Are Admissions Standards for Public Health Programs Generally Too Low?

[Grabes1980]

Recently I've encountered mixed reactions to my pursuit of an MPH. Many people are very encouraging and congratulatory while others have been outright rude. The rude faction tends to come from a perspective that understands graduate public health admissions standards as very low, especially when compared to other professional graduate programs (Business, Law, Medicine etc.) It's almost as if some people I encounter look at me like I took an "easy way out", so to speak.

It's hard not get aggravated at such reactions and yet, I have seen scores of examples on this forum where people have claimed to be accepted to top programs with less than stellar experience, and seemingly very low GPAs/standardized test scores. I've also spoken to students and graduates of masters and doctoral level public health programs who stated that at times it was questionable as to whether certain members of their class even had a pulse. Conversely, those same comments are usually coupled with how incredibly bright some of the classmates were.

Words like "competitive" and "selective" get thrown around a lot on this forum but I think they often maintain high degrees of variance between them, especially in how they are personally/experientially defined. For me, a very boiled-down understanding of the two terms are as follows:

Competitive = A large applicant pool for a well-known and popular/highly sought-after program with a limited number of spots

Selective = Not necessarily one of the most sought-after programs but maintains high admissions standards, especially with regard to “hard numbers.”

It seems to me that at least a considerable number of PH programs are either competitive or selective, and in many cases, both. This translates to necessarily strong admissions standards, right?

Also, let’s not lose sight of why most people pursue public health: because that happens to be their passion! Maybe I should just smile and brush the critics aside. I mean, if we wanted to be janitors, and that was life’s passion/calling, I guess certain people might have some “input” about that as well. But at the end of the day…to each their own. Still, there is something inside me that just can’t stand criticism for criticism’s sake.


I'd really like to hear peoples' thoughts on this matter...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Stories]

Compared to medical school and law school, yes, public health admissions are more lenient.

ASPH offers statistics on this topic: http://www.asph.org/UserFiles/DataReport2010.pdf

Overall in the United States of all ASPH schools, there is an overall 50.6% acceptance rate in the 2010 application cycle for all degrees.

When broken by degree:
MPH: 58.7%
MS: 46.4%
PhD: 26.1%
ScD: 24.0%

Are you going to run into some less than stellar academic minds in your studies? Absolutely. It happens in all walks of education even if you go to the best of the best schools. But you know what? You're also going find people just like you with similar goals in life and similar experience and smarts. You'll automatically gravitate towards these people and it won't even matter what some of your peers are like.

From personal experience, I had a handful of very bright classmates during my MPH and a small number that I thought were pretty dull. The vast majority of people were somewhere in the middle. My classmates during my PhD, I respect everyone and see them all as very bright and none was undeserving of being there. There's a self-selection process, of course, when you're talking about folks pursuing a doctorate. Those individuals are going to be more involved in their subject areas and the ones that were always more interested in the topics. So it sort of makes sense.

If you want to apply to something that's hard to get into just for the sake of getting into selective programs (haha), apply to a PhD/ScD program at one of the "big name" schools here. Those acceptance rates drop into the single digits. Just a few programs I know that provide stats off the top of my head:

Emory (https://www.sph.emory.edu/epi/epiphd.php#FAQAdmissions): Average year, 5-9/100
Yale: (http://www.yale.edu/graduateschool/academics/profiles/epidemiologypublichealth.pdf): 14/267 (the number of admits was a little more than that, ~23)

 

[splik]

MPH programs are not competitive. It is relatively easy to get into harvard, yale, columbia etc if you want to do public health compared to an MD, JD, or MBA. And there is very good reason for that. Public health is one of the few fields where you will end up making less money with the degree (if you are mid-career), and you will certainly not be making what a doctor, lawyer, management consultant, or investment banker would be making. How many people are going to spend an exorbitant amount of money in tuition on an education that will not pay for itself?

I would argue that the admissions standards for medical school and law school are too high because of the fierce level of competition. You really dont need astronomically high MCAT/LSAT scores to be a great physician or lawyer.

Public health students tend to be a lot nicer, friendlier and passionate than most students in other professional schools. No one is in it for the money - almost everyone is there because they have a passion for public health (though there are a few who just want to get into medical school or mistakenly think it will make them more competitive for residency training).

And the students that are complete idiots tend to look good on paper! It has nothing to do with admissions standards.

