MPH or MS in Biostatistics

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

partlycloudy

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Is there a significant difference in the job prospects between these two degrees? As in, does an MS graduate typically have a different career trajectory than an MPH graduate? Thanks in advance. I've spoken to some admissions officials and they've generally been unhelpful.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Is there a significant difference in the job prospects between these two degrees? As in, does an MS graduate typically have a different career trajectory than an MPH graduate? Thanks in advance. I've spoken to some admissions officials and they've generally been unhelpful.
MS degrees are (likely) more theoretical and are geared towards the application of statistical science to further the field, typically through research. MPH are more practice-oriented. The trajectory, I would imagine, is not always a straight line between the chosen degree and the expected career. MS folks have a greater number of courses - and therefore, more experience - in quantitative analysis, including biostatistics, epidemiology, and other higher-level analyses. CEPH-accredited MPH programs require that students complete a 'culminating experience' (i.e., practicum or fieldwork). I doubt MS programs require this and instead may require a paper/thesis (although, to be fair, some MPH programs do require some kind of 'final paper' or thesis work). The demarcation between researched-oriented versus practice-oriented trajectories is not always clear. However, there is an expectation from admissions, I would argue, that those who want an MS degree want a research career and those who want an MPH want a practice-oriented career.
 
I agree with the above poster in that while a MS is considered as a "research degree" and the MPH is considered as a "practice degree", in the real world the destinction is not as clear cut. There are MS graduates who get their "hands dirty" working "in the field", and there are MPH graduates who have purely dedicated acedemic jobs.

So the choice depends on what you see your self most likely doing after graduation. If it is most likely research, then the MS route would be a good idea. If it is most likely public health practice, then the MPH route would be a good idea. Again, you have to go with "most likely", because in the real world the distiction between a MS and MPH is very blurry.

I might be biased, but I personally prefer the MPH. I feel that a person with the MPH can always go back and do research/acedemic work if he/she chooses (specially since many of the top ranking MPH programs are acedemic in nature and require a thesis project at the end of the MPH coursework, at least mine does. I feel that a person with the MS might have a harder time adjusting to the general interdesiplinary nature of the public health practical field work.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thanks both of you for the responses.

Leukocyte, you mentioned that you were biased. Do you have an MPH in BIOS?

My dilemma comes from the fact that I'm not sure whether or not I want to pursue a PhD. I've heard that if you're interested in going the PhD route, the MS is better, but I like the interdisciplinary nature of the MPH. I'm not sure I want to be tethered to "research vs. practice," as I have interest in both.
 
I'll go ahead and echo some of the previous sentiments in this thread and say that while there is definitely a "research" vs "practice" distinction, it is pretty inconsequential in my opinion, especially at the master's level.

If you were 100% sure you wanted to pursue a PhD, it would probably be good to go for the MS, but not because it would necessarily give you a huge competitive advantage (if any advantage) in the admissions process but because the material you'd learn would probably go a little deeper into methodology and theory, which would be helpful when studying advanced biostats.

Similarly, if you decide to have a more practice-oriented career, I don't think having an MS instead of an MPH would really hinder you.

At my school, my option was between an MPH and MSPH in epi. Although I think I want to continue to a PhD, I opted for the MPH simply because it was several thousand dollars cheaper and I didn't think the cost difference justified getting a basically equivalent degree. That being said, there's probably a greater difference between an MPH and MS vs an MPH and MSPH, but I still view them as largely equivalent degrees at least in terms of career trajectory or PhD admissions.
 
Thanks for the responses everyone. I heard that some people view the MPH as "fluff" compared to the MS, so I just wanted some feedback.
 
Top