Stony Brook Statistics Ph.D Problematic?

[WaddleDoos]

Hello everyone I am in need of advice.

 

My boyfriend obtained admission to Stony Brook's Applied Mathematics and Statistics Ph.D program, specifically for the statistics track late February. He also got funding and was very happy. However, since then, he has received other offers and has begun comparing programs.

 

In the process of comparing programs, a closer look to Stony Brook's program raised some red flags. I am concerned that the Ph.D is very questionable (fake Ph.D). I hope you guys can help offer some second opinions and confirm whether or not we should be worried about the integrity of the program. The problems (and assumptions):

 

1. In this link:

 

http://www.ams.sunysb.edu/graduate/phdrequ.shtml

 

The Ph.D program is described as "There are no specific course requirements for the Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics and Statistics." It seems the main requirement is passing qualifying exams and a successful dissertation.

 

http://www.ams.sunysb.edu/ProspGradStudent.html

 

Repeats the same information, and says that the courses the "Ph.D" student will take are master level, and only for the first year. For the second year and beyond:

 

"In the second year, students pick an advisor and join her/his research team, where their education continues through directed reading."

 

Am I correct in thinking that this is irregular and a huge red flag? Basically there are no Ph.D level classes?

 

2. Related to what I wrote above, the courses available for study are few in number and seem to be entirely master level (simpler) courses.

 

http://www.ams.sunysb.edu/STAT/STATCourses.shtml

 

Is this representative of a weaker stats program? Especially combined with the fact that Stony Brook does not have an independent, separate statistics department?

 

I am also curious to why there is no survival analysis class, but the research interests of the (5) faculty in the statistics section do work on cancer???

 

3. The makeup of the student population, length of time to graduate and following quote lead me to believe that the "loose" course requirements and lack of Ph.D courses with focus on "directed reading" and research is to drive a slave mill:

 

"80% of our students, once past the PhD quals, finish their PhDs in five years."

 

^ So 5-6 years standard???

 

"It is not uncommon for a student with previous graduate work to finish in three years."

 

^ LIE?

 

http://www.ams.sunysb.edu/graduate/PhDAlumni.pdf

 

Looking at the pdf above, it seems that the population is mostly consisted of super intelilgent foreign students. There are quite a number of these students who have Ph.D dates ranging from 5-6 years. Or they graduate to spend more time in education chasing a post doc. Is this kind of student population the kind where you have to have no life and spend like 80+ hours a week slaving away?

 

FINAL THOUGHTS / CONCERNS:

 

My boyfriend thinks that Stony Brook is a recognizable name on the east coast and can land him good jobs upon graduating. Thus, the NY location is a huge factor in his mind. I'm reluctant to believe that #1 Stony Brook is that competitive and #2 that a good job is waiting upon graduation. In fact I'm quite wary because it seems like the alumni placement has most running into postdocs instead...

 

I have an extremely low opinion of Stony Brook right now. In fact, from my above concerns I am of the opinion that the school is promoting a fradulent Ph.D program.

 

The other major alternative my boyfriend is considering is a Biostatistics program (also giving full funding) that is away from the east coast. The courses there are harder and more thorough which is a plus, but my boyfriend is worried that #1 he will be locked in pharma or hospital work forever (banking, marketing, etc. impossible) and #2 that it will be difficult to find a job on the east coast upon graduation.

 

I am most worried about the authenticity of the Stony Brook program which to me raises some red flags. I would greatly appreciate some insight and opinions on this matter especially since this is a somewhat time sensitive issue. Even information Stony Brook in general and its competitiveness in stats would be helpful.

 

Thanks again.

[student12345]

Courses are not a very important part of a Ph.D. program. And it is certainly not uncommon to be able to graduate in three years or less if one already has graduate-level coursework completed. I was told at UF (ranked 22 on US News) and at UConn (ranked 40) that it might be possible for me to graduate in three years or less, even though I'm only about to complete my BA. This is because I have already taken measure-theoretic probability and Master's/Doctorate-level mathematical statistics at my undergraduate institution. 

