PhD in Rochester (full scholarship) vs MPH in Michigan (one-half tuition fee)

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Hi guys,

I am squeezing my brain to decide between University of Michigan (MPH) and University of Rochester (PhD). The former offered me one-half tuition fee waiver and stipend and the latter full scholarship (26k/year). If I accept Rochester, I will study two years first and drop it to get a master if I don't want Master.

I came up with the analysis:

*University of Michigan:
Pros:
- Prestigious name ( compared to Rochester)
- Amazing and superior faculty members, alumni and networking opportunities (do I exaggerate?)
- Higher employability (resulted from the above). My aim is non-profit sector (WHO, World Bank, Oxfam...)
Cons:
- I am gonna be in debt of 30k-40k

* University of Rochester:
Pros:
- Full support
- Decent school and it has a strong Medical Center (my supervisor was from there and he strongly recommended me to go to Rochester)
Cons:
- To me, Rochester is a "good boy" and Michigan is a "hot boy"
- I feel that taking the offer to study PhD with the intention to drop it to get a master is not ethical....


Please advice if my analysis above is correct and give your insights!

Thanks and good luck

The master's degree you get en route to a PhD is not the equivalent degree to the MPH. Make sure you know what you're getting yourself into if you do the PhD route with the intention of failing out.

Why not just to the entire PhD?

Originally Posted by Kevin36

Why not just to the entire PhD?

I'm guessing he (she?) doesn't want to stay in school for 4-7 years. If i was given the option, I would take the PhD, but getting a doctorate is one of my future goals so I guess I'm biased in that sense.

The classes you're going to take as an MPH student will be substantially different from the classes you'll take during your first 2 years of your PhD. If you're interest is primarily in the professional side of things, take the MPH. If you want to go primarily into research and learn the in depth science of your field, go do the PhD route.

I do agree that it may be a bit unethical to take a PhD spot while having an intention of dropping. That spot could be taken up by someone else who really wants to go all the way.

Originally Posted by littlefurrybugs

I'm guessing he (she?) doesn't want to stay in school for 4-7 years. If i was given the option, I would take the PhD, but getting a doctorate is one of my future goals so I guess I'm biased in that sense.

The classes you're going to take as an MPH student will be substantially different from the classes you'll take during your first 2 years of your PhD. If you're interest is primarily in the professional side of things, take the MPH. If you want to go primarily into research and learn the in depth science of your field, go do the PhD route.

I do agree that it may be a bit unethical to take a PhD spot while having an intention of dropping. That spot could be taken up by someone else who really wants to go all the way.

Thanks a lot littlefurrybugs,

I don't want to do PhD because I feel I am not motivated enough. I know many PhD students who don't love research but jumped into it and end up having tough time. They complained, they just wanted to finish it, they have no desire to contribute to the knowledge. I don't want to be like them. At this moment, my primary goal is to do applied work and people (in this forum) said Master is enough. Am I too idealistic (in the sense that I will do PhD only if I am dearly in love with research, etc.)?

What I concern the most is my employability? What do you think will make me more employable? A PhD from Rochester (it is in New York) or the MPH from Michigan? If I have to pay, I have to make sure that the outcome is good.

Originally Posted by Porcupine

Thanks a lot littlefurrybugs,

I don't want to do PhD because I feel I am not motivated enough. I know many PhD students who don't love research but jumped into it and end up having tough time. They complained, they just wanted to finish it, they have no desire to contribute to the knowledge. I don't want to be like them. At this moment, my primary goal is to do applied work and people (in this forum) said Master is enough. Am I too idealistic (in the sense that I will do PhD only if I am dearly in love with research, etc.)?

What I concern the most is my employability? What do you think will make me more employable? A PhD from Rochester (it is in New York) or the MPH from Michigan? If I have to pay, I have to make sure that the outcome is good.

I think it's hard to do a PhD and be successful if your heart is not in it. You can certainly do a PhD without putting all your energy into it, although the quality of your research will certainly reflect it.

And remember, there's no guarantee you get a master's degree out of a PhD program. You generally have to do qualifying examinations and a dissertation proposal before you get the en-route master's (which is not equal to most master's degrees since the requirements to get it are far different). For instance, at Yale, you receive a Master of Philosophy (or M.Phil). What the heck kind of degree is that? People don't bother writing that a degree on their CVs.

Thanks a lot for your opinions & thoughts. I finally denied the offer from Rochester. It is painful at first when denying such a huge amount of money (and impractical to some people) but I guess committing 5-7 years on something we don't like is more painful. So it is settled now.