PhD vs. DrPH; DrPH's declining?

[ubercoo]

Hi guys,

I am wondering if anyone has an opinion or info?

After my MPH I am intending to continue my education and have been looking at PhDs as well as DrPHs.

Is it true that the PhD is more laboratory application while the DrPH is more field application? I am still unclear on the differences between these 2 degree types, other than the PhD being more lengthy to acquire. Furthermore does it seem like DrPHs are getting less common at schools these days? Are they not viewed as well as a PhD or an MD in conjunction with an MPH?

any opinions would be a great help!

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[southerndoc]

Why do some schools abbreviate it as DrPH while others use DPH? Personally I think DPH looks better. DrPH seems superficial.

 

[ubercoo]

Why do some schools abbreviate it as DrPH while others use DPH? Personally I think DPH looks better. DrPH seems superficial.

Hmm, don't know. I guess the MPH, DPH...naming sequence does make more sense I wonder if I can attain a better, farther reaching jobby job with an DPH (DrPH) or PhD plus the MPH?

 

[bbas]

I was under the impression that the DrPH degree was relatively new, so maybe that's why you haven't see that many. I too would be interested in any thoughts on this.

 

[ubercoo]

I was under the impression that the DrPH degree was relatively new, so maybe that's why you haven't see that many. I too would be interested in any thoughts on this.

Hi,
Maybe it is new and not so much declining? My understanding is that they typically take 3 years or so..which is attractive to me
compared to the longer haul of the PhD. I have been told that they entail research but not so much on the wet bench. (That is where I have spent the last, I don't know 5-6 years. I thought maybe it would be WONDERFUL to get out more)
Basically I have major fears with obtaining only an MPH. I would like to be involved in decision making as well..but can admit to wanting to avoid the MD route. I have been groomed for the lab...but first want to ascertain all of my options!

 

[bbas]

Hi,
Maybe it is new and not so much declining? My understanding is that they typically take 3 years or so..which is attractive to me
compared to the longer haul of the PhD. I have been told that they entail research but not so much on the wet bench. (That is where I have spent the last, I don't know 5-6 years. I thought maybe it would be WONDERFUL to get out more)
Basically I have major fears with obtaining only an MPH. I would like to be involved in decision making as well..but can admit to wanting to avoid the MD route. I have been groomed for the lab...but first want to ascertain all of my options!

What subfield of epidemiology are you interested in, infectious disease?

 

[ubercoo]

What subfield of epidemiology are you interested in, infectious disease?

Yeah, basically. I am trying to combine vector biology/infectious disease/global warming-conservation-GIS. Believe it or not there at least 2 US school departments looking at this, and I feel personally more to come. My work background is actually more innate immunity/atherosclerosis, lab style, but I don't think that's where I'd like to be...
Are you going through similar 'what do I do next' questions? It seems many people are...

 

[bbas]

Yeah, basically. I am trying to combine vector biology/infectious disease/global warming-conservation-GIS. Believe it or not there at least 2 US school departments looking at this, and I feel personally more to come. My work background is actually more innate immunity/atherosclerosis, lab style, but I don't think that's where I'd like to be...
Are you going through similar 'what do I do next' questions? It seems many people are...

Yeah, I still haven't even decided whether I want to go to med or grad school. I'm still unclear about the difference between the MS/MPH degrees and the PhD/DrPH degrees. The MS/MPH degrees both seem to have similar curriculums and job options, but as far as the DrPH I have no clue who that degree is geared towards. I was browsing the faculty listings from different public health schools, and almost all of them had a PhD if not a MD. Similarly, most epi job listings I've seen mention that a PhD or MD is needed but say nothing about the DrPH degree.

The thing that I like about epidemiology is that it's such a diverse field. If I want to do research in a lab, I can do that. If I want to do non-lab research, I can do that as well. Or, if I don't want to do research at all, I can focus on clinical epidemiology and investigate disease outbreaks. I don't know if you ever saw the movie Outbreak, but I wouldn't mind having Dustin Hoffman's job.

 

[namazu]

Hey, ubercoo,

We have some similar interests. My experience has been that the people who work in this area are scattered among different departments, since the work is really interdisciplinary. If you're flexible as to the type of degree you get, and the type of department, you should have some interesting options.