 

Departments often have qualifying exams both at the end of the academic year and at the very beginning, before classes begin. This is (partly) so that students entering the program have the chance to skip many of the courses that they have already taken at a different Ph.D. / M.A. / B.A. program. And keep in mind that at most of the programs I've seen, the PhD coursework consists of just Master's level courses, except sometimes with higher standards for passing the quals (say, answer 4 questions correctly instead of 3 for MA students, like at my undergrad institution). 

 

The only thing that really matters for a doctorate is getting research done. Passing quals is somewhat of an obstacle to the primary goal in a sense; and taking courses is certainly not a big concern to doctorate students. I'll also add that reading courses are very common among mathematics departments, and it certainly does not convey any sense of uneasiness in me that Stony Brook is touting their openness to such courses. If your boyfriend would prefer a program with more structure, or he thinks he'll learn better in (slightly more) formal courses, then he should look at another program that can offer him that. 

 

Stony Brook is certainly a reputable university and they would not offer a "fraudulent" Ph.D. I do not believe that any statistics students spend 80+ hours a week "slaving away," even at highly competitive programs like Stanford. I certainly do not plan on spending 80 hours a week at Carnegie Mellon. 

 

To explain what I mean in a way that may reassure you, some of the programs in my signature (UNC and Carnegie Mellon in particular) only require a year's worth of courses. "More advanced" courses tend to be irrelevant to the specific research topics that students will prefer to spend their time on. What happens is that interested students begin reading books recommended by faculty of interest and if they like the material they've seen in the specific field they've been directed to read then they'll begin research; at least that's how it happens at my undergrad, but as I understand it, this is basically the same process at any other school. 

 

One thing that I've noticed from looking at SB's page is that all of the statisticians are doing biostatistical work. So basically, if he decides to only work with the statisticians, it seems like he will be studying the same topics that he would have seen at any biostatistics department. If the other program he is considering is relatively stronger in biostatistics, it may be worth going there instead. He could try to work with non-statistics faculty at SB but he cannot be sure that they are going to take him as a student until he asks them. 

 

In a nutshell, SB's program may not offer scheduled courses in some advanced topics, but this is probably because students there decide to learn them on their own (topics such as measure-theoretic probability) or these topics are simply not useful to the students (especially since SB's department claims that its statistics research is biostatistical; no biostats program I've heard about makes its students take measure theory). SB is certainly not Stanford but it is not "fake."

Edited April 20, 2013 by kimolas

[WaddleDoos]

I have never heard of a Ph.D program NOT having Ph.D level courses and having a student only taking courses (at the MS level) for the first year.

I asked my uncle who got a Ph.D from Princeton and my father who got a Ph.D from Washington University in St. Louis who both said this was very very suspicious.

[student12345]

I have never heard of a Ph.D program NOT having Ph.D level courses and having a student only taking courses (at the MS level) for the first year.

 

I asked my uncle who got a Ph.D from Princeton and my father who got a Ph.D from Washington University (St. Louis) who both said this was very very suspicious.

 

I don't think that Washington University has a statistics program (or rather I haven't heard of it before), and you hardly ever hear of Princeton's since it is tucked away in a different department. Are your uncle and father statistics Ph.D.'s? I know that in other very close fields, such as mathematics, it would be suspicious to hear of a program with no difference between MA and PhD coursework (in particular since a pure math MA isn't very common), but in biostats/some stats I feel that this is the norm. I could be wrong about that, but this is just what I've seen at the various departments I've visited. In particular, since SB has only biostatistics faculty, that it is at the very least understandable why they do not require more mathematically rigorous coursework for their doctorate students. 

[WaddleDoos]

Washington University in St. Louis was Ph.D in Civil Engineering

 

Princeton I forget but it heavily involved Fluid Dynamics.

 

And about the whole "self learning" aspect.

Doesn't this hurt you later on if you choose to go into academia? I would not hire someone with a Ph.D who only took some watered down MS level courses and "self learned" as a professor... would you?

[student12345]

Doesn't this hurt you later on if you choose to go into academia? I would not hire someone with a Ph.D who only took some watered down MS level courses and "self learned" as a professor... would you?

