Ph.D. or Masters in Ecology

[rocklobster]

Hi,

I will be finishing up my senior year of undergrad (B.S. in Biology) this fall, and am trying to figure out what to do afterwards. I eventually want to get a Ph.D. in Ecology, but am worried that I will not be accepted into any Ph.D. programs. I have a 3.16 GPA, 1 year of research experience, and am currently taking one grad-level class. I have not taken the GREs yet. What will I need to score on the GREs to become a competitive Ph.D. applicant? Would it be a better idea for me to play it safe and get a master's first? If so, should I apply for a MA or a MS? Is there anywhere where I can get some kind of idea how competitive different grad schools are? I'm really in the dark about this whole process.

Thanks

[bluesand]

Hi,

I will be finishing up my senior year of undergrad (B.S. in Biology) this fall, and am trying to figure out what to do afterwards. I eventually want to get a Ph.D. in Ecology, but am worried that I will not be accepted into any Ph.D. programs. I have a 3.16 GPA, 1 year of research experience, and am currently taking one grad-level class. I have not taken the GREs yet. What will I need to score on the GREs to become a competitive Ph.D. applicant? Would it be a better idea for me to play it safe and get a master's first? If so, should I apply for a MA or a MS? Is there anywhere where I can get some kind of idea how competitive different grad schools are? I'm really in the dark about this whole process.

Thanks

You will hear many arguments both ways for whether to do a masters before a PhD or go straight for the PhD. I will say, I know many ecologists who have done a masters and then a PhD. In a field where research experiences/perspectives/connections are very important, you can't go wrong with this route, although it will take you significantly more time.

Here is my own experience. I had similar stats to you -- about a 3.2 GPA, a year of research experience when I graduated, and I took a grad class my last quarter. I knew that I wanted to do research and needed a grad degree, but I didn't feel ready to go straight into a PhD program. I had the opportunity to do a masters with someone I already knew. In addition, it was on the other side of the country from where I grew up, so it gave me entirely new perspectives on both on life and in ecology. Although I planned to get a PhD after my masters, I ended up working as a research associate for three years (basically managing a project). These experiences made me very competitive when I applied for programs this fall, and I got into programs I would never have gotten into straight out of undergrad (instead of the above stats, I had a great masters GPA, a variety of research experiences and people to support me, grants and awards, teaching experience, 4 publications in various stages). Although I will be starting a PhD program 6 years after finishing undergrad, I wouldn't trade the time it took to get here -- and my soon-too-be advisor views me more as a colleague at this point than simply a student.

That said, you could also try to get a variety of research experiences instead of doing a masters. I recommend that anyone without more than a year of research experience take *at least* a year after undergrad to gain more research experience -- go new places, work with new people. This isn't only to gain more research experience; it will also allow you as an ecologist to ask broader questions about ecology. Also think about what you want to do after you get your degree -- the options with a masters and PhD differ significantly. I was pretty sure I needed the PhD, but I wasn't 100% sure...after working for three years with a masters and then job hunting, I now *know* that I need the PhD to do the research I want to do.

So back to your questions...test scores are important (mostly as a cut-off for acceptance), but experience and connections are more important. Don't look at a masters as playing it safe, but rather, gaining more experience in a subject you are really interested in. Think about the type of research you are or might be interested in. Look for people doing this type of research. Look and see if there are any tech positions you are interested in (now is the peak time for summer postings -- also keep your eyes open for after you graduate). Have you looked into REU programs? There are some you may still be able to apply for for this summer. Also short-term field courses. Sign up for the ECOLOG listserve for all kinds of job postings and discussions on ecology.

Okay, this is a bit long...but feel free to ask me more questions. And good luck!

[ceridwen]

I agree with pretty much everything bluesand said.

I'm just finishing up an MS in biology with an evo/eco type of focus and for me it has been completely worth it. I don't know of a single person in my cohort who wishes they had gone straight to PhD, and I do know several people who came in straight to PhD and wish they hadn't.

If you know exactly what you want to do as far as research goes, then you could still try to go straight to PhD, but there is no GRE score you can get that will make up for a low GPA and not much research background. I, my boyfriend, and my roommate all managed to make ourselves much more marketable to PhD programs by doing an MS first. In addition to having the time and experience to develop a much better idea of what I wanted to do for my PhD, gaining research experience and publications, and proving that I was capable of handling graduate coursework, I got lots of experience just talking to professors and other scientists. I'm much more confident talking about science with a wide range of people now and this served me very well for interviews.

