Question about MPH

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

Rabbit99

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
44
Reaction score
1
After getting an MPH with concentration in biostatistics, are we able to get jobs in pharmaceutical companies without experience? How can we increase our opportunities for advance in the career?

Being a biology major in undergrad with only introductory experience in statistics and calculus, would it be difficult to succeed as a biostatistician? Or is the more advanced statistics not difficult? How much 'probability' do we need to learn?

Thanks

Members don't see this ad.
 
After getting an MPH with concentration in biostatistics, are we able to get jobs in pharmaceutical companies without experience? How can we increase our opportunities for advance in the career?

Being a biology major in undergrad with only introductory experience in statistics and calculus, would it be difficult to succeed as a biostatistician? Or is the more advanced statistics not difficult? How much 'probability' do we need to learn?

Thanks
Hey! Do you mind if I ask why you're going for an MPH with a concentration in biostats instead of an MS in biostats? People will colloquially call the analyst/number cruncher a statistician, but the knowledge gap between someone with a concentration and an actual stats degree is quite large. People often say the difference is merely applied vs theoretical, but this doesn't really explain the difference. In a stats program, you're learning statistics theory and application, including the important details. In an MPH with a biostats concentration, for example, you're learning about public health while learning some "side material" to help you participate in research, even if the course is called "biostats such and such". I've seen good schools indicate that the MPH or epidemiology masters has significantly lower expectations of the students in biostats courses in comparison to the standards in an MS biostats program. Some even have different course listings. If you want to be a biostatistician, I suggest pursuing at least an MS in biostats or stats (general) in place of the MPH with a concentration (unless you have a strong reason for wanting a public health background).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for the insight. I hope my math background is strong enough for me to pursue statistics. Do you have some suggestions on how to do well in a MS in stats program?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thank you for the insight. I hope my math background is strong enough for me to pursue statistics. Do you have some suggestions on how to do well in a MS in stats program?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
If you share a little more about your current background in math and the time you have until you apply/start an MS stats degree, and where you're at in your current degree program, that would be helpful to know before I can give some better advice!
 
I have taken basic calculus and introduction to statistics; no linear algebra or multivariable calculus.

I have until beginning of December to take courses for myself ( not really required but good for my own preparation ) and apply in December. Before college I had to get a math tutor and my first time through AP calculus wasn't smooth; although I got a 5 on the AP exam I definitely needed to spend lots of time studying and sometimes scored in the B-/C+ range in AP calculus. The second time through in college was very smooth though and I aced basic stats. By the way with pre-calc and lower level math I got all A in class, with some tutor help.
As for science courses like biology, chemistry and physics I can get A at college level. But for some specific topics I wouldn't say I ace them right away. So for more advanced math I would rather be prepared and take the conservative route to success...or try something else. I just think statistics is not pure math and so it seems like hard work can make up for any lack of understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
I have taken basic calculus and introduction to statistics; no linear algebra or multivariable calculus.

I have until beginning of December to take courses for myself ( not really required but good for my own preparation ) and apply in December. Before college I had to get a math tutor and my first time through AP calculus wasn't smooth; although I got a 5 on the AP exam I definitely needed to spend lots of time studying and sometimes scored in the B-/C+ range in AP calculus. The second time through in college was very smooth though and I aced basic stats. By the way with pre-calc and lower level math I got all A in class, with some tutor help.
As for science courses like biology, chemistry and physics I can get A at college level. But for some specific topics I wouldn't say I ace them right away. So for more advanced math I would rather be prepared and take the conservative route to success...or try something else. I just think statistics is not pure math and so it seems like hard work can make up for any lack of understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
I would suggest taking a few more math and statistics courses if you can. At least refresh your single variable calculus and take multivariable calculus, and be sure it includes multiple integration. Linear and matrix algebra are also things you should take. These are common minimum requirements for MS in statistics programs, and I think common for MS in biostatistics also, but I have seen some biostatistics programs make these less firm (they say that you should self study if you don't have a formal background). I would recommend maybe emailing some programs you're interested in or visiting their website to see the requirements for the program.

Statistics isn't pure math but there are many theoretical classes where you can expect to use proofs and derivations for the entire course (or very limited "numerical" type problems that are common in lower mathematics. I wouldn't say that statistics is necessarily easily compensated by hard work, but if you are above average intelligence, spending more time with it will definitely help (as with most things in life). It's one of those things where you don't know what you don't know, and people are often fooled into thinking they understand it better than they do. I do know that in most programs you at least have the option to take some applied courses and they work really nicely with the theoretical coursework. It's sort of like learning to drive a car and also learning the physics and actual functioning of the different parts of the car. When you can't get the engine to turn over, you know the many places to look and how to diagnose the problem, as well as how serious it is if you don't fix it. You also take your knowledge of how the car works in general and can apply it to other machines you've never seen or worked on before. This is the advantage I see to actually getting a stats degree.

If' you're turned off by the math, you could look into an applied stats degree, which is less robust than the MS, but I still would peg it higher than an MPH or Epi degree with a biostats concentration for the job your after (biostatistician). Since it seems you've done well in mathematics, though, I would be willing to try taking the prerequisites and maybe another stats or probability course (calc based if offered). It might be uncomfortable, but you'll be surprised how you adjust to reading, writing, and thinking in mathematical notation. You'll also realize how much more sense the stats and probability material becomes when you know the tools that were used to derive ideas. If you still don't feel comfortable with the mathematics aspect, then I would look at the applied degree for sure.
 