You have probably looked into this, but I remember how long it actually took me to find people interested in these areas. So, here are some people who work on related topics (if you know of others, please let me know!):

- Uriel Kitron, College of Vet. Med., University of Illinois
(Spatial Epi Lab: http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/path/spatepi/team.html)

- Jonathan Patz, Population Health Sci., University of Wisconsin - Madison
(Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment: http://www.sage.wisc.edu/)

- Doug Norris and Greg Glass, Molecular Biology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
(Molec. Microbio Immunol. Program: http://www.jhsph.edu/dept/mmi)

- Richard Campanella and Chris Swalm at Tulane
(Tulane Vector-Borne Disease Program: http://www.sph.tulane.edu/tropmed/programs/vbidmastersreq.htm)

- Mark Wilson, Global Health, Michigan
(http://www.sph.umich.edu/iscr/faculty/profile.cfm?uniqname=wilsonml)

See also Center for EcoEpidemiology in Organismic and Integrative Biology at Yale (http://www.biology.yale.edu/oib/resources/yibs.htm), etc.

There are groups doing this type of work based our of CDC as well.

You could probably get into this with either a DrPH or a PhD, though my impression is that DrPH is geared more towards "applied" program implementation, while PhD is more a research degree. But there are plenty of people with both types of degrees (or others, e.g. MD/MPH) who do both.

Let me know what you come across!

 

[ubercoo]

Hi bbas and namazu,

Yeah I understand the quandary, med vs. grad school, or for me PhD or 'other' I too am still atttracted by the possibility of something more applied (like the Dustin Hoffman's gig)..question is do I want to keep with the solid research up until that point, do I need to or will I continue with it? From there you can ask lab and/or field?

Wow, Namazu. Thanks for the spectacular info! I am familiar with some of those, sorry I don't have time for full links right now (I need to start driving accross the country momentarily) BUT...there's a Dr. Dickson Despommier in the Envi. Public Health department at Columbia Mailman School who's an infectious diesease ecologist working on West Nile. There are lots of links through their Earth Institute as well. Also I would keep an eye on Emory. There's now a global environmental health department there melding some of the global and evironmental programs...Um...also at Ohio State University they recently started an Veterinary Public Health program focusing on zoonotic disease and bioterror etc. The guy there is cool, Armando Hoet. He seems very willing to listen to want you might want to do with respect to research...Certainly you know Dr. Durland Fish is the YIBSCEE guy over there at Yale in the Epid. of Microbial Disease program . Okay, this is likely written poorly but I need to start driving

I'll see if I can get more info with respect to cool research and what is this DrPH thing and would I like one.

 

[Xfingers]

hey namazu,

that's some awesome info you have there! thanks so much. by any chance do you have the names or departments of the people at the CDC you mentioned are working on this area?

Hey, ubercoo,

We have some similar interests. My experience has been that the people who work in this area are scattered among different departments, since the work is really interdisciplinary. If you're flexible as to the type of degree you get, and the type of department, you should have some interesting options.

You have probably looked into this, but I remember how long it actually took me to find people interested in these areas. So, here are some people who work on related topics (if you know of others, please let me know!):

- Uriel Kitron, College of Vet. Med., University of Illinois
(Spatial Epi Lab: http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/path/spatepi/team.html)

- Jonathan Patz, Population Health Sci., University of Wisconsin - Madison
(Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment: http://www.sage.wisc.edu/)

- Doug Norris and Greg Glass, Molecular Biology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
(Molec. Microbio Immunol. Program: http://www.jhsph.edu/dept/mmi)

- Richard Campanella and Chris Swalm at Tulane
(Tulane Vector-Borne Disease Program: http://www.sph.tulane.edu/tropmed/programs/vbidmastersreq.htm)

- Mark Wilson, Global Health, Michigan
(http://www.sph.umich.edu/iscr/faculty/profile.cfm?uniqname=wilsonml)

See also Center for EcoEpidemiology in Organismic and Integrative Biology at Yale (http://www.biology.yale.edu/oib/resources/yibs.htm), etc.

There are groups doing this type of work based our of CDC as well.

You could probably get into this with either a DrPH or a PhD, though my impression is that DrPH is geared more towards "applied" program implementation, while PhD is more a research degree. But there are plenty of people with both types of degrees (or others, e.g. MD/MPH) who do both.

Let me know what you come across!

 

[Ariel22]

Hi,
I also finished my MPH in epi and am quite interested in either doing a phd or drph. However, my main interest is in infectious diseases and after doing quite a lot of search, I found that UPitt has a wonderful program in Infectious Disease and Microbiology. I am posting a link below.
I will also add this link.

