Different SPHs -- Are some schools "better" at some disciplines?

[VassarLiberal]

---

Members don't see this ad.

The Association of Schools of Public Health, the main accrediting body for SPHs in the US, doesn't officially "rank" schools, whether by discipline or generally. However, it seems that some schools of public health are regarded as higher caliber than others. Is the same true in the sense that some SPHs are "better" at some disciplines than others?

Does anybody have any feelings as to what are the top schools for epidemiology?

 

[Stories]

I suppose it's more important if you're interested in research as a career as one school's faculty may be more prepared and better suited to your style of work than another's. However, if you're going to school for just a MPH and plan to enter professional public health work, just about all the schools should offer similar caliber curricula.

Bigger schools will offer a wider range of topic coursework, of course. So a school like Hopkins will offer way more courses than Yale, for instance.

If you're going to be doing doctoral level work where the rankings actually matter, good luck finding a reputable source for rankings. The most well known one: US News, doesn't do a very thorough review for PH schools (or many "health" schools in general). Your best bet is to call each department, and ask about things such as retention rates, median years to graduation, job placement after graduation (VERY important--particularly if a program fails to place graduates in academic, postdoctoral, or even governmental work).

 

[VassarLiberal]

For PhDs, I would think that it's key to find a faculty member or lab that does what you're interested in, right?

Quick question: is bigger usually better for SPHs?

 

[Stories]

For PhDs, I would think that it's key to find a faculty member or lab that does what you're interested in, right?

Quick question: is bigger usually better for SPHs?

All PhDs, not just public health ones. For PhDs, methodology courses are far more important than your content-based courses.

Bigger means more options. Not necessarily better. Also, better is a subjective term, you need to qualify what you want when you want better. Do you want more course offerings? Do you want research opportunities? Strong ties to the professional public health world? They will all vary by institution.

Traditional ranking systems (as for undergrad colleges/universities done by US News) is really a poor measurement of educational quality because the ratings are biased very heavily toward research done by faculty. Research by faculty has no bearing on your quality of education received as a student. Except for the fact that you might have more facilities to study in.

 

[peanut2]

For Epidemiology I would especially recommend looking at the types of methods courses offered by schools (especially if you want your PhD, but even if you are only getting the MPH). This is critical. Some schools only have one or two methods courses whereas others have 4 or more. Content courses are great but you have to have the foundation first, so the methods are very very important.

 

[Stories]

For Epidemiology I would especially recommend looking at the types of methods courses offered by schools (especially if you want your PhD, but even if you are only getting the MPH). This is critical. Some schools only have one or two methods courses whereas others have 4 or more. Content courses are great but you have to have the foundation first, so the methods are very very important.

Epidemiology methods are definitely important for someone who wishes to pursue research as a career. A good foundation in biostatistics is important, as well.

Any program that offers a PhD in Epidemiology will more likely than not offer at least 3 tiers of methodology courses in epidemiology + a combination of advanced biostatistics course work.