Should I study Public Health in undergrad level?

Question

I'm from bangladesh and i have been accepted at temple university where i want to study public health at the undergraduate level. Then later on i wanna do masters in public health. So i wanted to know whether it would be wise to study public health at undergraduate level because some people say that its better to do major in a different subject and then do masters in public health. Also by studying PH at undergrad do people get jobs? I'm really confused cuz i really wanna study this subject. Someone plz help me!!

Answer 1

In the US, it is hard to get a public health job without the masters degree. Undergrad public health is fine, but really, you should broaden your horizons and save the public health studies for graduate school. I studied molecular cell biology as an undergraduate. Then I earned my MPH in epidemiology and biostatistics.

Perhaps you should consider some other biomedical field for udergrad? Microbiology is great if you want to do pulib health lab work (infectious diseases and so forth). Or maybe something in public policy so you can learn about legal and civic applications of public health.

Answer 2

properly one element i noticed grow to be @40 element massive difference in projected vs actual for the Lesser team and an @ 30 element massive difference projected for the better team. Scientifically speaking with regard to the emperical form. if the margin for blunders (which I see listed nowhere) grow to be small then the study grow to be an finished failure. yet another is that regardless of the indisputable fact that Fox sensationalized the articles identify (i'm particular daily mail did a similar yet did not waste time vacationing their web site), there is actual no element out of this being a study of skeptics and warmists. Excepting this question, different deniers questions and posts referenced this verbatim because the reality (it truly is hardship-loose for this team). both daily and Fox regularly use sensational titles to entice pastime, hardly which incorporates a link and use rates with out qualifying the guy quoted has any degree or association that makes the quote pertinent. in reality there is assumption, deduce from different study and inferences that folk with a lack of clinical awareness do not realize the prospect of international warming and the perception (to that end the study) that those with a much better clinical awareness should be better worried about the prospect of CH regardless of the indisputable fact that it grow to be stumbled on they were a lot less worried. once again the note problem can not be equated with skepticism, purely that those who scored better in hardship-free clinical awareness were a lot less worried. This study not in any respect represents that skeptics are better scientifically wise than warmists. in reality the consistency of deniers refusal or lack of ability to cutting-edge authentic valid peer reviewed climate technology to preserve their postion, ought to element out to me they could't comprehend it (if any exists) or are fearful of it.