University of Pittsburgh

http://www.idm.pitt.edu/degrees.html

Hey, ubercoo,

We have some similar interests. My experience has been that the people who work in this area are scattered among different departments, since the work is really interdisciplinary. If you're flexible as to the type of degree you get, and the type of department, you should have some interesting options.

You have probably looked into this, but I remember how long it actually took me to find people interested in these areas. So, here are some people who work on related topics (if you know of others, please let me know!):

- Uriel Kitron, College of Vet. Med., University of Illinois
(Spatial Epi Lab: http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/path/spatepi/team.html)

- Jonathan Patz, Population Health Sci., University of Wisconsin - Madison
(Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment: http://www.sage.wisc.edu/)

- Doug Norris and Greg Glass, Molecular Biology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
(Molec. Microbio Immunol. Program: http://www.jhsph.edu/dept/mmi)

- Richard Campanella and Chris Swalm at Tulane
(Tulane Vector-Borne Disease Program: http://www.sph.tulane.edu/tropmed/programs/vbidmastersreq.htm)

- Mark Wilson, Global Health, Michigan
(http://www.sph.umich.edu/iscr/faculty/profile.cfm?uniqname=wilsonml)

See also Center for EcoEpidemiology in Organismic and Integrative Biology at Yale (http://www.biology.yale.edu/oib/resources/yibs.htm), etc.

There are groups doing this type of work based our of CDC as well.

You could probably get into this with either a DrPH or a PhD, though my impression is that DrPH is geared more towards "applied" program implementation, while PhD is more a research degree. But there are plenty of people with both types of degrees (or others, e.g. MD/MPH) who do both.

Let me know what you come across!

 

[David Maggio]

Times have changed and keep on changing. Making career decisions in this highly unstable economic environment can be challenging. Health care will be very different 15-20yrs from now as current business models are not sustainable. 30 years ago, you could be the Executive Director of a major University medical school with just an MPH. Today, don't even think about it! To be competitive in a role like that you would need a M.D. somewhere in your alphabet soup.

Along those same lines, DrPH/DPH degrees were intended for folks who wanted leadership positions in medicine/health care. They were designed to stratify the landscape amidst the over abundance of MPH graduates. The DrPH differentiated itself from other doctorate science degrees by (1) taking less time to get, only about 3yrs (2) not necessarily requiring a dissertation, although most do now (3) less emphasis on research, more emphasis on the business of public health.

Since then, with Universities realizing the big business of the DrPH degree it has grown wildly popular. Without leadership and direction from ASPH, the degree will be as "worthless" as the MPH is today. Unlike other health care terminal degrees, the MPH and DrPH do not have state licensing requirements, thereby setting itself up for the substantial risk of dilution of importance and credibility.

So, here's the thing. Today you can get a DrPH in 3 years, which beats the heck out of 5-7 years for a PHD. Salaries are comparable with the PhD and the degree is versatile enough that you could find a job in research, administration, or consulting (just as you could with a PhD). Jump on the bandwagon now, because 20 years from now the degree will get you no where- only your resume showing what you did with it will set you apart.

To be competitive with others who have and MD or a PhD, you should work hard to publish and co-author at every opportunity whether you have an MPH or a DrPH. Only this, and the leadership you demonstrate (in the workplace or your community or through entrepreneurship), will give you long term competitive advantage over others with the same degree. Today, the DrPH is a wonderful thing b/c you can get in and get out, cheaply! Then, you can build a resume with it similar to that of an MD or PHD, making yourself as competitive and respected as they are.

In summary, the degree is highly versatile with long term limitations if you do not maximize its potential for developing your publication list on your CV, as well as your leadership and work experience. If you get it just to sit in a comfy office job getting paid the same as a PHD would, you can bet you will be looking for work in 15-20 years and finding a much more competitive environment to do so than it is now.

Good luck!

David Maggio, MPH

 

[Choklatcow]

...there's a Dr. Dickson Despommier in the Envi. Public Health department at Columbia Mailman School who's an infectious disease ecologist working on West Nile...

Dr. Despommier is awesome!

He is also into this newfangled idea called "Vertical Farms" http://www.verticalfarm.com/

really neat stuff.

