Large Statistics Departments (PhD programs): Pros and Cons

[washcross15]

Hi everyone,

 

Congrats to all those who've been admitted. "Stay positive" to those waiting. And finally, "&*%# them/Their loss" to those who've been rejected.

 

Based on the admissions results, it looks like many people have been admitted to some of the larger doctoral statistics programs (i.e. NCSU, Texas A&M, Iowa State, Penn State, etc...). I was wondering if you all would be willing to comment these departments with a cohort size of ~10+?  The full list of programs by number of degrees conferred can be found here: http://www.amstat.org/misc/pdfs/StatisticsPhDs2003-2012.pdf

 

What are the pros and cons of enrollign in a larger department? For example, is there more collaboration in a larger department? Is there more competition in larger department? Easier/more difficult to find a dissertation advisor/committee? Are students in larger departments more social? Do larger programs have a better/worse reputation than smaller ones. Is a PhD from a larger department "watered down" because they confer more degrees (or do larger departments have a better/larger network)?

 

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

[washcross15]

Hello. Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts or comments about this. Thanks!

[StatsG0d]

I can't really speak fully since I'm not a student yet (entering this fall), but I think one of the biggest advantages of a large department is that there are many different electives / research topics, while smaller programs obviously have fewer faculty members which might imply fewer specializations. I guess if you know what you want to do research with and you have perfect foresight then this is insignificant.

[Detective]

Thanks for posting washcross15. I am wondering about the differences between large ( > 10 ) and small ( < 3 )programs myself.

 

To add to the questions already asked, does anyone have any input on course offerings, funding opportunities, social dynamics, or interaction with other departments (social or academic) from these ends of the spectrum?

[PackersFan125]

Also would like to hear anything on this, in the same spot in Biostat

[Igotnothin]

I'm a 3rd year in a biostats department with 7-8 students per cohort. I'm happy where I'm at but if I had to choose between < 3 and > 10 I would definitely choose > 10. < 3 departments are likely to be very small with not many research opportunities, and you won't get much camaraderie with your classmates. I actually don't have any concerns with department that are "too big" in biostats because even the biggest ones have what, 30 per year? You'll still know everyone in your class, and there will likely be enough faculty projects to go around. Also big departments are usually higher ranked. So I think bigger departments just have more to offer all-around.

[washcross15]

Thanks @Igotnothin.  Do you have any thoughts on the competition among students in big programs, especially for advisors? 

Edited February 25, 2015 by washcross15

[Igotnothin]

Yeah that can be a a problem. I remember at one of the big-5 biostats departments I interviewed with a prof that worked with 17 graduate students. No way would I want to be one of those 17. But I think generally departments with a lot of students also have a lot of faculty. Doesn't hurt to ask about competition for advisers at schools you've narrowed it down to.

[StatsG0d]

Thanks @Igotnothin.  Do you have any thoughts on the competition among students in big programs, especially for advisors? 

 

This is something I have never even thought of before. During one of my visits, I noticed a lot of students seemed to already be competing to impress professors. All of a sudden, UF doesn't sound so bad haha.

[biomlstats123]

I have a question regarding the reputation of large stats programs. Do you think that the rankings and reputations for NCSU, Iowa State, and Texas A&M are overly inflated due to their size? 

 

I understand that these schools offer broader research areas, have more funding, and place rather well in industry. However, I get the feeling that these schools are somewhat like "feeders" for industry jobs, and that they don't place people in academia as well as the mid-size or small programs. 

 

It seems like they would be a great place to end up as a professor, but not quite the best place to train future professors. What do you ya'll think? 

[Stat Assistant Professor]

I have a question regarding the reputation of large stats programs. Do you think that the rankings and reputations for NCSU, Iowa State, and Texas A&M are overly inflated due to their size? 

 

I think NCSU's proximity to the Research Triangle is why many who go there opt for industry jobs rather than academic ones. According to the most recent PhD placement data I could find, over 40 percent of PhD graduates from Duke's Statistical Science department also went into industry, and Duke is certainly a very reputable program. Additionally, it seems as though Harvard sends the majority of their stats PhD graduates in industry, http://www.stat.harvard.edu/alumni/PhD.html

 

I think it really depends on the culture of the department too. Some departments may be more-or-less indifferent to where their graduates end up, while others are much more "academically-oriented" and do all they can to place their graduates in academic positions (my current program is one that is invested in success in academia).

 

However, WRT USNWR rankings: based on their methodology (http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/science-schools-methodology), they seem to measure mostly perceived reputation, which tends to be very slow to change. While I do not think these rankings should be discounted completely, I do think that prospective students should also do their own research and look at things like placement of PhD graduates (some of the "lower ranked" schools place very well for academia), NSF grants/awards conferred, and research productivity/number of citations by current faculty (to get a sense of the actual current impact of faculty's research). It is also best to look at the rankings as clusters (so IMO, Stanford-Harvard would be the top cluster, Washington-Wisconsin would be the second one, etc.).

Edited March 27, 2015 by Applied Math to Stat

[wine in coffee cups]

I have a question regarding the reputation of large stats programs. Do you think that the rankings and reputations for NCSU, Iowa State, and Texas A&M are overly inflated due to their size? 

 

I understand that these schools offer broader research areas, have more funding, and place rather well in industry. However, I get the feeling that these schools are somewhat like "feeders" for industry jobs, and that they don't place people in academia as well as the mid-size or small programs. 

 

It seems like they would be a great place to end up as a professor, but not quite the best place to train future professors. What do you ya'll think? 

If you think those programs have an inflated reputation, which currently lower-ranked programs would you bump over them? You could try to collect data on where faculty at each PhD-granting department obtained their PhDs and implement academic hiring network rankings of the type discussed  you think that's what matters.