 

I would not personally consider "self-learned" mathematics to be any less rigorous than "lectured" mathematics (especially if it is directed by a faculty member). In fact, directed reading tends to be far more productive for mathematics students than lectures... 

 

OP: I would suggest that your boyfriend ask the two departments what their (entire/recent) record of job placement is for their doctorate students. 

Edited April 20, 2013 by kimolas

[WaddleDoos]

I would not personally consider "self-learned" mathematics to be any less rigorous than "lectured" mathematics (especially if it is directed by a faculty member). In fact, directed reading tends to be far more productive to mathematics students than lectures... 

 

OP: I would suggest that your boyfriend ask the two departments what their (entire/recent) record of job placement is for their doctorate students. 

 

I took a look at the colleges in your signature and they all have Ph.D level statistics courses and requirements...

[student12345]

I took a look at the colleges in your signature and they all have Ph.D level statistics courses and requirements...

 

I was told while visiting some programs that first-years mostly take the same courses that an MA student would take. Having directed reading afterwards in lieu of potentially irrelevant courses in different kinds of applied regression does not sound like a downside to the program on its own. 

 

Having seen the work being done by the statistics faculty at SB (it is all biostatistical), I would say that, if the other program has better job placement in the types of jobs your boyfriend is interested in, then he should attend the other program. 

[WaddleDoos]

I was told while visiting some programs that first-years mostly take the same courses that an MA student would take. Having directed reading afterwards in lieu of potentially irrelevant courses in different kinds of applied regression does not sound like a downside to the program on its own. 

 

Having seen the work being done by the statistics faculty at SB (it is all biostatistical), I would say that, if the other program has better job placement in the types of jobs your boyfriend is interested in, then he should attend the other program. 

 

Stony Brook is not on the same level as UNC, Harvard, Cornell, Mellon, etc. right? Maybe you could get away with reduced Ph.D level courses from top tier schools but can you get away with it with Stony Brook level?

 

And my boyfriend has it in his head that he can get marketing, banking, wall street types of jobs coming out of the statistics program at Stony Brook because it's a known school in NY... in my opinion I think he is wrong.

[student12345]

Stony Brook is not on the same level as UNC, Harvard, Cornell, Mellon, etc. right? Maybe you could get away with reduced Ph.D level courses from top tier schools but can you get away with it with Stony Brook level?

 

And my boyfriend has it in his head that he can get marketing, banking, wall street types of jobs coming out of the statistics program at Stony Brook because it's a known school in NY... in my opinion I think he is wrong.

 

You mentioned that the other program he is considering is a biostatistics program; is it at a ranked or unranked biostatistics department, or is it, again, a part of another non-dedicated department? (Not that there is anything inherently wrong with this, as Boston U's reasonably strong statistics group is in the mathematics department as well; it just makes it harder to compare the relative strength of each quickly.) Would you be willing to give the name of the other school? I am hesitant to comment on the marketability of the Stony Brook name; again, it is certainly not Ivy, in a region relatively rich in Ivy-educated students. Having a PhD in statistics does not grant him the ability to have any kind of job "lined up" after graduation, especially since it sounds like his research will have to be in biostatistics regardless of the program he chooses. 

Edited April 20, 2013 by kimolas

[WaddleDoos]

You mentioned that the other program he is considering is a biostatistics program? Is it at a ranked or unranked biostatistics department, or is it, again, a part of another non-dedicated department (not that there is anything inherently wrong with this, as Boston U's reasonably strong statistics group is in the mathematics department as well)? Would you be willing to give the name of the other school? I am hesitant to comment on the marketability of the Stony Brook name; again, it is certainly not Ivy, in a region relatively rich in Ivy-educated students. Having a PhD in statistics does not grant him the ability to have any kind of job "lined up" after graduation, especially since it sounds like his research will have to be in biostatistics regardless of the program he chooses. 

 

It is a biostatistics program with a lot of funding and potential. I can't really say which one because it would give away his identity. It has its own dedicated department.