 

[Stories]

Times have changed and keep on changing. Making career decisions in this highly unstable economic environment can be challenging. Health care will be very different 15-20yrs from now as current business models are not sustainable. 30 years ago, you could be the Executive Director of a major University medical school with just an MPH. Today, don't even think about it! To be competitive in a role like that you would need a M.D. somewhere in your alphabet soup.

Along those same lines, DrPH/DPH degrees were intended for folks who wanted leadership positions in medicine/health care. They were designed to stratify the landscape amidst the over abundance of MPH graduates. The DrPH differentiated itself from other doctorate science degrees by (1) taking less time to get, only about 3yrs (2) not necessarily requiring a dissertation, although most do now (3) less emphasis on research, more emphasis on the business of public health.

Since then, with Universities realizing the big business of the DrPH degree it has grown wildly popular. Without leadership and direction from ASPH, the degree will be as "worthless" as the MPH is today. Unlike other health care terminal degrees, the MPH and DrPH do not have state licensing requirements, thereby setting itself up for the substantial risk of dilution of importance and credibility.

So, here's the thing. Today you can get a DrPH in 3 years, which beats the heck out of 5-7 years for a PHD. Salaries are comparable with the PhD and the degree is versatile enough that you could find a job in research, administration, or consulting (just as you could with a PhD). Jump on the bandwagon now, because 20 years from now the degree will get you no where- only your resume showing what you did with it will set you apart.

To be competitive with others who have and MD or a PhD, you should work hard to publish and co-author at every opportunity whether you have an MPH or a DrPH. Only this, and the leadership you demonstrate (in the workplace or your community or through entrepreneurship), will give you long term competitive advantage over others with the same degree. Today, the DrPH is a wonderful thing b/c you can get in and get out, cheaply! Then, you can build a resume with it similar to that of an MD or PHD, making yourself as competitive and respected as they are.

In summary, the degree is highly versatile with long term limitations if you do not maximize its potential for developing your publication list on your CV, as well as your leadership and work experience. If you get it just to sit in a comfy office job getting paid the same as a PHD would, you can bet you will be looking for work in 15-20 years and finding a much more competitive environment to do so than it is now.

Good luck!

David Maggio, MPH

This is an interesting take on the DrPH degree. It's completely counter to what I've learned the degree to be, which is a practice-based degree unlike a PhD which is a research-based degree.

Here's the official wording from BU's website:

The Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) degree program is an interdepartmental offering intended for experienced public health professionals who seek advanced training for leadership positions in public health. The DrPH is the highest professional degree in public health. This practice-oriented degree program will train public health professionals to develop, implement, and evaluate public health programs and policies nationally and internationally.

That to me suggests that folks who are interested in becoming leaders at a health department or organization, this is the degree to get.

 

[David Maggio]

This is an interesting take on the DrPH degree. It's completely counter to what I've learned the degree to be, which is a practice-based degree unlike a PhD which is a research-based degree.

Here's the official wording from BU's website:



That to me suggests that folks who are interested in becoming leaders at a health department or organization, this is the degree to get.

Today, I know of researchers with a DrPH and administrators with a PhD. It's all in how YOU sell it, not the school.

Well, you won't be as competitive as an MD MPH for a health department leadership role, which, for example, is whatcha got in Washington DC, among other places. The degree is what you make it, bottom line. Any definition you read from a University website is just marketing material to sell it. University is big business, and so is the DrPH.

 

[Stories]

Today, I know of researchers with a DrPH and administrators with a PhD. It's all in how YOU sell it, not the school.

Well, you won't be as competitive as an MD MPH for a health department leadership role, which, for example, is whatcha got in Washington DC, among other places. The degree is what you make it, bottom line. Any definition you read from a University website is just marketing material to sell it. University is big business, and so is the DrPH.

There are plenty of folks out there with degrees in which they are not suited for their job, initially. Like how the majority of University presidents are former academics but have risen up to become administrators. This is really no different than MDs who are now hospital/health division administrator, but the initial career path more likely than not did not begin in that role (especially for a MD becoming a health department admin). You can sell yourself all you want, but the initial road into your career is dictated by your degree, and to avoid that common path, you have to make your own road, independent of the education you received.

While Universities are businesses, they are non-profit institutions without the pure intent of making a buck. As everyone knows, it's not the tuition and cost of a degree that makes a university money, it's the research that comes out of it. That's why schools with small student enrollments, but large research faculty have the largest endowments (eg. Ivy League schools).

 

[David Maggio]

Great. Sounds like you got what you needed from this thread. Good luck.

