - Seattle; CMU; Duke; UW - Madison; UM - Ann Arbor; NC State;

 

TIER III

Wharton; Cornell; Columbia; Minnesota; UCLA; UNC; Yale;

 

For biostat, I would say:

 

TIER I

Harvard; Johns Hopkins; UW-Seattle;

 

TIER II

Minnesota; Michigan; UNC;

 

TIER III

UC-Berkeley; Penn; Emory; Columbia; UCLA; Brown; UW-Madison;

Edited February 6, 2013 by cyberwulf

[Lelouch Lamperouge]

I most agree with this ranking. It is consistent with what I have heard from my Stats professors.

 

It seems that I have applied to most of these programs but I haven't got any good news by so far. Wish I could get an offer from one of them.

 

 

Stats and biostats departments should really be ranked separately. 

 

For stat, my rankings would be:

 

TIER I

Stanford; UC - Berkeley; Harvard; Chicago;

 

TIER II

UW - Seattle; CMU; Duke; UW - Madison; UM - Ann Arbor; NC State;

 

TIER III

Wharton; Cornell; Columbia; Minnesota; UCLA; UNC; Yale;

 

For biostat, I would say:

 

TIER I

Harvard; Johns Hopkins; UW-Seattle;

 

TIER II

Minnesota; Michigan; UNC;

 

TIER III

UC-Berkeley; Penn; Emory; Columbia; UCLA; Brown; UW-Madison;

[ANDS!]

. . .my goodness has it come to this?  Any applicant would be lucky to get into any of those schools.

[JZappa]

However a lot depends on personal interests, depending on which the tiers may change. Go through the webpages of the schools that have offered you, look at the research interests of the faculty members and then take a call whether or not to accept it.

^^ This. All the schools are really solid but what really matters for ranking them is what you want to do. For example Stanford is hands down the best ML school in the country but if you're more interested in theoretical work UC-Berkeley would probably be a better choice. I would talk to the faculty at your school and visit. Realistically you can't go terribly wrong with any of those schools.

[health_quant]

. . .my goodness has it come to this?  Any applicant would be lucky to get into any of those schools.

 

 

haha. so true. spending all our time on thegradcafe doesn't help with maintaining a broader perspective...

[Biostat_Assistant_Prof]

I'm curious about how significant the affects are for the graduates of those schools... I mean, what advantages would a PhD grad from a Tier 1 school have over a Tier 2, or Tier 3? Would job prospects for someone with a PhD from an unranked program (or program not included in any of the classified tiers above) be significantly less than a grad from a Tier 1, 2 or 3? What actually separates Tier 1 institutions from Tier 2, and Tier 2 from Tier 3, and so forth? Lastly, is there not some sort of ranking for all the schools outside the listed tiers above? I mean, the number of schools with stat/biostat programs not listed in the Tiers above outnumber those that are listed, so how do all the unranked schools compare? Is it the case that once you get out of the top ranked programs listed above, the lesser schools are all so close, within the margin of error in rankings, that it really doesn't matter?

My guess is that grads from more prestigious programs have better opportunities for faculty research positions after earning their degree, but I don't really see how it greatly affects those who plan on going into private industry where the focused is more applied. In this latter case, the approaches to solving problems/formulas/uses of statistics should all be the same across institutions, ranked and unranked; using biostats as an example because thats what Im more focused on, why would a student from Harvard or Hopkins (Tier 1) be better suited to work in private pharmaceutical clinical trials than a student from Boston or Pitt (unranked), because they should both have the same applied statistics skill sets, right?

[Shostakovich]

I'm curious about how significant the affects are for the graduates of those schools... I mean, what advantages would a PhD grad from a Tier 1 school have over a Tier 2, or Tier 3? Would job prospects for someone with a PhD from an unranked program (or program not included in any of the classified tiers above) be significantly less than a grad from a Tier 1, 2 or 3? What actually separates Tier 1 institutions from Tier 2, and Tier 2 from Tier 3, and so forth? Lastly, is there not some sort of ranking for all the schools outside the listed tiers above? I mean, the number of schools with stat/biostat programs not listed in the Tiers above outnumber those that are listed, so how do all the unranked schools compare? Is it the case that once you get out of the top ranked programs listed above, the lesser schools are all so close, within the margin of error in rankings, that it really doesn't matter?

My guess is that grads from more prestigious programs have better opportunities for faculty research positions after earning their degree, but I don't really see how it greatly affects those who plan on going into private industry where the focused is more applied. In this latter case, the approaches to solving problems/formulas/uses of statistics should all be the same across institutions, ranked and unranked; using biostats as an example because thats what Im more focused on, why would a student from Harvard or Hopkins (Tier 1) be better suited to work in private pharmaceutical clinical trials than a student from Boston or Pitt (unranked), because they should both have the same applied statistics skill sets, right?