 

[Grabes1980]

Compared to medical school and law school, yes, public health admissions are more lenient.

ASPH offers statistics on this topic: http://www.asph.org/UserFiles/DataReport2010.pdf

Overall in the United States of all ASPH schools, there is an overall 50.6% acceptance rate in the 2010 application cycle for all degrees.

When broken by degree:
MPH: 58.7%
MS: 46.4%
PhD: 26.1%
ScD: 24.0%

Are you going to run into some less than stellar academic minds in your studies? Absolutely. It happens in all walks of education even if you go to the best of the best schools. But you know what? You're also going find people just like you with similar goals in life and similar experience and smarts. You'll automatically gravitate towards these people and it won't even matter what some of your peers are like.

From personal experience, I had a handful of very bright classmates during my MPH and a small number that I thought were pretty dull. The vast majority of people were somewhere in the middle. My classmates during my PhD, I respect everyone and see them all as very bright and none was undeserving of being there. There's a self-selection process, of course, when you're talking about folks pursuing a doctorate. Those individuals are going to be more involved in their subject areas and the ones that were always more interested in the topics. So it sort of makes sense.

If you want to apply to something that's hard to get into just for the sake of getting into selective programs (haha), apply to a PhD/ScD program at one of the "big name" schools here. Those acceptance rates drop into the single digits. Just a few programs I know that provide stats off the top of my head:

Emory (https://www.sph.emory.edu/epi/epiphd.php#FAQAdmissions): Average year, 5-9/100
Yale: (http://www.yale.edu/graduateschool/academics/profiles/epidemiologypublichealth.pdf): 14/267 (the number of admits was a little more than that, ~23)

Thank you, as always, stories for your thoughtful and well-informed response. I suppose my follow-up questions for you might be:

1. Would it be logistically possible to increase admssions standards across PH schools/programs but in turn educate fewer professionals? That is, could we suffer reduced quantity for a boost in quality? I have no idea on how well the ph profession is manned globally. Is there a shortage of ph professionals? Is there too many? Just enough?

2. Can you comment about those that report (on this forum) acceptance(s) but have what would seem to be instantly disqualifying admissions stats? I guess anyone can say anything on here, and there is ultimately no real way to check a post's veracity. But, have you ever just thought "No way" when reading someone's acceptance claim as compared to their reported admissions data?

Again, thank you so much for your great response, here and elsewhere. You are a strong attribute to this forum!

 

[Grabes1980]

And the students that are complete idiots tend to look good on paper! It has nothing to do with admissions standards.

This is in perfect alignment with my limited experience/interaction with the admissions world. Very well stated!

 

[Stories]

Thank you, as always, stories for your thoughtful and well-informed response. I suppose my follow-up questions for you might be:

1. Would it be logistically possible to increase admssions standards across PH schools/programs but in turn educate fewer professionals? That is, could we suffer reduced quantity for a boost in quality? I have no idea on how well the ph profession is manned globally. Is there a shortage of ph professionals? Is there too many? Just enough?

2. Can you comment about those that report (on this forum) acceptance(s) but have what would seem to be instantly disqualifying admissions stats? I guess anyone can say anything on here, and there is ultimately no real way to check a post's veracity. But, have you ever just thought "No way" when reading someone's acceptance claim as compared to their reported admissions data?

Again, thank you so much for your great response, here and elsewhere. You are a strong attribute to this forum!

Loaded questions. I'll answer what I can in a cordial way.

1.) Logistically possible? Sure. I don't necessarily think that the quality of education suffers as enrollment goes up, nor do I believe that large class sizes are necessarily a bad thing. I honestly don't know enough about the ratio of graduates to job availability, but from anecdotal personal experience, all but one of my friends that graduated from the MPH this past year, May 2011, found public health jobs they are happy with.

I'm not sure that having smaller enrollment would necessarily equate to higher or better salaries simply for the fact that public health work isn't really a "business" where a product is sold. A lot of it is publicly or private foundation funded.

2.) I don't really know how MPH admissions are done so I can't comment on that. Also remember that since professional program students are rarely given substantial grant money from the financial aid office of the university, they don't necessarily have to be cutting out tons of applicants like they do with undergrad. The federal loans programs for graduate students tends to be generous, which is why I think at least one reason that more schools allow for many applicants to be accepted. If you look at social work and education graduate programs, you'll see similar trends of high acceptances. Splik is right on the mark in that fields where salaries aren't large tend to be less competitive.