 

[MCH DocStudent]

.If other folks stumble across this somewhat old thread I thought they may appreciate my experience.

Someone said "So, here's the thing. Today you can get a DrPH in 3 years, which beats the heck out of 5-7 years for a PHD. Salaries are comparable with the PhD and the degree is versatile enough that you could find a job in research, administration, or consulting (just as you could with a PhD). Jump on the bandwagon now, because 20 years from now the degree will get you no where- only your resume showing what you did with it will set you apart."

This is not true in my experience. I am currently a PhD candidate in public health and have friends who are both DrPH students/candidates as well as PhD students/candidates. The time to completion for both the PhD in public health and the DrPH at my university: 4-5 years (I am currently at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at UNC-Chapel Hill). This was also true at the university where I earned my MPH (I received my MPH from UCLA. There the time to degree for both the PhD and the DrPH was 5-6 years). .
.Someone also said, “Today, the DrPH is a wonderful thing b/c you can get in and get out, cheaply!” This is not true at the institutions I am familiar with. Prospective students need to be careful. At UCLA, for instance, the DrPH follows the professional degree tuition and fee scale while the PhD follows the research degree tuition and fee scale. When I was considering UCLA for my PhD a few years ago tuition for the PhD was ~ 8K/year. For the DrPH it was double. The end result, the DrPH was considerably more expensive than the PhD. This was true at other institutions I considered. At UNC the fee scale is the same for both the DrPH and the PhD..
.A note, someone said, “the MPH and DrPH do not have state licensing requirements, thereby setting itself up for the substantial risk of dilution of importance and credibility.” This is changing. There will be a licensing program for MPH holders. They do not think they will do that for DrPH or PhD holders..
.The difference between the two? At the schools I have attended (UCLA and UNC) there was little if no real difference. At UCLA the difference was the minor you had. A PhD student needed to have a formal doctoral level minor in a PhD granting department OUTSIDE of the school of public health (e.g., economics, sociology, psychology, nursing, English, education, chemistry, and others). A DrPH student needed to have a formal doctoral level minor in a PhD granting department INSIDE the school of public health (e.g., community health sciences, epi, biostatistics, environmental health, health services). At UNC the DrPH student minors in evaluation courses while the PhD student has a formal minor in any other PhD granting department (which can be either within or outside the school of public health). The amount of course work (2-3 years worth of courses) was the same. The dissertation requirements were the same (5 members on the committee, number of research questions, length, etc… This is important because other professional doctorates such as the EdD typically require 4 committee members). So in the end the requirements between the 2 degrees were nearly identical (for instance here at UNC I have a minor in health policy which is inside the school of public health. As a PhD student at UCLA I could not have done that and would have needed to minor outside the school of public health). .
.So how to choose? What do you want to get out of your degree? Choose the degree that matches up with that. At one school that may be a PhD at another it may be a DrPH. Look at the cost (it may be more expensive to get the DrPH because it is considered a professional degree). The length of time will be the same between the two so don’t use that criterion. Finally consider this… everyone knows what a PhD is. Very few know what a DrPH is. In public health a PhD is actually a very versatile degree. You can go into academia, consulting, industry/NGOs, for profit evaluation, government. All of these fields recognize the PhD. Your interviewer at your new job may or may not know what a DrPH is. He/she will definitely know what a PhD is. .
.One side note: I saw a lot of talk about bench work as a PhD student in public health. Most public health work does not involve bench work (some does but most does not). ...

 

[abelink]

hey namazu,

that's some awesome info you have there! thanks so much. by any chance do you have the names or departments of the people at the CDC you mentioned are working on this area?

I think u have to remember- lack of requirements doesnt make a degree useless it just makes other indicators more relevant ( basic economic theory). So a drph isnt devalued, but it means a lot more from hopkins than some unknown place. I think a bloomberg drph is a huge asset for early- mid career healthcare professionals to accelerate progress and ensure that they can go all the way if they demostrate the proficiency to do so. I will say that from most top schools the perspective is that drph candidates should have successful, promising careers already. Phds are more academic so you dont need the same professional experience but as a natural tradeoff you need greater academic inclination. Both degrees are great, but are for a different career path. Drph graduates may do research ( and often do) but thats not what the degree was designed for, just as most people dont work in their undergraduate major, but that doesnt mean u shouldnt try and align it with ur career. Theres variation, but the best thing to keep in mind is the reason for each to exist ( and in top schools, what each is geared for).