Information on Choosing a Biostat PhD Program

[BiostatGoldie]

So here is my dilemma:  I have been accepted for Biostatistics PhD programs with funding at MUSC and FSU. I’m waitlisted at Vanderbilt and have received an unfunded (as of right now) offer from UNC.  I come from a small liberal arts college with no stat/biostat department, so I have no faculty to give me advice on how to choose a program.  Also, I am torn between going into academia and industry after graduate school, so ideally I would like a program that would set me up for either career path. Further, I am very interested in research in clinical trials.  Specifically, cancer related clinical trials.  I know MUSC, UNC, and Vanderbilt all have research in cancer and clinical trials being produced. Currently, MUSC is my preferred choice but I am open to FSU's program as well (UNC has given no timeline as to when funding offers might be distributed and I’m still on the waitlist at Vanderbilt).  

So, if anyone could discuss MUSC’s reputation in either academia or industry it would be a huge help.  I’m not too hung up on rankings (although information on how MUSC has been ranked recently would be helpful), I’m placing more weight on the research being produced at the university, student placement upon graduation and how theoretical or applied is the program (I’m biased towards a more applied program, but have a healthy respect for theory). 

 Also, I know Vanderbilt’s program is very new (I think they should graduate their first PhD student this year), and would like some opinions on the program.  Where I live, Vanderbilt has one of the best academic reputations; however, I know this doesn’t necessarily apply to all of their programs.  So if anyone could speak about the program and how it is viewed in academia/industry, it would be helpful. I’m really interested in the program and (pending I get in off the waitlist) it would be one of my top choices.

Overall, I’m simply curious as to how attending MUSC or Vanderbilt would affect my ability to enter into academia or industry as compared to UNC. 

[cyberwulf]

Of the programs you mentioned, UNC is clearly the best one. If you end up getting funding from them, that program would offer the best opportunities on either an academic or industrial path.

Of the rest, while Vanderbilt is a pretty new program I think the overall quality of its faculty give it a slight edge over MUSC and FSU. If you are thinking of pursuing an academic career, the name of your dissertation advisor matters, and there are more "name" advisors at Vanderbilt. As far as industry goes, MUSC sends most of its graduates to industry so they presumably have established connections with employers. Vanderbilt, being new to the PhD graduate game, may have less of a pipeline in place. I don't know as much about FSU, but would rank it below Vandy and MUSC.

[BiostatGoldie]

@cyberwulf Thank you so much for the help and information! 

How would one go about determining the if a potential advisor is a "name" advisor? By simply looking at the number of publications in top journals or are there other methods to help determine the prestige of a potential advisor?

[Biostat_Assistant_Prof]

Cyberwulf couldn't be more correct in saying "the name of your dissertation advisor matters." Your advisor/mentor is the most important component for success in graduate school! 

FSU's 'biostatistics' program is housed within it's stats program, whereas the remaining departments you mention are within med schools or departments of public health (as are most biostatistics programs). FSU will be more theoretical; All of the other schools you mentioned will probably give you more/better opportunities to work physicians and lab researchers than will FSU. 

For clinical trials research, Vanderbilt, MUSC, and UNC all have ties to med schools and hospitals with active clinical trial programs, and biostatistics faculty at each are doing methodological clinical trials research.