The one thing to remember though, is that it's not the degree itself that helps your application, it's the experience you gain doing the degree, which varies widely depending on what you put into it. You won't get in to a better PhD program because you have an MS. You will get in because you got publications, research experience, and communication skills. If you don't make the effort to do those things you come out of your MS program no better off than when you went in (but down 2+ years of your life).

[bluesand]

The one thing to remember though, is that it's not the degree itself that helps your application, it's the experience you gain doing the degree, which varies widely depending on what you put into it. You won't get in to a better PhD program because you have an MS. You will get in because you got publications, research experience, and communication skills. If you don't make the effort to do those things you come out of your MS program no better off than when you went in (but down 2+ years of your life).

Ceridwen, you managed to put things into far fewer words than me, and this last part is key.

[iLikeTrees]

In my experience, raw numbers aren't as important as convincing a prospective advisor that you know what you want to do and have the skills or motivation to learn the skills to do the research that you want.

If you're worried about your GPA and have a a valid explanation (without just making up excuses) or can argue that it doesn't reflect your academic caliber, mention it! For example, I had a rough time my freshman year with intro biology (as a bio major) because I wasn't used to that style of test-taking, but I completely rocked other relevant upper level classes and was able to great great recommendations from professors. I've even had some applications ask you to separate out your Jr/Sr year GPA since this is usually more reflective of your capabilities than what you did as a freshman. Maybe you had similar challenges you had to learn to overcome, a change of major/focus? If not, it's fine, you just have to make the argument that you have skills not reflected in your GPA.

Describing to professors/application reviewers how it is you know you want a PhD in ecology goes a long way too. If you can convince them that it's just some random thing you'd thought you try that is good too.

As for the MS/PhD debate, I too am really glad I'm finishing my MS right now before my PhD. I could've gone straight into a PhD and handled it, but doing my MS has helped me gain some more experience and is allowing me to craft some really competitive grant proposals (or at least I hope!) because I am sure in what I want to do for my PhD research. If you're not sure what you want to study, want an option to switch regions or topics, or are not 100% sure about a PhD right now (a 4-7 year commitment) I highly recommend your MS first. I've known people who have gone straight into their PhD with lots of "research experience" and are having a really hard time and some that have very little and are doing great--it's definitely and individual thing!

One thing worth noting though is that in my searching experience, there is often a lot more funding available for PhD students than their are MS, especially with the recent flux of people going back to school with the economy.

When I applied for grad school (and now fellowships, grants etc) I don't highlight my numbers at all. While good enough, my GPA and GREs were definitely not amazing. What makes me stand out to others is my non-academic work and how I have non-research experience that has guided my grad school and research decisions.

Oh and for GREs, you just need a decent score. I recommend working through one of those prep books or something similar to help prepare though.

Hope this helps!

[afritz87]

Hello. The above posters gave some really helpful advice, but I'll throw in my bit too. I finished my undergrad last May, and have applied to and will be attending a PhD program in the fall. During my undergrad, I had 2 years of research experience with an incredible advisor who encouraged me to give talks at professional meetings and submit manuscripts (currently have 2 publications in review from my undergrad thesis). Personally, I just felt like skipping my MS and heading straight to PhD was "right" for me. Granted, as some of the above posters have said, some people really regret skipping a masters... I'm hoping that's not me in the next couple years It's a risk I was willing to take.

If you don't feel comfortable enough with your research skills (expt'l design, grant writing, field/lab methods, and analysis) yet, then probably going the MS-first route would be a good choice.

As far as GRE's, I had mediocre scores on the general test (70th percentile across the board) and managed to get into my dream school, which is ranked in the top 10 for Ecology Phd's. So apparently mediocre is alright. One suggestion I have is to consider taking the Biology subject test. Only a couple of my schools required it, but I did really well (much better than the general test) and sent my score along to said dream school anyway. During my interview there, my future advisor said that it was very helpful that I submitted it, and that it kind of counteracted my blah general GRE scores.

Good luck with everything!

[rocklobster]

Wow, thank you all for your wonderful and very informative responses! I was sure that I wanted to skip the master's and go right for the PhD before, but now I am thinking that a master's might be the best choice. I am a little hesitant about getting into more debt, which did make a PhD more appealing as far as funding goes. It looks as if I have a lot to think about.

