Does where you get the MPH from matter?

[CA2009]

Hi All,

I was wondering if it really matters in the long run, where the MPH is from? Especially for those that want to pursue a PhD, DrPH, or MD after? Is someone really not going to hire you or accept you into a graduate program b/c you go to the #30 program instead of the #5?

Looking forward to hearing some thoughts on this, thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ebp]

Hi All,

I was wondering if it really matters in the long run, where the MPH is from? Especially for those that want to pursue a PhD, DrPH, or MD after? Is someone really not going to hire you or accept you into a graduate program b/c you go to the #30 program instead of the #5?

Looking forward to hearing some thoughts on this, thanks!

This is obviously coming from someone who is going to be just starting her MPH, so you can take this with a grain of salt. I would think the school you go to matters more for pursuing PhD, DrPH, etc programs than it does for going right into a job. Maybe it depends on the employer/job. Either way I don't think you're not going to move forward based on the school you went to. I would think what you do with the program is also more important. Someone can go to a big name school but not make as much out of it - make connections, do internships, get involved in research projects. I'll be going to GWU. It's not a highly ranked school, but it's in DC, and I intend to take advantage of the location.

 

[CA2009]

This is obviously coming from someone who is going to be just starting her MPH, so you can take this with a grain of salt. I would think the school you go to matters more for pursuing PhD, DrPH, etc programs than it does for going right into a job. Maybe it depends on the employer/job. Either way I don't think you're not going to move forward based on the school you went to. I would think what you do with the program is also more important. Someone can go to a big name school but not make as much out of it - make connections, do internships, get involved in research projects. I'll be going to GWU. It's not a highly ranked school, but it's in DC, and I intend to take advantage of the location.

I agree- what you do matters the most. But I was curious if getting a 4.0 from a higher ranked school has more value than a lower ranked school...anyone in the field or in a current PhD program in public health have thoughts on this?

 

[Stories]

I agree- what you do matters the most. But I was curious if getting a 4.0 from a higher ranked school has more value than a lower ranked school...anyone in the field or in a current PhD program in public health have thoughts on this?

There's no magic formula here, obviously, as admissions is a more subjective than scientific process. But if you're talking about a 4.0 at a lesser known versus a 3.5 at a well known, there's a difference. If it's a 4.0 versus a 3.8, maybe not so much.

People I've talked to on admissions committees have always said that if two applicants appear good on paper, they'll always give the benefit of the doubt to an applicant who went to a Harvard, Yale, Hopkins, etc. versus a lesser known school. But the grades and research experience you have are the most important factors. Generally speaking, no two applicants will ever come to this crossroad of being similar enough where the school is the deciding factor.

A scan of my classmates tends to reveal such picking, the majority of them (about 60%) hold a degree from what we'd all consider an "elite" college or university, whether it's a bachelor's or master's. The handful that don't are international students. I can tell you with absolute certainty that across many disciplines (not just public health), many also attended the "elite" universities.

I've said as much on this forum, I don't see USWNR rankings for public health as being a good measure because they don't use any objective data. However, the rankings tend to reflect their institution's overall standing in the academic world, which to me suggests there's not a lot to be gained by looking at those numbers. The NRC (http://www.nap.edu/rdp/) has doctoral programs ranked by empirical data. I found that to be a bit more telling.

 

[Borks]

There's no magic formula here, obviously, as admissions is a more subjective than scientific process. But if you're talking about a 4.0 at a lesser known versus a 3.5 at a well known, there's a difference. If it's a 4.0 versus a 3.8, maybe not so much.

People I've talked to on admissions committees have always said that if two applicants appear good on paper, they'll always give the benefit of the doubt to an applicant who went to a Harvard, Yale, Hopkins, etc. versus a lesser known school. But the grades and experience you have are the most important factors.

A scan of my classmates tends to reveal such picking, the majority of them (about 60%) hold a degree from what we'd all consider an "elite" college or university, whether it's a bachelor's or master's. The handful that don't are international students. I can tell you with absolute certainty that across many disciplines (not just public health), many also attended the "elite" universities.

Hold the horses here! Stories did an MPH at BU, right? But he/she got into Yale PhD's track in Epi or something. BU sure ain't ivy league, their public health school is like #12 BUT the percentage of those accepted who go there is lower than at other schools, meaning that you have a good shot of going there, so I don't think it is nearly as selective as Hopkins or Harvard. A lot of people I know used BU as a safety school and didn't go there, didn't think that it would as easily open up doors like UNC or a place like that?

So is Stories saying that his/her undergrad was Harvard and that is how he/she got into Yale?