But for PhD admissions, I do know that the personal statement and interview (if applicable) carry the most weight. Most schools tend to use GPA and GRE as minimum thresholds and from there most applications are seriously considered. And these programs tend to be selective because programs generally have funding obligations to these students (tuition, medical insurance, stipend).

 

[EBT12]

.

 

[member 13588]

To talk about competitiveness, I will use the ASPH Data Report 2010, specifically the graphs for public health as a whole. Looking at 10-year trends for public health schools, from 2000 to 2010, there was an increase of about 29000 applicants, or about 150%, while new enrollments (or # SPOTS) increased by 92% over the same period. It seems that the applicant pool seems to be growing at a much faster pace than current SPHs expanding or new SPHs being built. This means that competitiveness should be increasing, and if the same pace is kept, should be increasing quite rapidly. With issues such as global warming and avian bird flu persisting, I cannot imagine a decrease in the significance or growth of the field. Moreover, I might even go so far as to project that as new schools enter the arena and old schools build and add space, the relative size of the top schools will grow smaller (that is, they will become much more competitive at a faster pace than the rest of the field).

So basically my answer would be: Yes, SPHs are not as competitive, especially at the Master's level. However, your degree at a school now will grow in significance in the future as public health expands.

To further put this into perspective, according to AAMC Table 7., the medical school applicant pool increased from by 5653, or about 15.2%, and their number of matriculants (or newly enrolled) increased by about 18%. This trend is quite different from public health's, and one I think indicates a growing emphasis towards research to adapt to the new global environment.

 

[Grabes1980]

To EBT12,

I think the distinction is not graduate degree vs. professional degree, but rather professional graduate degree vs. academic graduate degree, right?

 

[EBT12]

.

 

[Epi19]

Just to jump in here... I think the value of a professional program shouldn't solely be judged by how academically competitive the applicants are. I think intellectual curiosity is one component that draws people into public health, however, I think one of the biggest many public health students have in common is a desire to contribute to improving the lives of others. Among people with that interest, I found there is a range of intelligence from geniuses to students with average intelligence. There are a lot of skills that can be brought to the table in public health and being "the brains behind the operation" is only one of them... good communication skills, passion, leadership, knowledge of foreign languages, interpersonal skills, knowledge of different cultures, and creativity are all important. I would say most impressive thing about most of my classmates are their work/volunteer experiences, there are a lot of people who are extremely passionate about what they do and have worked their butt off, with little pay, to do it. Getting a 1500 on a GRE is extremely impressive, but so is spending a large part of your undergraduate time doing meaningful volunteer work, speaking 5 languages, or creating a public health program in a 3rd world country.

 

[ebp]

Just to jump in here... I think the value of a professional program shouldn't solely be judged by how academically competitive the applicants are. I think intellectual curiosity is one component that draws people into public health, however, I think one of the biggest many public health students have in common is a desire to contribute to improving the lives of others. Among people with that interest, I found there is a range of intelligence from geniuses to students with average intelligence. There are a lot of skills that can be brought to the table in public health and being "the brains behind the operation" is only one of them... good communication skills, passion, leadership, knowledge of foreign languages, interpersonal skills, knowledge of different cultures, and creativity are all important. I would say most impressive thing about most of my classmates are their work/volunteer experiences, there are a lot of people who are extremely passionate about what they do and have worked their butt off, with little pay, to do it. Getting a 1500 on a GRE is extremely impressive, but so is spending a large part of your undergraduate time doing meaningful volunteer work, speaking 5 languages, or creating a public health program in a 3rd world country.

I agree with this. I am one of those people where you would have looked at my GPA and test scores (2.8 and 1120) and maybe thought "Why would a school accept her?" MPH programs look for people that not only can handle the program academically but who also bring different perspectives to the program. They want well-rounded individuals who have experience.

My GPA was low because I was a lazy, uninterested college student and tried to take classes that turned out to be too difficult for me. By the end of college I had matured, and my grades went up considerably. Unfortunately the damage had been done. By the time I applied to MPH programs, I had been out of undergrad for 7 years and had actual job experience in my field. I am now in a program and doing really well in it.

A high GPA and test scores are great, but they don't mean you'll be great in a program. Conversely lower scores don't mean you aren't fit for a program and should pick up an application at the nearest McDonald's. There are always going to detractors, but if you're passionate about your program then you shouldn't care.

