Epi or Public Health?

[wiiturtledove]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Not sure which is a better specialty as far as job market is concerned. Which makes more money? More marketable? My advisor told me epi was b/c most MPH is geared towards public health.

 

[Wiingy]

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Within the MPH degree there are a number of concentrations, including epidemiology, biostatistics, health behavior and health education, health policy, and environmental health. To get the MPH degree you will have to take courses from all of these fields. Another possibility is to obtain your MS in epidemiology or biostatistics.

The "competetiveness" of the degree depends on what kind of career you are looking for so without that it's hard to give you more specific advice.

 

[abcabc1]

Not sure which is a better specialty as far as job market is concerned. Which makes more money? More marketable? My advisor told me epi was b/c most MPH is geared towards public health.

No offense, but your questions imply that you have not looked into this very much.

Epidemiology is a sub-division within the larger domain of Public Health. Public Health is a larger Profession, of which Epidemiology is one of its fields.

Your questions are along the lines of: 'is it better to be a Physician or a Radiologist?'

In general, the more analytical fields in Public Health (Biostatistics being the first and Epidemiology being the second) tend to be more lucrative than other fields within Public Health (global health, etc.) That said, Public Health may not be the best profession for someone overly concerned with earning potential. In general, these are two of the more in-demand fields within Public Health.

 

[wiiturtledove]

No offense taken. I worded it wrong. I should have said Environmental Health. I consider public health to be synonymous with environmental health because they are the most visible and the biggest arm usually in a health dept. In my school, epi and biostats are lumped together. Epi is deemed more marketable b/c everyone is going into the environmental health aspect and because most ppl hate taking a lot of stat classes. But I guess if I choose Epi then I will have both fields covered except in your school where you will only be analytical in 1 field....not a wise-crack here...but that's how the program here works which it seems is different from your program.

I am not sure where you are coming from and cannot speak for you. But earnings is a factor in my choice. I told admissions that choosing a specialty that was financially stable is one of the important factors when I choose a specialty area of study. They thought it was a wise decision. A MPH for me is to increase my learning, and obtain an advanced degree to further my career. And I am pretty sure I can see the difference between a physician and a radiologist when there are 2 in my family. Just because we work in public government doesnt mean we dont care about pay or have aspirations to move higher in position. Besides, why go into an area that is saturated? Why do we have such a shortage of primary physicians? It's because everyone is going to the specialties instead of primary care which is being invaded by nurse practitioners.

No offense, but your questions imply that you have not looked into this very much.

Epidemiology is a sub-division within the larger domain of Public Health. Public Health is a larger Profession, of which Epidemiology is one of its fields.

Your questions are along the lines of: 'is it better to be a Physician or a Radiologist?'

In general, the more analytical fields in Public Health (Biostatistics being the first and Epidemiology being the second) tend to be more lucrative than other fields within Public Health (global health, etc.) That said, Public Health may not be the best profession for someone overly concerned with earning potential. In general, these are two of the more in-demand fields within Public Health.

 

[abcabc1]

Let me clarify that. If a high income is your primary goal, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, IMO. My two cents were that, for those who are seeking high incomes, Public Health is not the right profession.

If you're convinced that Public Health is what you want to do, then you should pursue it. Of course, pursuing Public Health (or any field) while being oblivious to earning potential is not wise. With debt, family, living expenses, etc. of course this is a concern.

Within PH, BIOS is the most lucrative, followed by EPID. There are exceptions, but this would be the general trend. It makes sense, as they're the most difficult to learn (in order, BIOS being harder than EPID).

From my view, I'd recommend EPID over Environmental Health b/c it's more quantitative/analytical. I don't know too many people in Environmental Health, but it wouldn't shock me if there are a number of I-care-about-the-planet-and-am-therefore-better-than-you types IN EH. People like this annoy me, but it's not a major concern. In terms of opportunities and earning potential, I would say EPID is better than EH here as well.

One concern for EPID is that Government is a major employer of Epidemiologists. With the Economy and state budgets the way they are, reasonable Government officials may want to lighten the public sector hiring. The stimulus allowed states to push the tough choices off a couple years but, the longer you avoid reality, the more grim it becomes once you face it.

