Gaming the system for a funded masters?

[CaliforniaRunnerKid]

Hey, so just before I begin, I’m in a PhD program and am very happy and fully intend to see it thru, but something I was thinking about recently was how most PhD programs, if you drop out any time after passing quals, will award a masters degree for time served. Whenever I hear people talk about it, it seems like they talk about the people it happens to with disgrace and like they feel bad for them. And obviously, if you want a PhD, it would suck.

 

But what about the people who don’t want PhD’s? If someone only wanted to get a masters before going into industry or something, why wouldn’t they just apply to PhD programs, do 1-2 years of funded work while collecting a stipend, then promptly drop out after passing qualifying exams? 

 

Obviously, it’s a bit unethical as the university invests into you for the first years with the expectation that you will work for them for several more years. But when has ethics stopped people before? Especially when the incentive to do this is so high compared to a regular masters; you get the same degree without paying tuition and the university even pays you during it. Why is there not an epidemic of PhD students dropping out at masters? 

[BabyScientist]

It definitely happens.

I think it's one of the things programs are trying to evaluate when they look at your application and/or interview you. They try to filter those people out.

Generally people who do PhDs can show that they're dedicated to doing a PhD. Of course there are good liars out there, and I'm sure they carry out their plans.

Another thing is that if that person ever actually ends up wanting to do a PhD, programs will wonder about their previously mastering out. 

[ExponentialDecay]

People do do that. There isn't an epidemic because, one, most people doing PhDs want to get the PhD, two, a master's in the American job market is this weird limbo degree that implies you're more qualified than a BA (therefore the company might have to pay you more), but you're not an expert/fully fledged research professional with a PhD. In a lot of fields a master's basically doesn't qualify you for anything beyond what a BA qualifies you for, so mastering out basically means wasting two years.

Of course it's stupid convention and I don't know who came up with the nonsense that you need to sacrifice 5+ years to academia in order to learn to do research, especially at the non-PI level, but academia is slow to change and the labor market is slow to change - so there you have it.

[juilletmercredi]

I wouldn't say that a master's degree is a "weird limbo degree" in the American job market. I currently work in industry. PhDs aren't expected for the vast majority of jobs, so in industry (not academia) a master's is the commonly accepted degree to demonstrate extra proficiency/expertise in a specific area. A master's can qualify you for a lot beyond what a BA qualifies you for - in many fields, a master's is required to do the work (but not a doctoral degree). And in industry, a master's is sufficient for conducting research at most companies and organizations. I definitely don't think a master's is a waste of time, especially in those fields.

But there are other reasons why going to a PhD program with the intent of getting a master's only isn't a good idea.

• PhD programs are designed for people who want the PhD. So all the career development and mentoring is geared towards people who are going to be in the department 4-5+ years. Master's students who are going to want to intern after their first year and apply for jobs in their second year aren't going to find good support for that. A lot of internships that take PhD students try to take them further along, like at least in year 3-4, because they want people who are closer to graduation and at least thinking about careers. Your advisor isn't going to be super supportive of you interning after your first year; they'll probably want you to stick around and do some research.
• Most career development geared towards doctoral students is for academic careers. That's hard enough for doctoral students who don't want academic careers; it'll be even harder for someone who won't even be qualified for them (because they are stopping at the master's).
• Maybe most importantly, sometimes a master's in a doctoral program takes longer than 2 years. Mine took 3, because I (and my advisor) were more concerned with turning my thesis into a publishable paper than getting the MA. But sometimes the coursework requirements are structured in such a way that it's difficult to finish before the end of the second year. If you have to take quals first to get your master's, those are very often done in the third year.

It's also not really the same degree. A non-terminal MA is going to be focused on theoretical, academic preparation and is a research degree. At my school of public health, for example, the non-terminal MA was very different from the professional MPH the school offered as a terminal degree.

[Sigaba]

The master's you earn as a by product of preparing and passing qualifying exams may not be as useful as a master's you earn preparing a report or a thesis, either of which can be used as a writing sample that demonstrates that you can do research, think critically, and write well, even if the subject matter is uninteresting or alien to them.

My current job hired me on the strength of my writing, which greatly improved from preparing an (overly) long report.

Also, a master's degree is as easy or as hard to earn as a graduate student wants it to be. If someone in a doctoral program only intends to earn a master's, the motivation may impact the level of effort, and a department might notice; professors talk. This perception could impact academic's willingness to write good reference letters for a job seeker.