Advice on Biostats Programs

[ginagirl]

I am struggling a lot right now with how to narrow down my current biostats MS choices. Right now I am considering UCLA, Minnesota, Duke, and Emory. I have been leaning towards Minnesota as I feel it would be the strongest program overall, but I keep getting hung up on how my research interests might fit with the programs.

My main interests are neuroimaging, psychology, and neuroscience. Minnesota and UCLA have a few faculty each that do some work in these areas, but Duke and Emory have a few more (though it seems debatable how big of an impact each of those additional faculty members are making on the field). Emory also has a Center for Biomedical Imaging Statistics, which is pretty cool. My issue is not only are Duke and Emory lower ranked, they're more expensive to attend than both Minnesota and UCLA.

 

I guess my main question is I'm not sure which should be most important- cost, research fit, or ranking. I want to go to a good school, but I also want to be excited about my research and not panicking over how much debt I might have. Does research fit not even matter as a masters student? Also, am I placing too much value on the rankings?

 

I do hope to continue on for my PhD after, and I'm unsure if I should be thinking about that as well in terms of being able to set myself up to stay at the same program or if I should be open to reapplying.

 

I know this is sort of long but I'm really stumped and sort of stuck in my head with this whole thing. I don't want to make the wrong decision. Any advice would be appreciated.

[biostat_prof]

At the MS level, unless there is a required thesis/MS paper, I wouldn't worry too much about research fit, because most likely you won't be doing much of it. And honestly, if you apply to a PhD program, where you do your MS is very low on the list of things that we consider. You're much better off doing well at a lower-ranked department than doing poorly at a higher-ranked department. The only real benefit of a higher-ranked department if you later apply for a PhD program is that it might be slightly easier to get a recommendation letter from a well-known faculty member, but I would have a hard time recommending that you incur additional debt just for that. However, if you decide not to do a PhD (or don't get accepted to a program that you like), it's possible that job placement will be better at better-ranked programs. I don't know anything about the job placement at the schools you listed, but it's a question worth asking. Another consideration is if any of these schools regularly admit students to their PhD program from the MS track. If you are basically guaranteed admission to the PhD program if you do well in your MS classes, that would make me favor schools that give you that option.

 

I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

[ginagirl]

Thanks for your response, that's really helpful!

[cyberwulf]

I have a different view on this. If you have PhD aspirations, the primary reason to attend a better Masters program is to get a foot in the door for PhD admission in that department. If the department requires a Masters thesis, that is an excellent opportunity to start working with (and impressing!) a faculty member who might be a potential future adviser, someone who will strongly support your PhD application as an internal candidate.

 

And, while I understand the desire to stick with what you know or what you've done before, I generally encourage students not to worry too much about research fit; most good departments cover the major areas of (bio)statistics adequately, and furthermore you may be surprised to find that your skills and experience in one area are actually quite applicable in another!

[ginagirl]

Thanks cyberwulf, your take on this makes sense as well. I did leave out that I have a slightly different background from most other biostats applicants in that I come from a non-math degree and have been doing research in that field for 2 years since graduating. As this is the area that currently and historically excites me the most, I do hope to continue to contribute to that area as I move into biostatistics. However, I have been keeping in mind that I might be happy doing other sorts of research as well!

[biostat_prof]

I have a different view on this. If you have PhD aspirations, the primary reason to attend a better Masters program is to get a foot in the door for PhD admission in that department. If the department requires a Masters thesis, that is an excellent opportunity to start working with (and impressing!) a faculty member who might be a potential future adviser, someone who will strongly support your PhD application as an internal candidate.

 

And, while I understand the desire to stick with what you know or what you've done before, I generally encourage students not to worry too much about research fit; most good departments cover the major areas of (bio)statistics adequately, and furthermore you may be surprised to find that your skills and experience in one area are actually quite applicable in another!

 

As I said in my earlier post, I agree that if a department has a history of admitting PhD students out of its MS program and one likes the idea of getting a PhD at that particular department, that changes the equation a bit. But every department is different in this regard. Some departments basically admit any MS student who performs well into their PhD program whereas other departments don't favor their current MS students at all. So make sure you know what the department's policy is when making this type of decision.

[Y.T. Safire]

As I said in my earlier post, I agree that if a department has a history of admitting PhD students out of its MS program and one likes the idea of getting a PhD at that particular department, that changes the equation a bit. But every department is different in this regard. Some departments basically admit any MS student who performs well into their PhD program whereas other departments don't favor their current MS students at all. So make sure you know what the department's policy is when making this type of decision.

 

Just curious. Is there any possible explanation about why some departments don't favor their own MS students? Diversity reason or just because those PhD programs are so popular that the applicants elsewhere generally have better background than applicants in the MS programs? And I sense what most students are concerned about is whether they would be put in a position of relative disadvantages if they attended the MS program at such a department compared with attending somewhere else. 

 

It seems, according to my personal perception, that happens in stats departments more often than in biostats departments.

[cyberwulf]

Just curious. Is there any possible explanation about why some departments don't favor their own MS students? Diversity reason or just because those PhD programs are so popular that the applicants elsewhere generally have better background than applicants in the MS programs? And I sense what most students are concerned about is whether they would be put in a position of relative disadvantages if they attended the MS program at such a department compared with attending somewhere else. 

 

It seems, according to my personal perception, that happens in stats departments more often than in biostats departments.

 

There are two big issues at play here:

 

1) In many programs, some of the MS students are those who originally applied to the PhD but were only accepted to the Masters. Even if they perform well in the MS, their overall record may still be weaker than strong external PhD applicants. For this reason, it seems like there are fewer and fewer programs where good Masters performance virtually guarantees you a PhD spot; the holdouts are programs like Michigan biostat where all students start in the Masters program, but students who are identified as "PhD material" upon admission are essentially assured of a PhD spot provided they perform satisfactorily.

 

2) Faculty knowing you well is a double-edged sword, as they are well-acquainted with both your strengths and weaknesses.  Strong letters from faculty in your own department can overcome a lot of weaknesses on an application. On the flipside, as an external applicant you have the ability to craft your application to showcase your best attributes and internal applicants don't benefit from this to the same extent. This can lead to a "grass-is-greener" mentality among faculty comparing internal vs. external applicants.