Are all grad programs funded?

[ladeeda6]

I mean, I know the answer to that is "no" but hear me out...

I am currently an undergrad still (junior by credits but I won't graduate until 2014) and I've started to look for graduate programs.

My major is biology and I'd like to do a Master's program in something that could get me a job doing R&D at a pharm company or hospital in the future so maybe something like cellular or molecular biology or pharmacology. But in my search, only one of the programs (at Case Western) states explicitly that they do provide funding for Masters students. Is it simply implied that the tuition is waived? When I look up the requirements for PhDs at schools like Drexel, Villanova, etc., it states the tuition is waived for them and there is a stipend. Are Masters students expected to fund their own education?

I've been told by some that if you are in a STEM field and don't get funded for a particular program then you shouldn't go. Is this the case?

Thanks!

[Eigen]

The advice you've been given is more applicable for PhDs than for Masters, but it still applies.

That said, funding for MS programs isn't nearly as ubiquitous as funding for a PhD.

Not exactly what you asked, but you might think on whether a MS is really necessary for you or not. I know in the analogous fields in Chemistry (Pharma R&D), there really isn't much difference between a BS and an MS- the big difference is between the BS/MS and a PhD. Neither a BS nor an MS will really let you do much in the way of independent R&D in Biochemistry, you really need the PhD for that.

Following the above, the recommendations I've heard people give are to either stop at the BS or go for a PhD, that the MS really isn't effecient from a time or money standpoint. You'll make more when you come out, but not really much more relative to someone who started working with a BS and has 2-3 years of experience.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Eigen

[ladeeda6]

I've thought about getting a PhD, but I've also heard/read that it can make me over-qualified for a lot of positions. I don't want to teach at the university-level and I'd rather be more hands on in the lab than handling administrative work and leaving the bulk of the lab work to post docs and graduate students. The two PIs I've worked with spend more time in their offices writing grant proposals or teaching or in administrative meetings (granted these were professors, but still) and I would rather be in the thick of it than dealing with all the read tape. I told this to my undergrad advisor who pretty much told me if that's the route I want to take, a PhD probably wouldn't be the best fit for me, but have a Masters would/could increase my earning potential.

I'm just not sure (clearly) what to do.

[Eigen]

You're associating a PhD too heavily with academia.

Ask some people in industry how valuable an MS is vs a BS- the projections/average earnings that I've seen suggest that it's really not worth it to continue on the the MS, that the jobs you get are primarily the same, and the pay increase is minor relative to the 2-3 year head start on earning that you'll get going to work straight with a BS.

You probably won't be working in an academic lab with an MS either way- and most of the examples you give above are for that.

Even in academia, there are always "staff researcher" positions at larger labs, where you're basically just focussing on the research, and not on teaching, grant writing, etc. It's basically a permenant post-doctoral position.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Eigen

[ladeeda6]

I guess that's all I really know about PhDs in STEM -- they teach, fill out loads of paperwork and oversee everything without having the opportunity to do reactions and experiments themselves.

In industry and the like, what is it that PhDs do, then? Is it mostly the post-do position? Would the earning potential increase more significantly than just working and having put those years into just lab experience and working? I definitely wanted to go to graduate school for a long time but I'm afraid of being overqualified for positions. I've probably been reading too many cynical posts on College Confidential lately...

[Eigen]

I'd say probably less than 20% or so of STEM PhDs work in academia.

Before you think about getting the degree, I'd do a lot more research into what exactly you can do with it. If you want to work in Pharma, you should really start making some contacts there- they'll be able to tell you a lot more about the best course.

All of the researchers in industry I know have PhDs, and the friends I have without them primarily do labtech type work, not independent research projects.