Ranking Biostats programs by difficulty of getting through quals

[cyprusprior]

After visiting a few biostats departments, and reading about a couple of others online, I've started to notice some interesting differences in the kinds of classes students need to take to be able to pass the qualifying exams. Since this is a prerequisite in most places to starting on research, the amount of time and energy one spends on this coursework is an important factor to consider in weighing different programs. Here's my totally subjective ranking of "coursework/ qual difficulty" from hardest to easiest.

1. tie between UW and Hopkins

2. Michigan

3. UNC

4. Minnesota

5. Harvard

Feel free to chime in if you think I got something wrong, or if you know about programs I haven't listed (Columbia, Wisconsin, UCLA). I definitely don't think that harder coursework means a program is necessarily "better" or "worse" than another, but it's just something I think future applicants might want to keep in mind, especially relative to their experience with writing proofs. If a student's ultimate goal is to do more theoretical research, hard coursework is probably a big pro. But if their goal is to do applied work, it could be a con, since they might become frustrated studying hard on stuff that may not be relevant to their dissertation. I'm sure that faculty spend a lot of time trying to figure out the optimal dosage of deeper theory to help their students succeed, so it's nice to know that there is some variety to choose from.

[mittensmitten895]

Yeah, this definitely figured into my choice of where to apply.  I'm too happy with my career options right now to feel like it's worth pursuing a PhD only to fail quals.  I heard that Hopkins biostat used its qualifying exam as a weeding mechanism and promptly lost interest (also... Baltimore).  Berkeley biostatistics also has the same reputation but not quite to the same extent.  Michigan had insanely difficult quals last year and has the same exam chair this year, but they are usually not intended to weed people out.

[wine in coffee cups]

There is some talk in UW biostat about potentially changing requirements, so inquire when you visit. (Actually, ask about potential changes everywhere you visit.)

 

I think most UW biostat students end up passing their quals, but it sure is a rough couple of years getting there. Most students are supported on RAships before passing quals, so quals are not a total roadblock to starting on research, but it definitely is very hard to make progress on anything interesting with the heavy homework load and frequent in-class exams in the theory and methods sequences for your first two years.

[stats_applicant]

I've heard Wisconsin is pretty difficult as well.  Their biostat course sequence is essentially the same as stat, so the coursework/quals is pretty theoretical in nature.

[Y.T. Safire]

After visiting a few biostats departments, and reading about a couple of others online, I've started to notice some interesting differences in the kinds of classes students need to take to be able to pass the qualifying exams. Since this is a prerequisite in most places to starting on research, the amount of time and energy one spends on this coursework is an important factor to consider in weighing different programs. Here's my totally subjective ranking of "coursework/ qual difficulty" from hardest to easiest.

1. tie between UW and Hopkins

2. Michigan

3. UNC

4. Minnesota

5. Harvard

Feel free to chime in if you think I got something wrong, or if you know about programs I haven't listed (Columbia, Wisconsin, UCLA). I definitely don't think that harder coursework means a program is necessarily "better" or "worse" than another, but it's just something I think future applicants might want to keep in mind, especially relative to their experience with writing proofs. If a student's ultimate goal is to do more theoretical research, hard coursework is probably a big pro. But if their goal is to do applied work, it could be a con, since they might become frustrated studying hard on stuff that may not be relevant to their dissertation. I'm sure that faculty spend a lot of time trying to figure out the optimal dosage of deeper theory to help their students succeed, so it's nice to know that there is some variety to choose from.

 

 

I am curious how the "subjective ranking" is obtained. I am thinking that if it is obtained by talking to the current students we might wanna take into account the competitiveness of the students. 

[cyberwulf]

I am curious how the "subjective ranking" is obtained. I am thinking that if it is obtained by talking to the current students we might wanna take into account the competitiveness of the students. 

 

For what it's worth, this ranking seems reasonable to me, based on personal knowledge and talking to other faculty/students at these institutions.

Edited April 7, 2014 by cyberwulf

[biostat_prof]

From my point of view, the most important criterion for comparing the "difficulty" of qualifying exams is that passing rate, and I don't think any of these schools make that number public. I'm not super familiar with the curriculum at any of these schools (outside of my own department), but my impression is that Hopkins requires more advanced theory than the other schools on the list whereas Harvard requires significantly less. I don't see a major difference in the level of knowledge one is expected to have to pass the exams at UW/UNC/Michigan, although I couldn't tell you how that translates into the difficulty of the actual exam.