 

I'm sorry if that does not help a lot. The other concern is that the faculty from the biostats program is "weaker" than stony brook's few 5 statistics faculty. The few statistics faculty at stony brook have some ivy league backgrounds while for the most part the other school has some mid tier backgrounds (University of Florida for example)

[creed_the_third]

I'm sorry if that does not help a lot. The other concern is that the faculty from the biostats program is "weaker" than stony brook's few 5 statistics faculty. The few statistics faculty at stony brook have some ivy league backgrounds while for the most part the other school has some mid tier backgrounds (University of Florida for example)

That really doesn't say much about how good the research that is being done is.

[student12345]

It is a biostatistics program with a lot of funding and potential. I can't really say which one because it would give away his identity. It has its own dedicated department.

 

I'm sorry if that does not help a lot. The other concern is that the faculty from the biostats program is "weaker" than stony brook's few 5 statistics faculty. The few statistics faculty at stony brook have some ivy league backgrounds while for the most part the other school has some mid tier backgrounds (University of Florida for example)

 

At this point I don't feel that I can tell you which program is better unless you have a good list of job placement out of both programs; and this is something that your boyfriend and you can look at for yourselves. There are some pros/cons to both (although Ivy-league background does not mean stronger faculty). You have strong reasons to prefer the other program but job placements will say for sure.

[WaddleDoos]

That really doesn't say much about how good the research that is being done is.

 

Could you elaborate a little on this please? Sorry I'm in the medical field and do not understand what makes good or bad research in statistics.

 

From what my boyfriend tells me, you can gauge the quality of research that is done at a school by looking at the faculty you will be working with.

 

 

"At this point I don't feel that I can tell you which program is better unless you have a good list of job placement out of both programs; and this is something that your boyfriend and you can look at for yourselves. There are some pros/cons to both (although Ivy-league background does not mean stronger faculty). You have strong reasons to prefer the other program but job placements will say for sure."

Edited April 20, 2013 by WaddleDoos

[creed_the_third]

Could you elaborate a little on this please? Sorry I'm in the medical field and do not understand what makes good or bad research in statistics.

 

From what my boyfriend tells me, you can gauge the quality of research that is done at a school by looking at the faculty you will be working with.

 

I mean that just because most of the faculty have a Ivy league background doesn't mean that they are necessarily more well known in a field than someone from Florida.

[student12345]

I mean that just because most of the faculty have a Ivy league background doesn't mean that they are necessarily more well known in a field than someone from Florida.

 

This is absolutely correct. There are advisors at Ivy-league departments that are less-known than the faculty at, say, Florida. The institution by its own right does not say too much about the quality of the individual; there are many factors that determine this, but a strong advisor is more important than a strong department. 

 

What this says about your boyfriend's dilemma is that it seems like he will be doing biostatistics at either school. And biostatistics research does not necessarily lead to quant jobs on Wall Street, but neither does a statistical background. I would ask your boyfriend to spend some time thinking about whether either degree will let him get the jobs he seems to really want. Job placement records will help tremendously with that. 

[WaddleDoos]

This is absolutely correct. There are advisors at Ivy-league departments that are less-known than the faculty at, say, Florida. The institution by its own right does not say too much about the quality of the individual; there are many factors that determine this, but a strong advisor is more important than a strong department. 

 

What this says about your boyfriend's dilemma is that it seems like he will be doing biostatistics at either school. And biostatistics research does not necessarily lead to quant jobs on Wall Street, but neither does a statistical background. I would ask your boyfriend to spend some time thinking about whether either degree will let him get the jobs he seems to really want. Job placement records will help tremendously with that. 

 

Can you get nonbiostatistic jobs with a biostatistics phd?

 

How do you find out if a person is famous or a strong advisor then? For a person like me with no background in statistics?

[student12345]

Can you get nonbiostatistic jobs with a biostatistics phd?

 

How do you find out if a person is famous or a strong advisor then? For a person like me with no background in statistics?

 

The way I do it is by asking faculty at my department about professors I'm interested in working with. I don't know of any other way, besides finding the H-index of each professor. 