 

[Wickel]

This is in perfect alignment with my limited experience/interaction with the admissions world. Very well stated!

I couldn't agree with this more. Without sounding a bit presumptuous, I find it a bit frustrating that there are applicants being accepted to certain programs that they applied to on a whim simply based on their high GPAs and test scores. Then there are applicants who have thought long and hard about which programs they would like to attend and have a plethora of experiences who are being turned away from those same programs due to lesser scores. Sorry, I'm still a little bitter about a recent admissions decision if you couldn't tell.

 

[Wickel]

Just to jump in here... I think the value of a professional program shouldn't solely be judged by how academically competitive the applicants are. I think intellectual curiosity is one component that draws people into public health, however, I think one of the biggest many public health students have in common is a desire to contribute to improving the lives of others. Among people with that interest, I found there is a range of intelligence from geniuses to students with average intelligence. There are a lot of skills that can be brought to the table in public health and being "the brains behind the operation" is only one of them... good communication skills, passion, leadership, knowledge of foreign languages, interpersonal skills, knowledge of different cultures, and creativity are all important. I would say most impressive thing about most of my classmates are their work/volunteer experiences, there are a lot of people who are extremely passionate about what they do and have worked their butt off, with little pay, to do it. Getting a 1500 on a GRE is extremely impressive, but so is spending a large part of your undergraduate time doing meaningful volunteer work, speaking 5 languages, or creating a public health program in a 3rd world country.

Absolutely. I am one of those students who scored a 1030 combined scores on the GRE and has a 3.2 GPA. I started out pre-med, did poorly in my classes and eventually realized that I needed to pursue a career that would play to my strengths. I went on to have 5 health administration internships during my undergraduate career. On top of that, I'm fluent in 3 languages, I've had plenty of international experience, and held numerous leadership positions within carious student organizations. I think what really appealed to me about MPH/MHA programs compared to MBA/MD programs was the weight behind things like the personal statement and relative experiences.

 

[Stories]

Grabes1980,

In practice, I am more familiar with the terms graduate degree and professional degree. At the university I attend, there is a College of Medicine, a College of Pharmacy and a College of Graduate Studies. The Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy are grouped together as Professional programs. The College of Graduate Studies includes the MPH as one of its programs. At least at the school I attend, they make it very clear that MD and PharmD students are not graduate students and PhD/MPH students are not professional students. I believe you can technically also obtain a professional degree that is at the Bachelor's level.

I've seen FAFSA use this language as well: http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/PlusLoansGradProfstudents.jsp.

This is just my experience is a practical sense.

From my experience with applying to schools, this is more rare than the norm.

At both schools I attended, this was the circumstance:

The School/College of Public Health generally is separate from the Graduate School (whatever it's called at that particular university) and confers its own MPH or DrPH degrees. Thus, it's considered a professional degree.

The Graduate School generally confers the academic degrees such as the MS, MA, PhD, ScD as those are degrees given in a variety of fields. This is because rather than focusing on a very specific accreditation process such as the MPH, these degrees are designed by the departments without a specific governing body (such as CEPH). These degrees are simply held to the academic standard of that university.

 

[JMM051]

I just wanted to jump in with my opinion on this. If adcoms were only to accept students who had exceptional GRE scores and GPA's from their undergrad, what kind of class would they have? Certainly not a diverse one. Especially for those who have been out of school for awhile, the undergrad GPA can really have no bearing on their graduate academic success. As I've mentioned before I had a 2.9 undegrad GPA from a small liberal arts school. I graduated 5+ years ago. In my current MPH program I have a 3.8 and am heavily involved in campus activities. I also have classmates that graduated top of their class and have stellar scores that I would not want to be stuck in a room with OR they don't add anything to class discussion or student life. I like to think that the holistic overall approach that PH adcoms take on the admissions process leads to a diverse, mostly dedicated field of professionals. GPA and GRE score do not directly indicate someones passion for a field but work and volunteer experiences as well as a well written statement of purpose do.

 

[mwdl4life]

Neat topic. Just wanted to offer some insight from the perspective of someone who has been through the numbers game.

I just wanted to jump in with my opinion on this. If adcoms were only to accept students who had exceptional GRE scores and GPA's from their undergrad, what kind of class would they have?

They'd have the kind of makeup from a top law/med school, I'd imagine. I feel like the holistic approach to the admissions process PH programs take is somewhat dictated by the applicant pool. Things like personal statements or work experience have to mean more without an abundance of applicants scoring sky high on GRE/GPA.

