Harvard vs. UW Biostatistics PhD

[shill]

I'm fortunate enough to have been accepted into both Harvard and the University of Washington's PhD programs for biostatistics. I'm not entirely sure whether I want to go into academia or industry; while UW has a reputation for being much more rigorous/theoretical, I'm fairly confident you can go either direction in both programs if you make the appropriate curriculum/research choices.

A lot of the people in my life are pushing for Harvard-- but the most often cited reason is that the lay prestige of Harvard is that much greater (which would come into play especially if I went into industry) and the opportunities to network and so forth in the non-tech sector are better in the Harvard/the Boston area. Fair points, to be sure. But does anybody in this forum have any thoughts about the pros/cons of either of these two programs, or about the value of attending a school with more lay prestige?

(Once again, this is really the nicest of possible dilemmas and I realize I'll probably be fine wherever I end up.)

[Biostat_Assistant_Prof]

For car fans this is like Lamborghini or Ferrari. For guitar players this is like Taylor or Martin... If you're not getting the metaphor, they are both fantastic schools, arguably the two best programs you could have to choose from. 

With that said, in my opinion, your choice should come down to 3 big things:

1) Where do you want to live and work when you finish (east or west coast)? Neither will preclude you from the other, but going to Harvard will better set you up with opportunities on the east coast, whereas UW will on the west coast. 

 2) Are there specific research areas/faculty you're more interested in at one or the other? For instance, they both have fantastic cancer centers (Fred Hutchinson vs. Dana Farber), so either would be good for cancer research, but if you wanted to Bayesian oriented research, Harvard I think has more faculty in the area... Just something to think about. 

3) Which city would you be happier living in? Boston vs. Seattle is a tough question. Both are awesome, fun cities to live in. Would you rather deal with snowy/harsher winters in Boston or the misty/rainy atmosphere of Seattle? 

Other things...

Lay prestige doesn't mean much unless you plan on pursuing a career outside of the field when you finish. Everyone within biostats knows how good each of these departments are. Another thing to consider in terms of your own interests, if you happen to be a less theoretical oriented person yourself, UWs qualifying exams are known to be quite rigorous. I'm sure Harvard's are no walk in the park, but I think UWs are `tougher' - just something to think about. 

[shill]

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply (and the illustrative metaphors)!

For points 1) and 3), I have always assumed that any geographical preferences would get tossed by the wayside in favor of my academic and professional ambitions. I don't really have strong personal feelings either way regarding east vs. west coast and Boston vs. Seattle. I think the one recurring location-related concern I have is that there's a much greater density of research institutions in the greater Boston area and in the east coast in general.

For point 2), again, I could go either way. I might want to do something related to statistical genetics, and my feeling is that Harvard has more high-profile people doing work in that area (and that UW's statistical genetics research tends to be more traditional, population-based stuff). On the other hand, I'm also interested in machine learning and optimization; UW would clearly provide more opportunities there.

I don't personally care too much about lay prestige, and the last thing I want to do is be the kind of person who decides stuff based solely on that. I don't intend to pursue a career outside of biostatistics/statistics, but God willing, I've got 40+ years of working ahead of me. That's a lot of time for me and the world to be certain about anything, but Harvard's name and reach are probably going to be evergreen. So the argument that people have made to me is that unless there is something specific that you really want to do that only UW offers, why would you turn down Harvard? And there's a certain logic there, because while it would be a mistake to choose a school based on lay prestige, it would also be a mistake to pretend that it doesn't exist.

As for theoretical rigor: I'm less concerned about surviving quals, so to speak, and more with whether or not having that kind of foundation serves people better in the long run. And I'm sure that it varies from person to person and is highly dependent on where on the theoretical-applied spectrum your interests fall. But unfortunately, I'm not quite ready to answer the question of how theoretical or applied I want to be.

 

[Biostat_Assistant_Prof]

On 3/15/2017 at 0:06 PM, shill said:

For points 1) and 3), I have always assumed that any geographical preferences would get tossed by the wayside in favor of my academic and professional ambitions. I don't really have strong personal feelings either way regarding east vs. west coast and Boston vs. Seattle. I think the one recurring location-related concern I have is that there's a much greater density of research institutions in the greater Boston area and in the east coast in general.