 

Some biostats guys do get jobs as stats professors but they tend to come from more mathematical programs, so I've heard. I don't know about non-biostatistical placement outside of academia but I can try to find out if you'd like to know (not to sound like a broken record here, but job placement records will answer this question for you even better than any of us can). 

 

Was your boyfriend admitted to the general PhD program at Stony Brook? Would he be able to work with the quantitative finance people there? If he can then he could be right about getting a quant job after graduation. But if he's absolutely locked into the statistics track and faculty aren't willing to advise him on a non-biostatistical project then it might be better, again, to decide based on job placement. I keep drilling that one point because I am statistically minded; I don't mean to pressure you since I realize you cannot obtain such a thing at this time of day if it wasn't already available to you. 

[WaddleDoos]

He was admitted to the Statistics track. I assume it would be difficult to switch. Actually, I am not sure if you saw it, but in one of the links that I gave above it shows outcomes.

 

http://www.ams.sunysb.edu/graduate/PhDAlumni.pdf

 

I'm very skeptical about going to SB to go into wallstreet from stats it seems like most people are stuck in post doc?

[student12345]

Can I raise again the question of why your boyfriend was interested enough in biostatistics departments to apply to them, if he is so dead-set on quant jobs now? There are financial mathematics programs that would probably prepare him better for such jobs. If he really, really wants to get a job in Wall Street, it seems like the program at SB will not provide an easy path to his goal, as all students who studied under the statistics faculty wound up in biostatistics positions. If he is given the freedom of working with the financial mathematicians and doing his coursework and and dissertation in financial math then I might feel better about saying SB is a better option for him. But honestly, if he absolutely wants to get a job on Wall Street and he is not allowed to switch to financial math, it might be time to consider a different program than what he has to choose from now... 

 

Edit: I would just like to add that it should be a very difficult decision to make. There must be some reason for him being interested in biostatistics. If not, then it might be better to apply to financial mathematics programs, but as you know there is no guarantee of admission while on the other hand he already has two funded offers (although in an unrelated field), etc. Please use a significant amount of discretion in deciding to reject the funded offers. Perhaps with the financial market being what it is, it might be better to become a biostatistician instead of a quant. This is well beyond what I am familiar with so please do not take my suggestion as my own recommendation, even I am unsure. But as you know there does not appear to be any record of people entering finance out of the (bio)statistics program at Stony Brook. I would not, personally, rely on the school's name to get a job in a field I did not get my degree in. And in this case, I would consider Stony Brook's degree to effectively be a biostatistics degree and not a general statistics degree. 

 

Edit 2: And I should add that I, too, am considering a financial job, although not nearly as much as a professorship. I am considering an internship over the summer with a major bank in financial math, and have specifically asked every department I have visited if there are financial mathematicians at the university (not just the department) that I can be advised by. I would really try to get a good answer from Stony Brook about how amenable they are to switching paths (which is surprisingly common from what I've seen, but it's mostly from math to stats). Your boyfriend would ideally start the finance curriculum if possible. Honestly, I'm not sure what other advice I could provide; maybe you can get Stony Brook to give you the job placements after 2007 or just ask them if they have any stats graduates in finance if they can't switch his track. Hopefully either biostat_prof or cyberwulf (who are biostatistics faculty at top programs and post here somewhat regularly) can chime in regarding the employability of biostatisticians in finance. I really hope you get a satisfying answer but I can't determine which program is better for him if he can't switch to financial math, especially if I don't know what the other programs are. I wish you and your boyfriend the best of luck in figuring this out! 

Edited April 20, 2013 by kimolas

[WaddleDoos]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!

 

Looking forward to any new advice or perspective!

[cyberwulf]

Wow, 20 posts in 3 hours!

 

I have to say I share the OP's concern about the value of a PhD in stat from Stony Brook, given the program description on its web page. While I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of PhD program curricula in ranked biostat/stat departments, I feel pretty confident that the vast majority (if not all) require at least a few PhD-level courses prior to the qualifying exams. For example, consider the curriculum at SUNY Buffalo, a relatively new and little-known biostat PhD program: http://sphhp.buffalo.edu/biostatistics/education/biostatistics-phd/requirements-and-curriculum.html . Furthermore, even departments with relatively few required courses offer several advanced elective courses that further students' training. The lack of any advanced coursework is indeed a red flag.