Because "more competitive" programs like top law schools have more applicants with higher quantitative measurables, they can afford to use those stats as a deciding factor in the admissions process, AND factor in qualitative qualities among the top scorers to craft a "diverse" class. Not saying this is fair, but it is what it is. I went to a law school where the average LSAT score of those attending was around the 97th percentile, but it was definitely an incredibly rich, diverse environment. I'm guessing that if/when PH programs start to get more applicants, the selection process would become more of the same. But I'm not a PH student yet, so what do I know.

 

[JMM051]

Your "theory" is slightly faulty, as Yale Law received 3,173 applicants last year. Hopkins PH program received 3,329 applications and Emory had 2,745. It has nothing to do with the number of applications.

With your background from a "top" law school, what is motivating you to pursue a degree in public health?

 

[DeeLovely79]

. I like to think that the holistic overall approach that PH adcoms take on the admissions process leads to a diverse, mostly dedicated field of professionals.

This is why I love public health. I've met many intelligent, hard working, passionate people in this field from a variety of backgrounds (and a great many of them only have a bachelor's degree, I've even met some with nothing more than an HS diploma). I think SPHs understand how diverse public health is once you step outside of the walls of academia and how it takes a group of professionals with talents in many areas to accomplish the mission of improving the health of communities. I am glad that they take a holistic approach and admit people that demonstrate valuable qualities that can't be measured by standardized testing and paper writing.

 

[mwdl4life]

Wow, ok.

I can clarify my "theory" for you. Other professional programs, using law school as an example, can, and do, heavily rely upon test scores & GPA in making an application decision because they actually have a number of these type of applicants applying to these schools. PH programs couldn't do this, even if they wanted to, because they don't have the quantity of applicants with these type of numbers - even if they have the same quantity of applicants, as you mentioned. And this, as other posters in this thread have pointed out, is why PH programs are "less competitive" in this respect.

My point was that the type of other professional programs the OP mentioned can have it both ways - they can use numbers as well as non-quantifiable factors, and they do. PH programs can't rely as heavily upon numbers, which is why they seem to be perceived as "less" competitive. I don't believe I said this was a bad thing. When I mentioned this might change, with PH schools adopting more of a law/Med school approach, when the number of applicants increased referred to the number of applicants with more competitive numbers. Sorry if that was unclear, but I didn't expect the scrutiny.

And I appreciate you referring to my law school as of the "top" caliber; I don't think I made this assertion, but I'll take the "compliment". I was simply pointing out, contrary to your "slightly faulty" theory, that a student body with generally "exceptional" test scores/GPA would "certainly" have no diversity, because, speaking from my own personal experience, they do. Thanks.

Your "theory" is slightly faulty, as Yale Law received 3,173 applicants last year. Hopkins PH program received 3,329 applications and Emory had 2,745. It has nothing to do with the number of applications.

With your background from a "top" law school, what is motivating you to pursue a degree in public health?

 

[JMM051]

I'm not going to engage in a discussion with someone that can't get their argument together.

Good luck with your applications!

 

[ebp]

Public health is also very different than both law and medicine. Those types of programs attract more Type A personalities, which probably work well for both of those fields. The field of public health is more diverse and encompasses not only academia but also more direct-service and working with disadvantaged an under-served populations, which will attract different types of people. Different degrees/types of jobs have different merits and attract different people. It doesn't make one better than the other.

As public health students/soon-to-be students/professionals, I think we can all agree that the more diverse the student and professional population, the stronger public health as a whole is.

 

[mwdl4life]

I'm not going to engage in a discussion with someone that can't get their argument together.

Good luck with your applications!

I won't either.

But thanks!

 

[mystal]

I'm not going to engage in a discussion with someone that can't get their argument together.

Good luck with your applications!

Uh oh.

Hugs for everyone!

 

[MPHandPsych]

Oh snap!


Seriously people...I feel like the topic of this thread was doomed from the beginning! Graduate level admissions is so different from undergrad, and it's hard to compare one to the other. Every program requires different standardized tests, pre-reqs, etc...here's my two cents: I don't see any good of comparing public health program admissions to ANY other graduate topic of study because they all are unique and attract different types of applicants.