[iLikeTrees]

Wow, thank you all for your wonderful and very informative responses! I was sure that I wanted to skip the master's and go right for the PhD before, but now I am thinking that a master's might be the best choice. I am a little hesitant about getting into more debt, which did make a PhD more appealing as far as funding goes. It looks as if I have a lot to think about.

Glad we could help! As for funding, see what's available. When I meant I found less funding available for MS students, that doesn't mean it's not out there. I'm finishing my MS and had full funding the entire time. I did have to TA but it was good experience. Most people will tell you (and I agree) that you shouldn't have to pay to get your masters in a science. So unless you have some other obligations (family, expensive car payments, ridiculous rent) and can live on a budget, you shouldn't have to go into more debt to do either a MS or a PhD.

[bluesand]

Wow, thank you all for your wonderful and very informative responses! I was sure that I wanted to skip the master's and go right for the PhD before, but now I am thinking that a master's might be the best choice. I am a little hesitant about getting into more debt, which did make a PhD more appealing as far as funding goes. It looks as if I have a lot to think about.

Glad we could help! As for funding, see what's available. When I meant I found less funding available for MS students, that doesn't mean it's not out there. I'm finishing my MS and had full funding the entire time. I did have to TA but it was good experience. Most people will tell you (and I agree) that you shouldn't have to pay to get your masters in a science. So unless you have some other obligations (family, expensive car payments, ridiculous rent) and can live on a budget, you shouldn't have to go into more debt to do either a MS or a PhD.

I would like to add to this too -- definitely hunt around for masters that have funding. While it can be harder to find and isn't as good as the PhD funding, it is out there (especially in the form of TA-ships). I also had funding for my masters through a TA-ship, and it will be nice going into a PhD program with teaching experience. You shouldn't have to go into more debt for a masters in the sciences. Most programs that have decent sized undergrad departments need TA's.

[000]

It's really interesting to me how several posters have suggested it's a bad idea to get a PhD in ecology unless you know exactly what you want to research. On the cellular/molecular/developmental side of things, you're encouraged to rotate in different labs, and people switch subfields all the time between their PhD and post-doc.

[ceridwen]

It's really interesting to me how several posters have suggested it's a bad idea to get a PhD in ecology unless you know exactly what you want to research. On the cellular/molecular/developmental side of things, you're encouraged to rotate in different labs, and people switch subfields all the time between their PhD and post-doc.

Ecology is rather different. Rotations are very unlikely (I haven't encountered a school that does them) and switching advisors would usually be extremely difficult (at least without burning a lot of bridges). You can switch things up between your PhD and post doc, but your PhD is still going to be very important.

One thing to keep in mind for the OP. Focus more on getting funding and having a good fit if you choose to do a master's than you do on the name of the school. I go to a completely no name state school right now and no one I know in my program has had trouble getting into great schools for their PhDs. If you are choosing between a bigger name and a funded spot, take the funded spot (as long as you would be happy with the research you'd be doing).

[iLikeTrees]

On 4/4/2010 at 11:48 AM, 000 said:

It's really interesting to me how several posters have suggested it's a bad idea to get a PhD in ecology unless you know exactly what you want to research. On the cellular/molecular/developmental side of things, you're encouraged to rotate in different labs, and people switch subfields all the time between their PhD and post-doc.

Ecology PhD research often has a lot of constraints that means you have to focus early if you want to be done in 4-6 years. For us, the project proposal usually comes within the first year and revisions based on the successes and failures of the first field season of data collection. Many of our experiments are large and cannot be easily changed once they've been established. Also, data collection is usually only done during the summer and typically at least 3 years of data is required to account for inter-annual variability or visit enough field sites.

You can shift your focus slightly once you start, but typically you have to remain within the framework of your established experiment and time constraints unless you want to start over. Switching advisors or "shopping around" once your there usually means adding several years to your program and may mean going without funding for a while.

Ecology or any other field that requires fieldwork typically requires a level of pre-planning and commitment not always required by lab-based science to get in and out quickly since we have to work at nature's pace. We also usually only do 1 major experiment/study (with maybe a smaller one or two on the side) and frequently don't publish anything until the end of our degree. I think it's very rare for an ecologist to publish a paper in the first year of a PhD unless it's from previous work.