PhD in Biostatistics vs PhD in Health Economics

[Epic]

If my credentials are as followed, which PhD would be more beneficial?

 

BA in Economics

MPH in Biostatistics

MS in Health Economics

PhD in ???

 

Biostatistic or Health Economics?

 

Which has a greater demand?

[Guest 8675309]

Economics has the greatest demand and greatest variety of employment oppurtunities. Economists can work in a varitey of fields not just biostats. The academic job market for biostatisticians are much worse than economics.

[synthxdill]

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you have a masters in health econ and in biostats, there is little chance we can advise you beyond the obvious, such as the job market. If you are indifferent, I would say to lean economics, but check the forum name - of course I'll say that.

[Epic]

Is the job market better for economics? I was under the impression that it was going to be better for biostats because of an oversupply of economists. Was I misinformed?

[OneArmedEcon]

From the information that you've provided, I'm not sure that one degree strictly dominates the other.

 

With this level of specificity in your proposed specialization, it's really going to depend on exactly which programs you're comparing. I can envision there being PhD Econ programs that are better suited than PhD Biostat, but also vice-a-versa. It also depends on your career aspirations, as obviously the field of your doctorate is largely going to determine the paths that are available to you within academia. Outside academia, I cannot help but wonder if you might already have sufficient credentials with the MPH and MS. Or, at the very least, you are facing a relatively high opportunity cost versus a relatively low potential marginal return on investment to the extent that I would urge you to reconsider whether doing a doctorate is really the best use of 5-6 years of your life.

 

If you decide to do a doctorate in Economics, realize that many schools do not offer a separate degree specifically in "Health Economics," but rather you receive a PhD Economics with fields in something like health (or labor, public, etc). That is, if you've decided that empirical study of health is what you want to do, then a PhD Economics will require a lot of work in areas not directly related to your interests (e.g., macro). A PhD Biostatistics will likely have a narrower scope that relates more directly to what you're interested in studying (and to the extent that your core requirements do not align, it will be exposure to alternative methodologies).

 

Since you have two advanced degrees in the field already, you're really better off getting guidance from former faculty than you are soliciting advice from an online forum. Those faculty will have a better sense of how competitive an applicant you are (given the relative prestige of the programs as well as rank within those institutions) and probably have a better sense of how graduates from the two types of programs tend to place. But you need to specify what your career aspirations are. To simply ask, "What degree offers better career opportunities?" is a rather poorly defined inquiry.

[Epic]

Thanks for your help everyone. :)

[untitled]

In the US, a lot of governmental organizations are restricted by bureaucracy in who they can hire. To do health epidemiology and cost effectiveness, you often need a science degree. Your MPH is probably sufficient, and a PhD in either would allow you top positions. Outside of bureaucratic reasons, many people in health science don't understand what health economics is exactly (many economists don't as well), and again the science degree might be better. I think in the UK health economics has a different reputation, and would be less stigmatized by scientists.

 

Again, from a US perspective, one way to decide is to consider two types of journals: journals like the PLOS series and Lancet vs journals like JHE and AER. Where would you rather publish? Which journals would you rather read? For the former, while a health economics PhD might be helpful, biostatistics seems better.

 

If you are choosing between UK programs, I think there is more equivalence and you could consider program and adviser prestige. I think if you got into York's health econ or LSHTM's biostatistics, you should probably go for it (out of both I'd choose LSHTM, but I'd ask around first).