Policy - When is a PhD worth it? When is a Master's -> PhD worth it?

[doctordoubleoctagon]

I want to work in foreign policy analysis and research, and eventually work in foreign policy advisory. Regionally, I would like to focus on US foreign policy in the the Middle East and North Africa, and its relationship with regional politics, domestic politics, and human rights. I know that getting into any position of actual influence in a longshot, but it's something I'm committed to.

I'm applying to grad school this fall and I would appreciate advice from more experienced people. Everyone told me that if I want to stay in academia I should go straight for a PhD, and if I want to work directly in policy, I should just get a master's.

I would like to ask - what advantages, if any, are offered by a PhD?

I would like to work in high-level research and advising, and I think that the specialization, breadth, and depth offered by a PhD program vs. a master's would make me more knowledgeable and capable of conducting foreign policy reserach and analysis and make me a better-informed advisor.

Looking at the resumes of people who have already succeeded in this field, I've noticed that many of them have gotten PhDs, which would seem to confirm my ideas. However, I am being contradicted by some people who say that a master's is all I need to break into the field. I am curious if a PhD would get me better positions than a master's would?

Additionally, I have noticed that many of the more sucessful people in this field not only have a PhD, but also have another graduate degree that they did between undergrad and their PhD programs. Several people's resumes show that they received either an MA or an MS or even a JD before entering a PhD program.

Now I would assume that a master's would further prepare them for the type of work that they would be doing in their PhD programs, even if it won't directly affect their admissions, and in terms of admissions, I would assume that they would have better writing samples and stronger recommendations than a typical undergrad would have. I am wondering if doing a separate higher degree would be beneficial.

I do not have a strong background in political science or international relations, and I think I could benefit from taking a PS/IR or even area studies MA before entering a PhD program in PS/IR to build a better foundation for my research interests.

However, all of my professors have told me that I should go directly to a PhD program and that an MA would be unecessary and may end up just being lost time. It would definitely be better than racking up more debt in an unfunded MA program, but I am wondering if it is worth it, and if it wouldn't be so bad if I could get some funding. Since I will be studying Arabic in my MA program, any program with FLAS funding would probably be able to cover a good deal of my costs, if not eh majority of it (I know a few grad students at my undergrad institution that were able to fund everything using FLAS and some small departmental grants.)

Please let me now what you think of my situation and whether or not you think a PhD is worth it, and whether or not getting a terminal master's before the PhD is worth it. I would appreciate any and all advice. Thank you.

[CalSeeker]

The answer really depends on what you want to do. I know that you are interested in foreign policy research and analysis, but that is pretty broad. If you want to work for an academic institution, obviously you will need a PhD, and there is probably no reason to wait on getting one. If you want to work for a think tank, there is probably a mix of people with PhDs or MAs or lots of practical experience. If you are interested in analyzing policy for the government, and international organization, an NGO, or the private sector (i.e. consulting), I would think that an MA should be plenty. If you really want to eventually work in an advisory capacity, some government/practitioner experience would probably be helpful.

I would agree that if you are going for a PhD, it would be much better to skip the MA (depending on the PhD program, you may get an MA along the way anyway). I can't speak to whether you need it to be competitive for the PhD, but terminal MAs and PhDs generally have pretty different areas of focus. Plus, the cost in time and money of delaying two years is pretty significant, if you consider that you could be actually doing the work you want to do instead. That's my opinion, anyway!

[Cosmic Grad]

First off, how old are you? Are you applying to programs straight out of undergrad? Also, silly question, but can you name examples of people who have succeeded in the fields that you are considering? I think it is worth noting that for every Madeline Albright or Condi Rice, there are 10000s of PhDs who perhaps are well-known in their respective niche fields, but have not become advisers or have succeeded in the "policy" world. Having worked with some individuals in these fields, many of them have a patron/mentor that they've been able to tag along with when they switch offices, jobs, etc. Sometimes, it is about timing and luck. Additionally, it depends what topic you are interested in with regards the PhD, as that will determine your ability to get job offers when you graduate. When I was debating these very same questions, I found these links very helpful:

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/08/phds-dummies.html

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/18/so_you_want_to_get_into_a_political_science_phd_program_part_one (Drezner has written a few posts on this topic)

Definitely read the comments, they are helpful as well.