PHD in Epidemiology, Will it be worth my time?

[Epistatician]

I have an MPH with a concentration in Epidemiology. I just finished and am now thinking about doing a PHD in Epidemiology. Will this be worth my time, and increase my chances of a successful career in public health and Epidemiology? To be honest alot of the responses and opinions on the field in this discussion board have not been very promising

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Stories]

If it's something you need to ask yourself, it's probably not a wise choice. A doctorate should only be considered if the career trajectory you see yourself on requires on. Very few jobs require one, and having one closes more doors than it opens (ie. you become too expensive to employ for jobs where a MPH is sufficient). However, if research is on the top of your list, then a PhD is effectively mandatory.

 

[Kevin36]

To add to stories, if you want to do research or be a public health executive you will probably need a doctorate. Most of the state bureau heads I've worked with have had doctorates in their respective fields, even if it's not a formal requirement it might be an informal one.

If it's something you need to ask yourself, it's probably not a wise choice. A doctorate should only be considered if the career trajectory you see yourself on requires on. Very few jobs require one, and having one closes more doors than it opens (ie. you become too expensive to employ for jobs where a MPH is sufficient). However, if research is on the top of your list, then a PhD is effectively mandatory.

 

[vonphoebe]

What I am going to advise is,
Try your best to land on a job first, then you will know whether you need a PhD or not. And if you work for one or two years then you could definitely apply a top PhD program.

 

[Drink Water]

PhD is not -- should not be -- a degree which one pursues just to figure out how it goes. At the start of your PhD program, if not knowing exactly what you will want to research about (or you should be in the mode of being close to figuring all of that out sooner or later), you must know that you are going to love all aspects of going through the PhD process. I suggest that you do some research on both pro and con of doing PhD in relations to your long-term goal by talking to someone who could be brutally honest about doing a PhD. For me, having good mentors who were honest about their experience and what they would have done differently really helped me. My mentors' familiarity with my personal backgrounds was a definite plus.

Get a piece of paper and divide it into two columns, one for pro and one for con. Fill the page as you talk to more people and do your research. Then weigh what matters to you more, and come up with your priority list in factors that should be there as final products of your long-term careeer goals.

 

[ToxMan1]

Exactly! Agreed with everyone here. Plus, the PhD doesn't exactly increase your chances of getting any kind of career (well...obviously it does, but only to a limited extent). All the PhD does is give you the necessary training and development to ask questions, analyze problems, and research various solutions. Immersion in such pursuits doesn't magically OPEN doors, rather it gives you the training, skill, and tools to be successful if you step through the doors... What career you have is totally up to you, not up to your degree.

 

[swaffles]

Economically, it's not very beneficial as well. In general, people who do a PhD after a masters only increase their chances at landing a job by maybe 3-5%, which doesn't really seem worth the money and struggle. Once you do a masters, that's when you've reached the most efficient intersection of money spent and job procured. If you can get a research job with an MPH, why not just get paid well to do it, instead of getting paid a crappy salary for doing your own research - unless you REALLY want to do your own thesis and research and have that sort of drive. I also agree with Stories in that you might risk being overqualified AND still have less job experience than people who went into the job field right after getting an MPH, both factors that put you closer to the bottom of the list.

That being said, a PhD in a science area is much more valuable on the market than a PhD in most other areas of academics. Of course, that might be a matter of opinion.

For a good discussion on the value of getting a PhD: http://www.economist.com/node/17723223

I would read the comments section for some really good food for thought.

 

[Stories]

Economically, it's not very beneficial as well. In general, people who do a PhD after a masters only increase their chances at landing a job by maybe 3-5%, which doesn't really seem worth the money and struggle. Once you do a masters, that's when you've reached the most efficient intersection of money spent and job procured. If you can get a research job with an MPH, why not just get paid well to do it, instead of getting paid a crappy salary for doing your own research - unless you REALLY want to do your own thesis and research and have that sort of drive. I also agree with Stories in that you might risk being overqualified AND still have less job experience than people who went into the job field right after getting an MPH, both factors that put you closer to the bottom of the list.

That being said, a PhD in a science area is much more valuable on the market than a PhD in most other areas of academics. Of course, that might be a matter of opinion.

For a good discussion on the value of getting a PhD: http://www.economist.com/node/17723223

I would read the comments section for some really good food for thought.

I will add a correction here: very few people pay for a doctorate. You never should pay for one because there is always someone out there who is willing to pay you to do one.