In EPID, you may or may not take a lot of stats classes. Most of the stats courses you take, though, are more applied. It's going to be less theory, Math Stats, proof based stuff. In a top EPID doctoral program, though, you will take a fair number of BIOS courses. My guess would be two semesters of Biostatistics (not the inference courses, which are harder), Linear Regression, Longitudinal Data Analysis and Survival (which is tough). In an EPID Masters, it won't be as much.

 

[Stories]

From my view, I'd recommend EPID over Environmental Health b/c it's more quantitative/analytical. I don't know too many people in Environmental Health, but it wouldn't shock me if there are a number of I-care-about-the-planet-and-am-therefore-better-than-you types IN EH. People like this annoy me, but it's not a major concern. In terms of opportunities and earning potential, I would say EPID is better than EH here as well.

In EPID, you may or may not take a lot of stats classes. Most of the stats courses you take, though, are more applied. It's going to be less theory, Math Stats, proof based stuff. In a top EPID doctoral program, though, you will take a fair number of BIOS courses. My guess would be two semesters of Biostatistics (not the inference courses, which are harder), Linear Regression, Longitudinal Data Analysis and Survival (which is tough). In an EPID Masters, it won't be as much.

Just wanted to clarify a few things for ya here.

Environmental Health would be just as rigorous as an Epidemiology course in-terms of quantitative courses. Generally speaking (at least from what I've seen at both BU and Yale), EH folks take the same epi/biostat courses + toxicology and risk assessment (more quantitative courses). EH is basically epidemiology but with strictly environmental (biological, physical, and chemical) exposures.

In any doctoral program (regardless of discipline within PH) will have a ton of biostatistics and epidemiology because they form the basis of public health research. For instance, just a smattering of course I took this year (linear regression, spatial statistics, categorical analysis, survival analysis, epidemiologic analysis (basically logistic regressions)). Every doctoral student here needs to take a bunch of statistics courses and they do at BU, too. In any biomedical doctoral program, a large basis is in statistics.

 

[abcabc1]

Just wanted to clarify a few things for ya here.

Environmental Health would be just as rigorous as an Epidemiology course in-terms of quantitative courses. Generally speaking (at least from what I've seen at both BU and Yale), EH folks take the same epi/biostat courses + toxicology and risk assessment (more quantitative courses). EH is basically epidemiology but with strictly environmental (biological, physical, and chemical) exposures.

In any doctoral program (regardless of discipline within PH) will have a ton of biostatistics and epidemiology because they form the basis of public health research. For instance, just a smattering of course I took this year (linear regression, spatial statistics, categorical analysis, survival analysis, epidemiologic analysis (basically logistic regressions)). Every doctoral student here needs to take a bunch of statistics courses and they do at BU, too. In any biomedical doctoral program, a large basis is in statistics.

Is Environmental Health, typically, its own Department or is it more of a sub-division of the larger Epidemiology Department?

Btw, how would you rate the Doctoral program in EPID @ BU?

 

[Stories]

Is Environmental Health, typically, its own Department or is it more of a sub-division of the larger Epidemiology Department?

Btw, how would you rate the Doctoral program in EPID @ BU?

EH is *always* its own department (because it's a core competency of PH). But you'll often find several epidemiology-trained folks in the EH department (because environmental epi faculty are generally housed within EH) as well as several EH-trained folks in the epi department. However, EH also encompasses several other areas which aren't applicable to epi (such as risk assessment and toxicology). For someone such as myself, I'm an epidemiologist. There's no ifs ands or buts about it, but I'm getting EH training because it's environmental epidemiology (so I need to toxicology and molecular aspects which EH provides).

I think BU's strength lies in perinatal and cardiovascular epi. There's quite a few resources and faculty work done in those areas. They also do a good job of finding funding for students (generally, all their doctoral students will work as RAs on a PI's project grant). That said, funding fluctuates from year to year as a result. They offer a lot of flexibility, which is really nice, too.

 

[abcabc1]

I think BU's strength lies in perinatal and cardiovascular epi. There's quite a few resources and faculty work done in those areas. They also do a good job of finding funding for students (generally, all their doctoral students will work as RAs on a PI's project grant). That said, funding fluctuates from year to year as a result. They offer a lot of flexibility, which is really nice, too.

What do you think of the EPID doctoral programs at Pitt and UT-Houston? Is one considered better than the other.