 

Above schools are all more or less tier 1 schools, and you should be in good shape to go into industry after graduating from any of the schools mentioned above. However, in academia there seems to be somewhat of a domination of academic positions at top universities by graduates from the tier 1's mentioned above (Berkeley/Stanford/Chicago/Harvard for Stats, Harvard/UW/Hopkins for Biostats). Of course that is not to say that you can't succeed in academia with a PhD from a lower-ranked institution, just that higher-ranked institutions tend to be able to provide more tools for success (more renowned faculty, bigger facilities, more rigorous programs, better brand names, etc).

[wells]

Where is Texas A&M? Tier IV?

[finzfan]

From all the raving I've heard about Stanford, could Stanford be it's own tier?

[Crunch Time]

From all the raving I've heard about Stanford, could Stanford be it's own tier?

 

My research adviser/professor would certainly agree with that statement haha

[ganlh]

Hi, does anyone have an idea about how Canadian schools compare to Tier 2 schools like Duke and Michigan? e.g. U Toronto.

[ninetofive]

Hi, does anyone have an idea about how Canadian schools compare to Tier 2 schools like Duke and Michigan? e.g. U Toronto.

 

And UBC!    

[cyberwulf]

I'd say that UBC and UT are probably in Tier III (for stat); there are no Canadian biostat departments in Tiers I-III.

[OhioStateStudent]

How are these "tiers" determined?

I find it hard to believe that many of these departments would be considered third or fourth tier.

 

 

 

I think that anything in the top 10 would be tier 1, 10 to ~25 tier 2, ~25 to 35 tier 3, 35 to 50 tier 4.

[Biostat_Assistant_Prof]

How are these "tiers" determined?

I find it hard to believe that many of these departments would be considered third or fourth tier.

I think that anything in the top 10 would be tier 1, 10 to ~25 tier 2, ~25 to 35 tier 3, 35 to 50 tier 4.

I don't think there is any clear it system, but these tiers are just kind of arbitrarily defined and accepted by the (Stat/Biostat) academic community; there is room for argument about specific programs, but the bulk of it is a pretty good guideline. Just from what I gather having been reading this forum over the past year, I think they are mainly based off off things like faculty research/recognition and student placement in academia after they earn their PhDs..... I remember reading a few months ago a post Cyberwulf made bout biostat Tiers; I'll repeat what I can from memory.... Good grads from Tier 1 departments will find positions at other Tier 1s, Tier 2s, and so on. Excellent grads from Tier 2 departments may find jobs at Tier 1s, but are most are more likely to find jobs in tier 2s, tier 3s and less. Outstanding grads from Tier 3s may find positions at tier 2s, but more likely tier 3s and less. Tier4/everyone else will rarely find academic positions in 1-3 tier department, and will usually have positions at other un-tiered schools...... For industry, it matters less.

....I've spent way too much time on these forums this past year, lol

Edited February 15, 2013 by Noco7

[health_quant]

How are these "tiers" determined?

I find it hard to believe that many of these departments would be considered third or fourth tier.

 

 

 

I think that anything in the top 10 would be tier 1, 10 to ~25 tier 2, ~25 to 35 tier 3, 35 to 50 tier 4.

 

As others have pointed out, all of the aforementioned are top-notch programs, but it seems that even within this upper echelon of schools, distinctions are still commonly drawn.

 

When we're looking at the total population of schools, I agree that these are nearly all top-tier programs. As far as this thread goes, the distinctions seem to boil down to drawing sub-tiers within that topmost tier.

[JZappa]

How are these "tiers" determined?

I find it hard to believe that many of these departments would be considered third or fourth tier.

 

 

 

I think that anything in the top 10 would be tier 1, 10 to ~25 tier 2, ~25 to 35 tier 3, 35 to 50 tier 4.

Usually by how prestigious the department is/how good the work they are currently doing is. I would say there are no hard cut offs like oh the top 10 are in tier 1 since I don't think many would say (according to US News  for example) that No.10 Duke is on the same level as No.1 Stanford. Some people rank based on their personal biases or what they're interested in. If you really want an idea of how good a school is look into where their graduates are hired. There's a good paper on Dr. Peter Mucha's website that looks at this sort of thing for math programs using networks.

[tabis]

Stats and biostats departments should really be ranked separately. 

 

For stat, my rankings would be:

 

TIER I

Stanford; UC - Berkeley; Harvard; Chicago;

 

TIER II

UW - Seattle; CMU; Duke; UW - Madison; UM - Ann Arbor; NC State;

 

TIER III

Wharton; Cornell; Columbia; Minnesota; UCLA; UNC; Yale;

 

For biostat, I would say:

 

TIER I

Harvard; Johns Hopkins; UW-Seattle;

 

TIER II

Minnesota; Michigan; UNC;

 

TIER III

UC-Berkeley; Penn; Emory; Columbia; UCLA; Brown; UW-Madison;

 

Could someone comment on whether Penn state is good enough to be in tier 3 for stats? (I hope it does) 

[tcbh]

How would places that have their statistics group housed in another department fit in? Like Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Georgia Tech?

[cyberwulf]

Could someone comment on whether Penn state is good enough to be in tier 3 for stats? (I hope it does) 

Yeah, it should probably be in there. Once you get to Tier 3 and below, it's kind of hard to be precise.

Edited February 23, 2013 by cyberwulf