I think that it matters if you go to Harvard, Hopkins, UNC, and others in the top 8 or so. Even then, if you do a good job at lower ranked places then you have a shot at going to a prestigious school. (I actually got a 3.9 from a state undergrad and decided to go to an excellent public health school over other schools like BU, so don't tell me it can't happen!)


In terms of ranking, I think it is hard for the important ranking info not to be subjective. Two schools may have the same funding, same classes, but the faculty could have better interaction with the students at one of the schools, and impart to them world class problem solving strategies, while disinterested faculty produce students who know some facts, but not much else. This is why a lot of leaders in public health have come from Harvard, Hopkins, UNC, and others in at least the top ten, because people know that these students got a good education in terms of quality.

Another factor is motivation, if you are motivated to go to Hopkins or Harvard, then you are probably gung-ho public health and will apply to the more selective PhD programs later on, if you so choose.

 

[swaffles]

No matter what people might say about "oh no, it won't matter at all as long as you do well at your school", it's pretty obvious that it always will. Basic psychology dictates that people always have a subconscious impression of ideas and things. So even if an employer or professor who claims to be completely impartial to names was looking at your resume and collection of work, the name '<insert renowned school>' would automatically mean more than the name 'University of some lesser known/renowned school'.

This is assuming that most other variables are equal, since you're only asking about the name of the school. If someone got 3.9 at a top school and has a bunch of good experience and a person has a 3.9 from a lesser known school with a bunch of good experience, the top school would win (at least, with me).

 

[Stories]

Hold the horses here! Stories did an MPH at BU, right? But he/she got into Yale PhD's track in Epi or something. BU sure ain't ivy league, their public health school is like #12 BUT the percentage of those accepted who go there is lower than at other schools, meaning that you have a good shot of going there, so I don't think it is nearly as selective as Hopkins or Harvard. A lot of people I know used BU as a safety school and didn't go there, didn't think that it would as easily open up doors like UNC or a place like that?

So is Stories saying that his/her undergrad was Harvard and that is how he/she got into Yale?

I think that it matters if you go to Harvard, Hopkins, UNC, and others in the top 8 or so. Even then, if you do a good job at lower ranked places then you have a shot at going to a prestigious school. (I actually got a 3.9 from a state undergrad and decided to go to JHU over other schools like BU, so don't tell me it can't happen!)


In terms of ranking, I think it is hard for the important ranking info not to be subjective. Two schools may have the same funding, same classes, but the faculty could have better interaction with the students at one of the schools, and impart to them world class problem solving strategies, while disinterested faculty produce students who know some facts, but not much else. This is why a lot of leaders in public health have come from Harvard, Hopkins, UNC, and others in at least the top ten, because people know that these students got a good education in terms of quality.

Another factor is motivation, if you are motivated to go to Hopkins or Harvard, then you are probably gung-ho public health and will apply to the more selective PhD programs later on, if you so choose.

The main thing I was trying to point out is that in the end, it doesn't truly matter where you get your degrees as long as your work speaks for itself. People get too caught up in the name or brand of something and forget what's truly there--this happens all the time with consumer products, politics, you name it. What I was spitting out were trends I was seeing and noticed. If I came off as rude and implying that you had to go to a elite university to go to another elite university, I apologize.

One other big thing to keep in mind is geography. Folks tend to apply to and stay at schools within a specific area. The majority of folks I know here are all from the east coast, and generally from the mid-Atlantic and up. People tend to stick to areas they know, and if I was guessing, most folks would prefer it. And to account for trends I've seen, my school is in the northeast, so most students have also come from other schools situated in the northeast.

You are right in that people who tend to be more ambitious apply in greater numbers to the well known schools and probably come from some of the elite schools. And we often use the previous place of school as a proxy for level of ambition. It's just human nature. But to say that it's important to go to well known school for a stepping stone degree could be bad advice, particularly if the school is expensive and doesn't offer a good fit academically or professionally. Fit is more important than you can possibly imagine as this will dictate the type of research, type of internship, and type of skills you come out with.

And one thing I'm 100% certain about is that top ranking does not correlate, even slightly, to quality of instruction or interaction with faculty. The mantra of "publish or perish" is even more prevalent in the top tier universities as the pressure to bring in grants is very demanding, and teaching is scored as only one small component of a faculty member's promotion/tenure review process. Quality teaching/interaction is found at a liberal arts college, it's generally rare to find it at a research university.

And a key point: an elite school does not, and will not, make up for a lackluster student.

All in all, there's no certain science to admissions to places. Go where you're a good fit and do well.