Yes, this is generally correct. On the Eastern half of the US, there are generally more academic institutions, pharma companies, research hospitals/centers (e.g. Mayo or MSK),  government positions, etc. than on the west coast, but that isn't to say you don't have similar opportunities in the west. If you want to have a 'greater pick' of jobs when you graduate, I'd guess Harvard would suit you better, but you'll certainly wont have a problem finding a job coming from UW. The biggest thing is who you're able to network with while in graduate school. At Harvard you'll have ENAR to attend, which is generally comprised of institutions from the east. There is WNAR out west, but it doesn't seem to have the same prominence as ENAR. You could certainly find a job in Boston if you graduated from UW, but making the connections to those jobs would be harder than if you attended Harvard. 

On 3/15/2017 at 0:06 PM, shill said:

For point 2), again, I could go either way. I might want to do something related to statistical genetics, and my feeling is that Harvard has more high-profile people doing work in that area (and that UW's statistical genetics research tends to be more traditional, population-based stuff). On the other hand, I'm also interested in machine learning and optimization; UW would clearly provide more opportunities there.

Well it seems here like you've done your research. I don't have much to add, but I'll re-emphasize that you really can't make a wrong choice. Either way you're likely to get a high quality mentor and a good research project. Getting your PhD is really about learning how to do research... While many people continue in the same area of their dissertation, your research interests can adapt and change throughout your career. 

 

On 3/15/2017 at 0:06 PM, shill said:

I don't personally care too much about lay prestige, and the last thing I want to do is be the kind of person who decides stuff based solely on that. I don't intend to pursue a career outside of biostatistics/statistics, but God willing, I've got 40+ years of working ahead of me. That's a lot of time for me and the world to be certain about anything, but Harvard's name and reach are probably going to be evergreen. So the argument that people have made to me is that unless there is something specific that you really want to do that only UW offers, why would you turn down Harvard? And there's a certain logic there, because while it would be a mistake to choose a school based on lay prestige, it would also be a mistake to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Sure, UW doesn't have that 'Ivy league' name or the world renowned 'stature' that Harvard does. I understand the desire for that elite and exclusive feel of saying, "I go to Harvard". But, in most 'global/world university rankings' UW is in the top 20, yeah it doesn't reach Harvard, but who cares. These rankings are largely based on subjective criteria and name brand that comes with the history that you can't replace. Your average high school graduate may hold Harvard with some great prestige over UW, but any employer you will ever work for will know UW is a world-class institution, and their biostats is arguably the best... And there won't be any discrimination based on it's name relative to Harvard

On 3/15/2017 at 0:06 PM, shill said:

As for theoretical rigor: I'm less concerned about surviving quals, so to speak, and more with whether or not having that kind of foundation serves people better in the long run. And I'm sure that it varies from person to person and is highly dependent on where on the theoretical-applied spectrum your interests fall. But unfortunately, I'm not quite ready to answer the question of how theoretical or applied I want to be.

Either school will provide you with a more than sufficient foundation. That's not an issue at all. 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Biostat_student_22

[shill]

Okay, so I'm really not any closer to being able to decide. But thank you so much again for taking the time to lay all of those things out. It helps put stuff in perspective.

[GoPackGo89]

Is money an issue? Have you compared the cost of living? Are you a big sports fan? Boston definitely wins there. Are you outdoorsy? I'd say Washington wins there.

Any plans to start a family in the next five years? Being closer to relatives could factor in there. Trying to think of other factors worth thinking about.

[Severina]

Go to Harvard.  I have a friend who years ago chose UCLA over Harvard for his PhD and spent the rest of his career regretting passing up the opportunity to get Harvard on his resume.

[StatsG0d]

12 hours ago, Severina said:

Go to Harvard.  I have a friend who years ago chose UCLA over Harvard for his PhD and spent the rest of his career regretting passing up the opportunity to get Harvard on his resume.

That's a bit of a different comparison. UCLA is pretty far removed from Harvard in the rankings but Harvard and UW are tied. If this is supposed to be a brand name argument, I can see your point but I feel for PhDs the program reputation matters more than the school reputation, particularly for academic jobs. In industry placement, Harvard may have the edge, but I also feel like this depends on which company is recruiting. If it's a pharma company, I'm certain that they know that UW and Harvard are pretty much identical.

I think that @Biostat_student_22 makes the best points. You really could not go wrong with either school. I would choose the one that has the most comfortable living setting for you and that has the more sociable / friendly students (the second one is overlooked a lot in my opinion).

Good luck, @shill and congratulations on your stellar admissions!

Edited March 17, 2017 by footballman2399