International (EU/UK) degrees: Taught or Research

[trajectory7]

Hi all,

 

I am considering applying to schools in the EU or UK and, though I know the general differences between taught and research programs, I'm wondering which is better. I would be taking that Masters degree back with me to Canada and applying to some local programs for my PhD.

 

From what I understand, the research degree is 100% devoted to your project, but wouldn't I need to take a whole lot of courses when I get back to catch up with a "regular" MA/MSc? Would the Canadian programs even consider that Master's degree equivalent as their Masters? Would the taught degree be better for these reasons?

 

If anyone (especially other international applicants) has been through this process, do you mind shedding some insight? 

 

Thanks!

[smmmu]

Hi there,

 

I've done both a taught as well as a research masters in the UK. These were probably at pretty much the opposite ends of the spectrum; the taught one had only a very minimal optional essay, but no thesis or project, while the research one had only a negligible coursework component. Often it's actually somewhere in the middle - in particular, most "taught" courses I've come across would include a project or thesis to be done over the summer. For research masters it also depends - there is degrees that have more of a coursework component or structure, and there is some that have close to none. In my case what little coursework I had to do was furthermore regarded solely as a formality. In particular, I was told quite explicitely not to waste any time on it beyond making sure I passed them. That may well be different in other programmes.

 

Firstly, since you ask, I highly doubt that any university would take issue with a research masters being used to fulfill the formal admission requirements for a PhD programme. If anything, a research degree is a step "above" a taught course. But it probably couldn't hurt to ask, just in case.

 

That aside, which one is better for you really depends on your situation and what you want / need out of it. Basically I think "wouldn't I need to take a whole lot of courses when I get back to catch up with a "regular" MA/MSc?" is the right question to ask yourself.

 

If you feel that you have a sufficient (or nearly sufficient) background in your field to start research, then a taught masters might be waste of time and money. Better to get started on research sooner rather than later. Even if you have some gaps in your knowledge, but know enough about your field to know what those gaps are and how to fill them yourself, you may well be alright in a research degree.

 

If you don't know exactly where you want to go, or don't feel that you have anywhere near the necessary skills yet to get there, then a taught masters may be a good way of getting a better overview of what fields might be interesting, and getting the skills and knowledge you need.

 

 

 

As for applying for a PhD afterwards, I think that in principle a research degree could be better in that respect - Having demonstrated potential for research (i.e. research experience and ideally publications) is a big bonus for PhD applications, and a research masters could give you just that. (It depends of course, a very well-respected taught course is still worth more than a research degree from a mediocre university.) Also, since you'd be working with your supervisor quite closely, you should hopefully be able to get at least one very detailed letter of recommendation for your application, again a key criterion. In some taught courses, academics might not get to know you that well.

That said, if you want to do the PhD straight afterwards, this doesn't make that much of a difference. Almost all masters in the UK are one year long, meaning that if your desired PhD programmes have december-ish deadlines, you'll be applying for PhDs pretty much just when you start the masters. A supervisor in a research degree might still be able to write a slightly more detailed letter for you, but you almost certainly won't have any publications out yet or anything like this, so in terms of how much it helps your PhD applications, it's not a huge difference between the two options.

 

Lastly, I don't know if this is very obvious if you're not familiar with the UK system, but taught masters are (I think) by far the more common option. Pure research masters are extremely uncommon, as people would usually go straight into a PhD if they wanted to do research. Even if you see a research masters degree buried somewhere on a department website, this is often not even meant to be a proper degree per se; Some universities / departments have these programmes solely for "failed" PhD students, who aren't quite good enough to proceed with their PhD, but not bad enough to get kicked out entirely either. It may be worthwhile to check with them if you're even meant to apply to a research masters programme even if you see it on their website.

 

Hope this helps!

[trajectory7]

This is incredibly helpful. Thanks so much, smmmu!

[smmmu]

You're very welcome!

 

I should add that my experience is based solely on science degrees; humanities and social sciences etc. might be slightly different. E.g., there's some degrees that are a bit in the middle between taught and research, e.g. MPhils at Cambridge and Oxford seem to be a bit of both. I'm guessing it's similar at other universities. These seem to be fairly common in humanities and social sciences, and I think the "often not a proper degree" warning does not apply.