Not to mention that public health as a field is relatively new & it's going to take some time for this area of study to become 'established', especially in the eyes of other health-related fields (case in point- when you go to the SND forum homepage, look how far down the entire public health thread is...). In my opinion admissions standards are competitive given that (1) what is required if you're truly going into public health work (2) it's a NEW field of study compared to other health areas and (3) given the ratio of colleges/universities in the US there is a relatively small number of accredited PH schools.

 

[Stories]

Public health is also very different than both law and medicine. Those types of programs attract more Type A personalities, which probably work well for both of those fields. The field of public health is more diverse and encompasses not only academia but also more direct-service and working with disadvantaged an under-served populations, which will attract different types of people. Different degrees/types of jobs have different merits and attract different people. It doesn't make one better than the other.

As public health students/soon-to-be students/professionals, I think we can all agree that the more diverse the student and professional population, the stronger public health as a whole is.

Another big difference is that Law and Medicine are terminal doctoral degrees. Most people (and on this forum) are applying for a MPH, which is not the terminal degree in the field. There's obviously going to be a different applicant pool there.

The MPH degree is best compared against those getting a MSW or MAT/MEd since those fields that master's is the most common degree but not the terminal degree.

 

[EpiWin]

here's my two cents: I don't see any good of comparing public health program admissions to ANY other graduate topic of study because they all are unique and attract different types of applicants.

Agreed, and going one step further with that, I'd argue that to an extent it doesn't even make sense using the term public health. Ask anyone what public health is and you'll get a hundred different answers, just because of the incredible variety of concentrations within the umbrella of PH. An SBS department will not be recruiting from the same applicant pool as an Epi department. An HPM candidate may take a class or two with Nutrition students in EHS, but otherwise they are all distinct from one another. This thread was doomed because we've been discussing in the context of PH as a whole, when it actually consists of so many different departments that have wildly different expectations, averages, and requirements in GRE, GPA, work experience, etc.

Fundamental differences exist in a field that attempts to be both quantitative and qualitatively driven, and those differences result in varying standards within PH. Some departments in PH require 2,3 years of experience (or even a doctorate) and others just want a quantitative-minded fresh undergrad. Significantly higher average scores for admitted students in fields like Biostats, which rival other academic/research-oriented fields, are hidden under the term "public health," and I would argue that admissions standards for that are actually very rigorous on paper already and don't even need to call upon the fact that experience gets overlooked in discussions on "standards." MCH departments display admitted stats that are lower than Epi at UC Berkeley, but demand a strong, pre-existing background working on MCH issues.

TL;DR: Standards are not too low, but the reason is very different depending on which field of PH you look at. Rather than say "is PH too low?", better to say "is Epi?", "is SBS?", "is MCH?", to which I believe the answer to all are "no, because _____."

 

[MPHandPsych]

Agreed, and going one step further with that, I'd argue that to an extent it doesn't even make sense using the term public health.

TL;DR: Standards are not too low, but the reason is very different depending on which field of PH you look at. Rather than say "is PH too low?", better to say "is Epi?", "is SBS?", "is MCH?", to which I believe the answer to all are "no, because _____."

Hear, hear!

 

[Borks]

\

From personal experience, I had a handful of very bright classmates during my MPH and a small number that I thought were pretty dull. The vast majority of people were somewhere in the middle. My classmates during my PhD, I respect everyone and see them all as very bright and none was undeserving of being there.

There are some public health schools which, admit a huge number of students, some who are more interested in being a clinician, or some who sort of fell into public health by default, but for one reason or another don't really come together to provide the stimulating and challenging intellectual environment.

I attended a top three public health school, and I would have to describe 80% of the class as being exceptionally bright, the other 20% I didn't know very well. One benefit of going to a top school is that you're around passionate classmates, and there is a synergy of goal oriented folks who love public health. Nobody would have described our class as having a "handful of bright students."

In terms of admissions, showing a passion for the field is important. If you studied well in college and excelled, then it assumed that you at least have a passion for academic coursework, which is what 70% of attending a public health school is about. Analytic skills are important as you will be relying on these for many different types of jobs in public health. Of course, 30% of a student's success, or at least a school's success, is helping to educate students who have good practical experience and a passion for public health which can be put to good use. This is where the "X - Factor" of outside academic qualifications comes into play, with the realization that some students really blossom when they get into a Masters program.

I think that the most motivated students apply to the top schools, especially if their interest in public health runs deep, as they want the "best" in terms of education and exposure to future career opportunities.