- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 0
As part of my decision-making process, I've been doing informational interviews with MPH graduates from various schools (Columbia, Emory, UCLA). My interest is global reproductive health, specifically contraception and family planning. I was previously leaning toward UNC, and thought that, while Gillings may not be well-known to the general public, it carries a lot of weight within health circles. But all of these people have expressed reservations about UNC's non-urban location (a "definite downside") and connections.
At the same time, they have all been very positive about Emory's Global Health Department, saying that it is "really well-known", that "if you go there, you're set", that "the link to the CDC is very, very important", that "you have so many connections", and that "it's really prestigious". One person pointed out that Emory GH's core classes would all be focused on global health, whereas UNC's would not be. Another, who is based on the West Coast, said that her coworkers all seemed to come from Harvard, Columbia, Emory, and Berkeley.
So I thought I would pose the question to SDN: In spite of UNC's opportunities through RTP, FHI, Ipas, and MEASURE Evaluation, does Emory really provide that much of an edge?
At the same time, they have all been very positive about Emory's Global Health Department, saying that it is "really well-known", that "if you go there, you're set", that "the link to the CDC is very, very important", that "you have so many connections", and that "it's really prestigious". One person pointed out that Emory GH's core classes would all be focused on global health, whereas UNC's would not be. Another, who is based on the West Coast, said that her coworkers all seemed to come from Harvard, Columbia, Emory, and Berkeley.
So I thought I would pose the question to SDN: In spite of UNC's opportunities through RTP, FHI, Ipas, and MEASURE Evaluation, does Emory really provide that much of an edge?