Also, generally speaking, someone with a MPH and another with a PhD generally aren't aiming for the same job.

Lastly, most science PhDs are lucky (such as us) because we have the fortune of job opportunities outside academics. This is not the case in humanities and many social sciences, for instance.

I would say that getting a PhD in epidemiology (or similar PH field) is a good thing if you know what you want to get out of it and what your future goals are. If you're at all unsure--then do not get a PhD. Waste of time (5+ years!).

 

[swaffles]

I will add a correction here: very few people pay for a doctorate. You never should pay for one because there is always someone out there who is willing to pay you to do one.

Also, generally speaking, someone with a MPH and another with a PhD generally aren't aiming for the same job.

I'll specify about 'paying': it's not about paying money to get a PhD, but it's the time and effort you put into it, which is indirect payment. Is five years of low wages, long hours, sometimes dead end results, self incentivizing, loss of alternative options in those five years, etc, worth the interest you have in getting a PhD? I did acknowledge that PhDs do get paid a salary, albeit an unsatisfactory one.

Also, I'm wondering - how different ARE the jobs if you apply as an MPH Epidemiologist and a PhD Epidemiologist? Both are research oriented and PhDs are probably the most relevant when it comes to becoming an academic in the field. But otherwise, the two have, in the past, seemed the same to me. ToxMan1 stated that it's more helpful AFTER you get a job, which is what I always understood. I'm honestly curious, since I have also applied to a few Epi MPH programs.

 

[Stories]

I'll specify about 'paying': it's not about paying money to get a PhD, but it's the time and effort you put into it, which is indirect payment. Is five years of low wages, long hours, sometimes dead end results, self incentivizing, loss of alternative options in those five years, etc, worth the interest you have in getting a PhD? I did acknowledge that PhDs do get paid a salary, albeit an unsatisfactory one.

Also, I'm wondering - how different ARE the jobs if you apply as an MPH Epidemiologist and a PhD Epidemiologist? Both are research oriented and PhDs are probably the most relevant when it comes to becoming an academic in the field. But otherwise, the two have, in the past, seemed the same to me. ToxMan1 stated that it's more helpful AFTER you get a job, which is what I always understood. I'm honestly curious, since I have also applied to a few Epi MPH programs.

Grad student stipends aren't the worst in the world. It's probably only slightly worse than an entry-level job. It's reasonable enough to live on (not a family), and I really enjoy the friendship I have with my fellow grad students. That said, there is definitely an opportunity cost if you plan on going back into a job for which a doctorate is not necessary, but I don't know a single grad who doesn't go into a position where a doctorate wasn't necessary.

As a master-level person, you cannot lead, develop, or be in charge of any research. You'll be research staff--perhaps management, but never a PI or more than that. Titles like "Research Assistant", "Research Manager", "Research Associate".

As a doctoral-level person, you can be a PI and lead researcher or higher level manager. Without a doctorate, these types of positions aren't open/available to that individual. These positions state in the qualifications statement, a doctoral-level degree, often with titles like, "Research Fellow", "Research Director", "Research Scientist", "Senior Researcher", etc.

 

[swaffles]

Grad student stipends aren't the worst in the world. It's probably only slightly worse than an entry-level job. It's reasonable enough to live on (not a family), and I really enjoy the friendship I have with my fellow grad students. That said, there is definitely an opportunity cost if you plan on going back into a job for which a doctorate is not necessary, but I don't know a single grad who doesn't go into a position where a doctorate wasn't necessary.

As a master-level person, you can won't lead, develop, or be in charge of any research. You'll be research staff--perhaps management, but never a PI or more than that. Titles like "Research Assistant", "Research Manager", "Research Associate".

As a doctoral-level person, you can be a PI and lead researcher or higher level manager. Without a doctorate, these types of positions aren't open/available to that individual. These positions state in the qualifications statement, a doctoral-level degree, often with titles like, "Research Fellow", "Research Director", "Research Scientist", "Senior Researcher", etc.

Ah, okay - definitely more of a difference than I previously thought there was. Thank you!

Also, yeah the wages aren't the WORST in the world, but as we've all stated, it depends on your honest interests, pragmatism, and goals.

 

[Epistatician]

Thank you all for your advice and input. My immediate goal is to find work to help me gain more experience in the field. I have been applying to different positions at the NYCDOH as well at Public Health Solutions. Any advice on where else I could search?

Thank you.