How much does "lay prestige" matter in biostatistics hiring for an MS?

[decisionthrowaway]

Hello all! I am currently deciding among offers from Michigan, Minnesota, and Texas-Health Sciences (family reasons.) Many family members and friends have encouraged me to enroll at Michigan, citing the fact that Michigan is a more prestigious brand name that will enhance my employment opportunities down the line. Do y'all have a sense of whether undergraduate prestige substantially affects post-graduation opportunities in biostat, or is the market undersaturated enough that choosing either of the two comparable programs would set me up quite well for a career path? (For the record, I'm not super interested in either statistical genetics or clinical trials, so the areas of focus at Michigan and Minnesota are kind of irrelevant to me.)

[Severina]

I think some employers can sometimes be smitten by a big brand name of the caliber of say Harvard, Stanford, or MIT.  They'd like to brag to their customers and/or to themselves that they have really smart employees from top institutions.  But all three schools you mention are reputable state schools of roughly equal prestige.  Worrying about whether a school's undergrad program is ranked say 20th vs. 35th by this or that ranking system is probably slicing the baloney a little too thin, especially when talking about pursuing a graduate degree.  All three will provide you with pretty much the same excellent employment opportunities.

 

Among those choices, I'd say go to whichever one has the program and location you like the best combined with having the least debt when you graduate.

[sild]

I would select them in the order you listed in the original post.  There are clear differences in program quality among the three schools, and biostat employers will know this unless they are very new....

[decisionthrowaway]

I would select them in the order you listed in the original post.  There are clear differences in program quality among the three schools, and biostat employers will know this unless they are very new....

 

What are you basing this on? I understand that UTHSC is a few cuts below the other two, but my understanding was that Michigan and Minnesota were peer institutions in the second tier along with UNC (at least for someone uninterested in stat gen.)

[decisionthrowaway]

Could anyone else possibly weigh in on this?

[gradbio2015]

Ut is worse ranking wise, but i know many ms students that do research at md anderson (and take jobs there) and being with family and friends is important. Michigan and minnesota are about the same- id personally choose minnesota because i feel its stronger in more sub fields than mich.

[trigga]

I think you need to go wherever you think you will be happiest.  I also got into Michigan and several other top ranked biostat schools, along with a few mid ranked schools.  I am choosing to go to a midranked school for family reasons, along with financial considerations and living area preferences.  If you are not happy wherever you are attending, it will be that much harder to excel at school no matter where you go.  Only you can decide what and where will make you happiest. 

 

Will going to a top ranked instution make it easier to find employment anywhere across the country?  Most likely.  Employers know what the top schools in their field are, and having a prestigious school will surely help your resume rise to the top.  But are you interested in working somewhere close to one of the lesser ranked programs?  If so, it might be easier to network and research employment opportunities while you are going to school in the area.  There might also be some degree of collaboration between the department and employers in the immediate area simply due to proximity.  Also, if you think a PhD is in your future, then it is much more important to go to  top ranked program so you can get into a top ranking PhD program.  If not, I think prestige plays a lesser role.   

 

You also need to go somewhere that makes sense financially and you like the structure of the program.  From my brief research, it seems like even from top schools like Michigan, starting salaries for Master's biostat students seems to be relatively stable across the country.  Therefore, going into more debt for a degree doesn't seem to make much sense in a return on investment sense. If you are also not able to take the courses you want and think will make you more marketable in the long run, that needs to be taken into consideration as well.

 

I know this is a tough choice, but only you can decide what is best for yourself.  I don't think having an advance degree in a statistics subfield will make it hard to find employment wherever you go, so ultimately you need to decide what makes the most sense for you, taking some of the above into consideration. Good luck!