You can definitely work in pharma/biotech, although it will be hard right after graduation. If you are unlucky finding positions at pharma right after your MPH then I suggest you work as a data analyst/ statistical programmer to show you can handle rigorous statistical work.

MPH grad currently working at a large pharmaceutical company as a bioinformatician/statistical programmer. Have friends with an MPH also working as a statistical programmers in pharma.

The MPH vs. MS distinction will not make a difference (probably), what matters is that you can prove you can accomplish the statistical work.
 
You can definitely work in pharma/biotech, although it will be hard right after graduation. If you are unlucky finding positions at pharma right after your MPH then I suggest you work as a data analyst/ statistical programmer to show you can handle rigorous statistical work.

MPH grad currently working at a large pharmaceutical company as a bioinformatician/statistical programmer. Have friends with an MPH also working as a statistical programmers in pharma.

The MPH vs. MS distinction will not make a difference (probably), what matters is that you can prove you can accomplish the statistical work.
Being a "data analyst" or "statistical programmer" is far from being a biostatistician, and being able to do the coding is far from "rigorous statistical work". An MPH is far from a statistics degree, but this is no secret given the name of the degree. An MS in statistics or biostatistics is completely different from an MPH in terms of material, depth, and rigor (even if the MPH has a concentration in biostatistics). It's not uncommon for graduate programs to make distinctions between the rigor of biostatistics courses for MPH students vs the coursework for students actually pursuing an MS in (bio)statistics with the latter being noted as significantly more demanding. The important part isn't simply doing the work but it's doing it properly and knowing what it actually means (I've lost count of how many MPH's have incredibly flawed misunderstandings of the methods they're using but are fairly competent at generating output). This isn't saying it can't be done with an MPH, but in all cases, the MPH doesn't hold a candle to an MS in (bio)statistics when you're talking about being a statistician.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just out of curiosity, if statistics isn't the best fit for me, how helpful is it to add a separate MBA to our MPH degree? I didn't apply for a combined program and was wondering if I should get an in person or just online MBA right after I complete the MPH so I open myself up to more and better jobs.
It depends what you want to do, but generally, MBAs hold the best job prospects if they're from a top program and typically are not online. They also usually require several years of work experience for serious consideration of an application. If you're going to go for an MBA I'd try to get some work experience first so you can get into a program that will be worth the price tag.
 
Being a "data analyst" or "statistical programmer" is far from being a biostatistician, and being able to do the coding is far from "rigorous statistical work". An MPH is far from a statistics degree, but this is no secret given the name of the degree. An MS in statistics or biostatistics is completely different from an MPH in terms of material, depth, and rigor (even if the MPH has a concentration in biostatistics). It's not uncommon for graduate programs to make distinctions between the rigor of biostatistics courses for MPH students vs the coursework for students actually pursuing an MS in (bio)statistics with the latter being noted as significantly more demanding. The important part isn't simply doing the work but it's doing it properly and knowing what it actually means (I've lost count of how many MPH's have incredibly flawed misunderstandings of the methods they're using but are fairly competent at generating output). This isn't saying it can't be done with an MPH, but in all cases, the MPH doesn't hold a candle to an MS in (bio)statistics when you're talking about being a statistician.

Sure, a degree entirely focused on statistics will prepare you better for a position that only deals with statistical analysis. But that wasn't the question. It's also worth pointing out that an MPH would prepare you better than an MS in statistics for many jobs in pharma, as there are many departments/areas which don't require extensive statistical training but just a basic understanding and ability to perform and carry out descriptive or common statistical tests. It's also assumed you've taken some basic statistical coursework in undergrad and have taken some advanced graduate level courses during your masters- as you'd need to demonstrate you take statistics/statistical programming seriously given your goal is to find that type of employment.
 
...would it be difficult to succeed as a biostatistician?

Thanks
The OP directly asked about being a biostatistician.

Sure, a degree entirely focused on statistics will prepare you better for a position that only deals with statistical analysis. But that wasn't the question. It's also worth pointing out that an MPH would prepare you better than an MS in statistics for many jobs in pharma, as there are many departments/areas which don't require extensive statistical training but just a basic understanding and ability to perform and carry out descriptive or common statistical tests. It's also assumed you've taken some basic statistical coursework in undergrad and have taken some advanced graduate level courses during your masters- as you'd need to demonstrate you take statistics/statistical programming seriously given your goal is to find that type of employment.
Getting an MPH will not adequately prepare someone to be a biostatistician (which was the question asked). In a biostats masters, there are often electives that focus more on the methods used in the context of clinical trials, pharma/biotech applications, and the sciences. MPH programs and Epi programs teach you subject matter knowledge with peripheral education in statistics so you can participate, at least as a consumer, in the research process better than someone without training. They're not designed to prepare you to run the show with the stats. I've considered both kinds of programs, and from talking with people at the schools (and even seeing on the websites) this is the gist of what they say, if they don't directly say it: the rigor and depth of MPH/epi biostats courses is not nearly the same as the equivalent course in a program for MS/PhD (bio)statistics students, unless the course is cross listed or taking more of an applied route. There is a lot more to being a competent statistician than clicking buttons or running a few lines of code. There is a reason well-funded trials and studies specifically hire statisticians lead by people with PhDs in statistics or biostatistics, usually with some variation in the master-level employees which are typically in statistics/biostats, but can have an MPH or Epi degree from a top program. You'll almost never see the MPH or Epi person running the show with the actual stats people as subordinates.

It's no different than pointing out that someone with a PhD in genetics isn't adequately prepared to be a statistician simply because they took a few classes in their program. It's ancillary coursework to assist someone participate in research.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top