LSHTM vs (Hopkins/Harvard/Emory)

[teslaph]

---

Members don't see this ad.

These are all world renowned schools, and none would be a bad choice. However, I am SPECIFICALLY interested in what areas LSHTM is better than Hopkins. From what I understand, it's better in international health sciences. But if anyone has studied at LSHTM or knows a bit about this question, what would be the 2-3 most defining differences between LSHTM and a top public health school in the US?

 

[364462]

These are all world renowned schools, and none would be a bad choice. However, I am SPECIFICALLY interested in what areas LSHTM is better than Hopkins. From what I understand, it's better in international health sciences. But if anyone has studied at LSHTM or knows a bit about this question, what would be the 2-3 most defining differences between LSHTM and a top public health school in the US?

I am applying to LSHTM, the MSc in Global Mental Health. It is one of my top choices. The question you are asking is difficult to answer because it will vary across programs/concentrations. However, I do agree that the London School may have a slightly better edge with regards to international work and training. So, here are my 2 cents:

1. In my own research of the program - and one primary reason why I am applying - global health training, multicultural perspectives, and international discourse are infused across all programs at the London School. Whereas many (though not all) U.S. public health schools have a separate global/international health concentration/focus (which are strong and provide excellent training), I believe that the London School as a whole is global health training.

2. The exceptions to this may be Harvard and Hopkins. (I cannot speak about Emory.) Shorter than the traditional 2-year MPH, there are specific reasons why they "get away" with a 1-year curriculum - not least of which are requirements for advanced or doctoral-level degrees, significant work/professional experience post-undergrad, and emphasis on quantitative skills. (I am talking about the MPH specifically.) This is not to say that Harvard and Hopkins are "better" than 2-year programs, but you can see how and why the caliber of the coursework, training, and job potential are tied to the type of applicants they offer admissions. I believe that admissions to either Harvard or Hopkins facilitates international job prospects irrespective of the concentration (i.e., even if you did not do the global health focus).

3. The London School is cheaper, even as an international/non-UK/non-EU student. (Living in London is a different story.) Also, quite frankly, based on folks I have met from and lived in London, I get a sense that students there have a "global" mindset. Again, this does not mean one is "better" than another. However, engaging in discussions/debates with other students whose perspectives are global - not because they are in an international concentration/focus but because it is what it is - does and will inform the way discourse is translated into practice.

4. You should consider University of California San Francisco's MS in Global Health Sciences.

 

[teslaph]

This perspective you've given me is extremely well thought out and well informing. I also appreciate how you explained it greatly by emphasizing/underlying the most important parts. This will greatly help me with my application (to a separate degree at LSHTM, but I hope we can perhaps be classmates and meet in London in person, maybe haha). Thanks a bunch porkbunsrule!

 

[narrowback]

I will be applying to the MSc in Epi at the LSHTM. My reasoning is pretty simple - I want to study communicable disease epidemiology (with a side interest in public health & the built environment) in a worldly metropolitan area...and would do best to do it in the place where field epidemiology really started.

 

[Eximious]

I'm not too familiar with the graduate education at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, though I do see research from LSHTM often in my line of work (soil-transmitted helminths). My knowledge of graduate programs is primarily restricted to Emory. Their global health program is top-notch, by my estimations. I doubt you'll get a poor global health education at any of the schools you mentioned, however.

That said, depending on where you want to work in global health, price should be a big consideration. Emory isn't cheap. And most global health practitioners don't go into the field to make big bucks!