Is epidemiology right?

[kwke]

Hello everyone,

I am not sure if epidimiology or biostatistics is right for me, but I'm planning to apply for fall of 2015, probably an MS program. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I have graduated from UW Madison with majors in biology and psychology. I have a 3.79 GPA, 4 years of research experience (one 2nd author published paper, one first author paper hopefully getting accepted soon, working on another first author now). All my research is not at all public health related, and I never took a specifically public health course. I got A's in both calc classes I took, A in intro stats, B's in discreet math, regression analysis, and intro to programming. I've volunteered before as an EMT, in a hospital, and have teaching experience (tutoring chemistry) and currently have been working in a lab and teaching English abroad for a year. I have not taken the GRE yet, but assume I will do reasonably.

I am interested in something more quantatative for two reasons. First, i'm interested in better understanding large scale issues, and I feel like solid statistical knowledge is important for that. Secondly, it seems like more quantatative fields are more needed, pay better, it is easier to find a job, etc. I feel that at this point in life, I'm not sure if I'm passionate enough about a topic to pursue a PhD or the academic track in general, and would like to try to start a career, in industry or public sector. Could getting an MS in epidemiology help me accomplish that? I've been thinking about biostatistics as well, since that seems to be even more quantitative and financially stable, but I would have to take extra statistics and math courses before I apply, thus delaying for yet another year.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Bolingbroke]

I think that epidemiology is more interdisciplinary, you get a bird's eye view of a certain types of problems, which includes not only biostats training, but also public health related stuff. A biostats degree isn't specifically public health, but of course would be useful to work on a variety of public health projects. It's often been said that while an MPH helps, there are a lot of non-MPH folks who work on a variety of public health projects, and in the end, experience becomes increasingly important.

Biostats is probably a bit more suited for industry, but if you do the biostats route, then you won't get the broader public health view of epidemiology, though you will have some hard skills that employers will find valuable. I think that folks who do epi are competent with mathematics, but the main driver is that they want to work in the public health field in the future, probably for the biostats folks it's the enjoyment of doing statistical analysis, the math, regardless of what problem is being worked on.

If you're not hooked on public or epi, and just want a quantifiable skill set, then probably doing biostats makes more sense. Even if you go the biostat route, you can get into public health later if you decide that's the sort of problems you want to work on.

 

[themmases]

I'm probably biased because I chose epi and am starting this fall, but I will say that your background should be fine for getting in. I have similar work experience to yours-- worked in medical research for 4 years, not public health-- and a less relevant major and got in almost everywhere. Public health applicants are really diverse, partly because there are so few undergrad programs, so work experience and interest count for a lot. Schools will want to see that you understand how public health and medicine are different, but it's fine to use a non-public health experience that you tie into public health in your SOP. For example, I talked about the health literacy challenges of some of the patients I enrolled in medical research.

As for your choice of field, I can say that I hear nothing but good things about choosing either epi or biostats. I chose epi for very similar reasons to yours. I like study design, and I'm good at it but I sense that I could be doing better with training. I saw from working on medical research that the degree still mattered even when I did a lot of the work-- but people only seemed to care about the specifics of the degree when it involved a hard skill we needed. If you like the kind of research you do now, look around-- what kinds of people does your group always need more of? Who has moved up quickly, either where you work or by being able to go elsewhere? Mine always needs study design advice, and they always need either a statistician who can explain things well in writing to a complete layperson, or a knowledgeable person to be the go-between for a statistician and an MD. Hence, epi.

 

[stmaan01]

A major difference between the two programs is the mathematical rigor associated with each program. A biostats program will be significantly more intense on the math side, meaning you should be able to handle some theory and mathematical notation. If you have the math chops for biostats, then that shouldn't be a problem. On the flip side, epi will prepare you well for study design. I'm an ms biostats, but I have taken the first two epi methods classes offered at my school. Here's an example of the differences betweem epi and biostats, based on my experience:

In epi, you will become familiar with study designs, learning about the variations of the case-control study and when to use each study. In biostats, you will become familiar with the different methods to analyze data for a particular study, like different regression models, different tests, categorical analysis methods, etc. Obviously, this is my experience, and yours can be different. There is a quite a bit of overlap, but it kind of depends on what area you wish to explore on a deeper level, study design or analysis approach.

 

[kwke]

A major difference between the two programs is the mathematical rigor associated with each program. A biostats program will be significantly more intense on the math side, meaning you should be able to handle some theory and mathematical notation. If you have the math chops for biostats, then that shouldn't be a problem. On the flip side, epi will prepare you well for study design. I'm an ms biostats, but I have taken the first two epi methods classes offered at my school. Here's an example of the differences betweem epi and biostats, based on my experience:

In epi, you will become familiar with study designs, learning about the variations of the case-control study and when to use each study. In biostats, you will become familiar with the different methods to analyze data for a particular study, like different regression models, different tests, categorical analysis methods, etc. Obviously, this is my experience, and yours can be different. There is a quite a bit of overlap, but it kind of depends on what area you wish to explore on a deeper level, study design or analysis approach.

Thanks for the response! It seems that for a lot of biostats programs, I would have to take extra math courses, calculus, linear algebra, maybe math statistics, before I can even apply. Do you think there are any with less pre-requisits? Or could I get into grad school for epidemiology, and then switch possibly? I'm a bit torn between the two degrees, since biostats seems to teach a fairly transferable and marketable skill, but my backgrund seems to be more suitable for epi, and I'm certainly still interested in the biology, and even policy side of things. And it looks like I could start working on an epidemiology degree right away. Would you say both degrees are marketable?

 

[stmaan01]

It sounds like you are more interested in a holistic education, linking epi, biostats, biology, policy, etc. So, it sounds like an MPH is probably your best option, as you will be able/required to take courses in a wide range of subjects, including the ones listed above. You won't need additional math coursework prior to the start of your MPH.

As for if the MPH is marketable, the degree is as marketable as you make it. Developing skills (like SAS coding, grant writing, etc.) will be just as useful, if not more useful, in helping you to get employed after school. Choosing a MPH over a MS is not like shooting yourself in the foot, you can be successful with either degree.

One of the negatives associated with the MPH vs the MS, however, is that an MPH is expensive, and funding is rare (depending on where you attend). While funding for MS programs are still somewhat rare, it is more likely, whereas I have not heard of anyone that has gotten full funding for their MPH. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[AustinTX]

I debated for awhile between biostats and epi. I ultimately decided on epidemiology, and I'm glad I did. My epi program has a strong emphasis on biostatistics, and you can chose to take extra courses in biostatistics. The real downside about majoring in biostatistics is that you end up crunching numbers for everyone else's projects and not your own.
Epidemiology is very broad and flexible. You may want to think about majoring in epi and earning a certificate in biostatistics, unless you just really, really love math.