Biostatistics PhD at Emory v.s. Biostatistics MA at Berkeley

[biostat16fall]

I have been accepted by both programs and I am hesitating. I would like to pursue a PhD degree. Berkeley does not accept undergraduate level students to the PhD program directly, but it is common to be transferred to their PhD program later.

I heard that Berkeley has a more famous research group and focuses more on the theory side. Intuitively, Emory seems to have better connections with disease and medicine research industry. So generally I suppose Berkeley is better for an academic career and Emory is nice for job opportunities. Am I right? 

Currently, I think my ideal career is a researcher/faculty at an academic institution. But it appears that Emory is a safer choice considering the chances getting into both research and industry fields.

In terms of fundings, the MA program at Berkeley provides TA positions but the tuition is partially covered (without the non-resident tuition), while the PhD at Emory covers tuitions and provides a decent amount of stipend every month. 

May I ask for some suggestions? Thanks so much in advance.

Edited February 27, 2016 by biostat16fall

[beerkatmanor]

I don't have an expert opinion by any means but I'll throw my 2 cents in  If you're interested in an academic career then connections are everything, and Berkeley carries more weight than Emory. But even for industry, I think a higher ranked school would yield more interest too. If finances are a concern then you should take the PhD, but if not then maybe consider doing Berkeley and preparing to apply for PhD programs there and elsewhere in a couple of years. Good luck!

[cyberwulf]

Berkeley is the better-regarded program, but not by a lot. I think you're right in your assessment that Berkeley provides a better springboard to an academic career while Emory is better-connected with government and industry. But since they're both high-quality programs, you would not be closing the door on one career path or the other no matter which you chose.