 

From the perspective of an employer, the main value of hiring a PhD over a Masters-level (bio)statistician is that the PhD has more advanced training in statistics which brings with it a better understanding of core statistical principles and exposure to a wider variety of concepts and ideas. Having a PhD is supposed to signify that you have received that advanced training, but if the program doesn't offer it, what's to distinguish a PhD recipient from a Masters recipient who has worked on a project for a couple of years and who claims to have 'self-studied' various statistical topics? The fact that so many graduates of a supposed 'applied statistics' PhD program (which aims to place students in industry, per their own advertising) are taking postdoctoral positions is a bad sign, and suggests that employers are having the same concerns that the OP is. Obviously, Stony Brook's locally-renowned name and local faculty connections aren't helping students land jobs; the proof is in the pudding.

 

WaddleDoos, without knowing the level of biostat program the your boyfriend has been accepted to, it's hard to say how much better of an option that program would be than Stony Brook, but it sounds like it would almost certainly be better. The core statistical training at quality biostat departments is usually similar enough to decent stat departments (in fact, key courses are often taken *in* the stat department) that graduates are able to land non-biostat related jobs. Feel free to PM for more personalized advice if you want.

[student12345]

Cyberwulf, I have some trouble wrapping my mind around the first half of your argument. While the math/stats department at my undergrad offers some PhD-level coursework, we do a significant part of our learning through supervised reading courses or reading groups. I was under the impression that most departments are the same way since few departments have the resources to offer a very wide range of electives. I was thinking that stony brook's program certainly offers "less" classes, but since graduate students in math and stats learn so much through focused readings, I do not see a lack of fixed coursework a detriment, and in fact I would rather go to such a department if it were comparable in prestige to one which offers scheduled courses.

[wine in coffee cups]

What this says about your boyfriend's dilemma is that it seems like he will be doing biostatistics at either school. And biostatistics research does not necessarily lead to quant jobs on Wall Street, but neither does a statistical background. I would ask your boyfriend to spend some time thinking about whether either degree will let him get the jobs he seems to really want. Job placement records will help tremendously with that. 

Yeah, this.

 

Forget whether SB stats is "fraudulent" or not. Why on earth would he spend 5+ years of his life being trained as a biostatistician when he is specifically interested in banking, marketing, and finance jobs?

 

I really do not think he should enroll in grad school this fall if these are his options, unless he can switch to quantitative finance at SB. (Why didn't he apply for that in the first place?) Certainly an MBA, finance, or operations research would be much more relevant and more likely to lead to the outcomes he wants.

 

WaddleDoos, WTF was your boyfriend thinking when he sent off these applications? Choose your programs to match your goals, people!

[cyberwulf]

Cyberwulf, I have some trouble wrapping my mind around the first half of your argument. While the math/stats department at my undergrad offers some PhD-level coursework, we do a significant part of our learning through supervised reading courses or reading groups. I was under the impression that most departments are the same way since few departments have the resources to offer a very wide range of electives. I was thinking that stony brook's program certainly offers "less" classes, but since graduate students in math and stats learn so much through focused readings, I do not see a lack of fixed coursework a detriment, and in fact I would rather go to such a department if it were comparable in prestige to one which offers scheduled courses.

 

Note that I said that it was the lack of any advanced coursework that was problematic. And while curricula vary, most decent programs offer and require (or very, very strongly suggest) a year of mathematical statistics beyond the usual Casella & Berger-based course for Masters/advanced undergraduate students. A lot of stat departments will also throw in a course or two in measure theory and large sample theory, and biostat places typically require a course on linear models. One of the major reasons to attend a quality stat/biostat program is that the professors there can teach students this material better than most can learn it by themselves. In such programs, "independent reading" is what you do when you're working on your dissertation and need to learn about a special topic that goes beyond the core training. 

Edited April 20, 2013 by cyberwulf