 

[intlhealth2010]

People I've talked to on admissions committees have always said that if two applicants appear good on paper, they'll always give the benefit of the doubt to an applicant who went to a Harvard, Yale, Hopkins, etc. versus a lesser known school. But the grades and experience you have are the most important factors.

A scan of my classmates tends to reveal such picking, the majority of them (about 60%) hold a degree from what we'd all consider an "elite" college or university, whether it's a bachelor's or master's. The handful that don't are international students. I can tell you with absolute certainty that across many disciplines (not just public health), many also attended the "elite" universities.

I agree with Stories. If the OP or anyone for that matter is shooting for an elite/top-ranked PhD program, it would only help you out to attend a "top-ranked" MPH program.

For example, Harvard School of Public Health allows you to do a search of all their PhD grads via their website. I suggest you look over a few of the past/current PhD candidates and you will soon notice that their credentials all seem to be coming from similar places. Having a prior MPH/MS from HSPH tends to be the most represented; however, schools like U Mich, UNC, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Yale, Berkeley, Emory (to name a few) keep popping up for MPH credentials.


Maybe "elite" isn't the right word to describe the general trends. I would substitute if for "schools well-known for their work in X field" But that being said, in any well-regarded grad program you will see a noticeable over-representation of students from the top 15 or so universities ( via USWNR )

 

[Stories]

Maybe "elite" isn't the right word to describe the general trends. I would substitute if for "schools well-known for their work in X field" But that being said, in any well-regarded grad program you will see a noticeable over-representation of students from the top 15 or so universities ( via USWNR )

I also tend to think we see this trend because of the the people at those universities. Perhaps it isn't the universities themselves that gives people the leg up, but a disproportionate number of these individuals at the well regarded schools are the ones continuing on into further levels of education.

 

[MolBio]

To add my $0.02 here: yes, there are chances to do some great work/research at lower-ranked schools. And yes, if you do that great work, and in the future, you compete against "lacklustre" graduates of top schools who did poor research/don't have as much experience, you will absolutely have an edge on them.

In the real world, however, there is a lot of competition for good jobs both academic and non-academic. Therefore you will almost certainly be competing against other candidates who have also done really good work, also got really good grades, AND who went to a top ranked school.

In those situations, the reputation of the school will often tip the balance in favor of candidates who went to the top ranked school. Whether that's fair or not is a debate for another day, but I think that's the reality of things.

 

[Borks]

,

In those situations, the reputation of the school will often tip the balance in favor of candidates who went to the top ranked school. Whether that's fair or not is a debate for another day, but I think that's the reality of things.

The thing is that each public health school, especially top ten and some notables below them, have their own alumni network and reputation. For example, I know that a certain company based on the west coast looks more favorably at Berkley grads, versus other schools. Same with Emory and JHU and certain CDC jobs, certain schools develop a reputation for being feeder schools for certain jobs.

So, at the job hiring level, folks have wildly different appraisals of schools, and, in general, top ten schools overall will be a plus. In addition, schools put varying amounts of effort into their alumni network and resources available to grads.

That being said, students who go to UNC or another top school frequently don't use the MPH as a terminal degree, and decide to do a PhD. Even for folks who get a PhD, often times the fellowship, or work experience, that follows is more important in terms of ultimately getting a job.

 

[CA2009]

I'm not quite sure how some of the other MPH'ers out there plan on paying for their degree, but I will be paying for this 100% on my own. And the cost of a high ranked program versus a lower ranked one is rather significant.

What I'm concerned about is if I plan on pursuing a PhD after, will it matter if I go to the lower ranked one to save money? Could it affect my chances of getting into a good doctoral program?

 

[Borks]

I'm not quite sure how some of the other MPH'ers out there plan on paying for their degree, but I will be paying for this 100% on my own. And the cost of a high ranked program versus a lower ranked one is rather significant.

What I'm concerned about is if I plan on pursuing a PhD after, will it matter if I go to the lower ranked one to save money? Could it affect my chances of getting into a good doctoral program?

First of all, highly ranked programs aren't all the expensive ones. In fact, I can name several private mph schools that have high tuition, but are not in the top ten.

Secondly, when you are young, two years sounds like a lot of time. It's not, especially when you are considering taking on massive amounts of debt to pay overpriced tuition at a private MPH schools which uses the tuition cash for stuff other than your education (you'd be surprised). I would strongly consider working for two years, saving up as much as you can, and then look at applying. You will have work experience, plus cash, so you will be in a better position to get into a top school, and you will have cash on hand to help you pay for it. If you haven't crunched some numbers, then I would do this as some places are very pricey.

