MS to PhD same school?

[ginagirl]

I have a general question about reapplying within a department for a PhD. Does receiving a masters from a program make you extremely likely to be allowed to continue to their PhD program? I am applying for mainly PhD programs as this is my end goal, but am getting a lot of my acceptances downgraded to only masters tracks. I am trying to consider if getting a masters acceptance at my top choice school would be preferable to attending another school in a PhD track right away. Thoughts? Does anyone have experience with this?

[bsharpe269]

I think that you would have a better chance at getting into their phd program that people who are not well known to their faculty. The biggest difference I think would be that you would be paying for hte first couple years.

[peachypie]

I think with good success in your  masters program and establishing a positive reputation that it could definitely help you if you were interested in continuing on to your PhD.

Edited February 10, 2014 by peachypie

[karely]

I am in the same boat. I am considering to postpone my graduation and reapply for ph.d again. IMO, a downgraded acceptance indicates an insufficient research experience. I am not an expert, but I would say getting more experiences in your related field would definitely increase your chances of getting into your top choice schools for ph.d. Remember, 1+5 = 2+4. 

[TakeruK]

I think this is a valid question to ask the schools that offer you entrance to their MS programs instead. Ask them what fraction of their MS graduates apply to the PhD program and how many of them are successful.

[ginagirl]

I think this is a valid question to ask the schools that offer you entrance to their MS programs instead. Ask them what fraction of their MS graduates apply to the PhD program and how many of them are successful.

How simple that is, and yet I didn't think of it. Thank you!

[mittensmitten895]

I was going to say this is specific to each field, and then I realized you're in my field.  It differs from school to school.  The biostat program at my school (Michigan) admits very few people without a master's, but they fully fund nearly all of their MS students and work hard to make it appealing for us to stay on as PhD students.  This includes giving their MS grads a strong preference during PhD admissions (as in, they let you in if they feel you can succeed).  I like that system because it feels like they see their students as an investment, not a revenue source.

 

Many big name schools use the MS as a cash cow.  The MS at let's-just-say-they're-up-there-in-our-field does not even give their students a foundation in calculus-based statistics.  If you're set on a PhD in biostat, this is not a productive way to spend two years.  Moderately successful MS students from that program will not be competitive for a PhD, but they'll have a ton of debt.  You'd be better off working as a low-level health research analyst putting $50/month away into savings and getting some relevant work experience.  So don't assume the MS opportunity is worth taking just because it's offered and it seems like it could be a stepping stone.  Public health in particular seems to rely heavily on the idealistic dreams of debt-burdened master's students -- don't buy into it.

[ginagirl]

Interesting/relevant perspective. I will definitely be doing my research when it comes to decision-making time, and I'm still waiting on a handful of PhD programs so *hopefully* it doesn't come to that. Thanks for the insight.