They both seem solid, with Pitt having the advantage of being associated with UPMC and having a strong BIOS department that can offer good electives. UTH has the advantage of being in the heart of the Texas Medical Center.

 

[Stories]

What do you think of the EPID doctoral programs at Pitt and UT-Houston? Is one considered better than the other.

They both seem solid, with Pitt having the advantage of being associated with UPMC and having a strong BIOS department that can offer good electives. UTH has the advantage of being in the heart of the Texas Medical Center.

Sorry, I didn't consider UT because I wasn't willing to live in Texas. Pitt has more strength in infectious disease, if I remember correctly, which is another reason I didn't seriously consider it as an option for myself. I have a friend (who is now at UW for her PhD) who was accepted to Pitt last year but decided to decline admission because they don't have much focus on perinatal health, either. So I know two areas they're not particularly strong: perinatal and environmental.

 

[abcabc1]

Sorry, I didn't consider UT because I wasn't willing to live in Texas. Pitt has more strength in infectious disease, if I remember correctly, which is another reason I didn't seriously consider it as an option for myself. I have a friend (who is now at UW for her PhD) who was accepted to Pitt last year but decided to decline admission because they don't have much focus on perinatal health, either. So I know two areas they're not particularly strong: perinatal and environmental.

Is it possible to rate/rank/measure EPID departments as a whole or is it more based on the different subdivisions (CV, ID, Cancer, Perinatal, etc.)?

With that caveat, what programs would you rate as being in the upper tier of EPID besides Harvard, JHU and Washington? From what I've seen (albeit limited exposure), those are the best programs.

 

[Stories]

Is it possible to rate/rank/measure EPID departments as a whole or is it more based on the different subdivisions (CV, ID, Cancer, Perinatal, etc.)?

With that caveat, what programs would you rate as being in the upper tier of EPID besides Harvard, JHU and Washington? From what I've seen (albeit limited exposure), those are the best programs.

Seriously ask yourself why you think of certain programs as being better than others. And then I have an answer for you:

The primary reason those programs are regarded highly is because they're all very big and can accommodate nearly all students of all interests. Remember, the most important thing for a doctoral student is your specific area of interest (you MUST be matched with the proper mentor and appropriate committee that can guide you in your work). If a school is able to pump out students in all areas of work, it's due to the size of a school (which leads to a lot of diverse opportunities for students).

Training really won't be drastically different from one school to another (the method of teaching might be, but the content doesn't change wherever you go). You have to figure that students who are highly motivated and are the brightest will be applying to the schools with the best names (because who doesn't want to have Harvard on his/her resume), and it's not necessarily because of the school that they're succeeding.

Also, coursework isn't important in doctoral studies (doctoral students take fewer classes than MPH students, for instance). You get the courses you need to take, but it's all about developing research abilities, which is something you don't necessarily learn in the classroom. You need to find a mentor who can foster these abilities.

 

[abcabc1]

Seriously ask yourself why you think of certain programs as being better than others. And then I have an answer for you:

The primary reason those programs are regarded highly is because they're all very big and can accommodate nearly all students of all interests. Remember, the most important thing for a doctoral student is your specific area of interest (you MUST be matched with the proper mentor and appropriate committee that can guide you in your work). If a school is able to pump out students in all areas of work, it's due to the size of a school (which leads to a lot of diverse opportunities for students).

Training really won't be drastically different from one school to another (the method of teaching might be, but the content doesn't change wherever you go). You have to figure that students who are highly motivated and are the brightest will be applying to the schools with the best names (because who doesn't want to have Harvard on his/her resume), and it's not necessarily because of the school that they're succeeding.

Also, coursework isn't important in doctoral studies (doctoral students take fewer classes than MPH students, for instance). You get the courses you need to take, but it's all about developing research abilities, which is something you don't necessarily learn in the classroom. You need to find a mentor who can foster these abilities.

In general, what are the private sector/industrial opportunities for Epidemiologists (i.e. what can EPID graduates obtain outside of Academia and Government)?

Do you think people interested in private/industrial opportunities should only earn an MPH/MS and not a doctoral degree in the field? I've noticed that private employers (Pharma, etc.) seek many doctoral graduates in STAT/BIOS, but haven't seen as many opportunities for EPID PhD's.