You can get into a good doctoral program from a below top ten MPH school. But yes, going to a top MPH program does help a lot with some of the top doctoral programs.

 

[intlhealth2010]

If you are a resident of North Carolina, Michigan, Washington, California or Minnesota then you have the option of attending a highly ranked MPH program and pay in-state tuition?

 

[CA2009]

Definitely true, intlhealth!

My issue is whether I should stay in state or go to a more expensive but more prestigious program that's out of state...

 

[RAMPA]

Definitely true, intlhealth!

My issue is whether I should stay in state or go to a more expensive but more prestigious program that's out of state...

The specific field of public health plays a factor as well. For HP&M/MHA the "prestige" of the program/university can make a big difference as far as starting salary and career opportunities.

 

[CA2009]

That's good to know, I'm interests in Health Behavior aka the lowest paying speciality...but I would like to pursue a PhD/DrPH after.

 

[MolBio]

What I'm concerned about is if I plan on pursuing a PhD after, will it matter if I go to the lower ranked one to save money? Could it affect my chances of getting into a good doctoral program?

If you are already highly certain of your intention to pursue a PhD afterward, there are definitely some compelling reasons to also do your MPH or MSPH at the same school that are worth considering. Especially in regards to saving money, you will generally not have to repeat courses over again (unless >3 years have passed) when you enter your PhD, while most schools will make outside applicants take and pay for many of their course equivalents. Furthermore you will probably already have some ideas for a dissertation, you will have worked with some of the faculty already. So it is also a significant time saver. Often times, your chances of acceptance into a PhD program AND chances of funding are also higher if you did your master's at that school, especially if you have good relationships with the professors in your department.

Therefore if you are really set on doing a PhD at a "top-ranked" school my personal opinion is you should do your master's there. However in the same theme of saving money, I would select a top ranked school that has decent PhD funding options such as training grants for your department.

hth

 

[intlhealth2010]

If you are already highly certain of your intention to pursue a PhD afterward, there are definitely some compelling reasons to also do your MPH or MSPH at the same school that are worth considering. Especially in regards to saving money, you will generally not have to repeat courses over again (unless >3 years have passed) when you enter your PhD, while most schools will make outside applicants take and pay for many of their course equivalents. Furthermore you will probably already have some ideas for a dissertation, you will have worked with some of the faculty already. So it is also a significant time saver. Often times, your chances of acceptance into a PhD program AND chances of funding are also higher if you did your master's at that school, especially if you have good relationships with the professors in your department.

Therefore if you are really set on doing a PhD at a "top-ranked" school my personal opinion is you should do your master's there. However in the same theme of saving money, I would select a top ranked school that has decent PhD funding options such as training grants for your department.

hth

That's a good point. Schools are really stingy about courses transferring from other schools. So if Biostats is required for your PhD coursework at X school, but you've already taken the entire series at Y school (where you did your MPH) you will have to take retake the entire series school X. You would be saving yourself a bunch of time just doing the MPH at School X.

 

[Stories]

If you are already highly certain of your intention to pursue a PhD afterward, there are definitely some compelling reasons to also do your MPH or MSPH at the same school that are worth considering. Especially in regards to saving money, you will generally not have to repeat courses over again (unless >3 years have passed) when you enter your PhD, while most schools will make outside applicants take and pay for many of their course equivalents. Furthermore you will probably already have some ideas for a dissertation, you will have worked with some of the faculty already. So it is also a significant time saver. Often times, your chances of acceptance into a PhD program AND chances of funding are also higher if you did your master's at that school, especially if you have good relationships with the professors in your department.

Therefore if you are really set on doing a PhD at a "top-ranked" school my personal opinion is you should do your master's there. However in the same theme of saving money, I would select a top ranked school that has decent PhD funding options such as training grants for your department.

hth

Some schools do allow waivers of courses, even if they don't allow a transfer of credit. So if you took the equivalent level introductory biostatistics course at school X, school Y may allow you to substitute that course for another. You still have to take the credits, but you'd be exempt from re-taking a course you've taken. Of course, if it's been a long time since you've taken said course, it might be in your best interest to take it because the material is likely to re-appear on the qualifying exams in some capacity.

Also, I would strongly advise against just going to a top school for the sake of going to it, particularly if continuing on for a PhD at the same school if there is no faculty doing research which you're interested in. The working relationship with a faculty member is crucial for the PhD as you are dependent upon your mentor for lab space (if necessary) or data collection. You don't want to work on a project that you're not interested in for 5+ years.