Applying to a MS program vs. a PhD program in Engineering?

[Sidiki]

Hey gradcafe,

 

I have a BS in physics so I’m not totally sure about how the M.S. vs. PhD applications work in engineering, and which would be a good fit for me. I’m interested in Environmental Engineering in particular.

 

I am fairly certain that my end goal is a PhD. The depth of knowledge that it represents is something that appeals to me, and I want to consider a life in academia. However, I never applied to physics graduate school because I felt like the academic life was slim pickings. That was two years ago, and some things have changed, but I almost feel like getting the PhD will basically let me know if I’m truly suited for academia or not. So that’s my motivation. Not some burning desire to do research in one particular field (yet…I think that will come).

 

I have a couple of barriers to entry though.

 

1)      My research experience is not strong

2)      Concurrently, I have no research in EnvEng and so I don’t know what research topics would interest me, right off the bat

3)      I’m not sure to what extent my undergraduate degree will limit me

4)      My GPA was a 3.63… I do not know how competitive that is in the engineering world but I looked up Harvard’s grad stats and they have a mean undergrad GPA of 3.8- yikes!

 

I believe I have a valid interest in the field (my background is in international development and I want to pursue a career in water and sanitation work, applied to the developing world, whether it be from academia or the big NGOs & Governmental institutions or social entrepreneurship…). However, this interest is not research based. Again, if they asked me exactly what I wanted to research I wouldn’t have much of an answer for them.

 

PhD applications are generally required to undergo an interview in which their research aspirations are discussed, correct? Are they also expected to have a more thorough understanding of their research interests from a technical aspect? Is this interview process applicable to Masters applicants as well?

 

Basically, I’m wondering if it might not be easier for me to apply to a Masters and then make a second application to a PhD later on, instead of directly applying to a PhD (or indicating that I am interested in one on my masters application, as some programs ask). A Masters would also give me the chance to do more research, perhaps publish. Is there any advantage to this for an applicant? Are Masters programs generally easier to get into, or less research oriented in their applications?

 

If there is no significant advantage to applying solely to a masters, I’d love to at least apply as an M.S/PhD applicant for a few of these schools, as I do intend to go on to a PhD and I’m worried that a Masters alone would be comparatively unfunded. Why pay for a Masters if you were planning on the PhD track in the first place, right?

 

What’s considered normal in this field? Applying directly to a PhD program after undergrad or separately getting a masters first?

Thank for all your help, I’d love to clarify anything I’ve said if that would help garner a good response. 

[Crucial BBQ]

Going straight from undergrad to Ph.D. has become the norm in the U.S., beginning perhaps twenty years ago.  There is currently a push to get students into Master's programs first, in particular considering the high attrition rates of Ph.D.s (something like 50%).  On the one hand Ph.D. students contribute directly to the research and "prestige" of the lab/university/and/or particular professor, so you can see where that desire stems. On the other, Master's students are generally not funded through a particular lab/professor (some are, though), so you can see the appeal here, too.   But Master's students tend to contribute less to overall research of a particular lab/professor, so you can see the push for straight-to-Ph.D.  

 

For what it is worth, you do not really need research to get into a Ph.D. program, but it is something that is desirable because it shows that you have some understanding of what research is, and, won't waste anyone's time and money by dropping out halfway through the program (read the "Already Admitted" sub forum for evidence of this.  Many realize they hate research after the fact). 

 

The main advantage to applying to a Master's program first is that they are generally easier to get into.  They take the students with a lower GPA; lower GRE scores; less research experience; and perhaps a weaker SOP.  And so on.  The other advantage is that it gives you an opportunity to test the waters so to speak.  The initial course-work for a Ph.D. is going to be the same as for a Master's degree so it will give you an initial idea if graduate school is for you or not.  Many Master's programs offer a thesis track (as opposed to a straight academic track) that will allow you to work on a small research project that culminates in a written (but smaller) dissertation and public defense.  This would allow you to see if research is for you (and give you some experience writing and defending a dissertation).  

 

Another advantage is that it will allow to meet and see potential Ph.D. advisors first hand.  Labs, too.  You will have a better idea of what is going on, how it all "works", and if it is something that you ultimately want to pursue. 

 

An even better advantage is that if your program/lab/POI is short on funding you can still get in (unless it is one of those few programs that out-right funds Master's students).  You can apply to a Ph.D. program, and be the most awesome applicant the program has ever seen, but if they don't have funding you can be denied simply because of that.  Amount of funding dictates the percentage of applicants that are admitted to Ph.D. programs and why many other-wise qualified applicants are denied. 

 

Realistically, doing a Master's first would better position you for the Ph.D. 

 

I personally do not see any real advantage with going straight to Ph.D. unless you have a very solid idea of why you want to earn that Ph.D.  That would be true even if you were to have earned the Master's first.  Think about it:  you have 21/22 year olds going straight to Ph.D. They are going to graduate at 27 or so with very little "real" world experience.  Sad, really.  It is no wonder why so many want to go into academia; they have spent their first 27 years on this planet knowing nothing BUT school.  

 

But hey, I suppose that is what post-docs and fellowships are for....and post-post-docs...

 

Your GPA is good enough in and of itself.  I believe it is when it drops below 3.0 when it becomes an issue of its own.  What will be looked at is not your 3.6 GPA, but what courses you earned those lower grades in.  If they were something like the proverbial Basket Weaving 101, no one is going to care.  If they were related to anything "science", you may have a problem.  If they were related to anything math, physics, or engineering, you might have a problem.  By "they" I mean the courses-in-question.  This could potentially be offset by a high GRE quant score...but will depend on program. 

 

Do not apply to a Ph.D. program until you are absolutely certain you want it.  Being "fairly certain" will show in your SOP/application, and that is not enough. 

[Crucial BBQ]

To your interview question:  I know plenty of Master's students who were interviewed.  I was even interviewed by the one Master's program I applied to. 

[Sidiki]

Great post BBQ! 

 

My grades are kind of weird, plenty of B+s and A-s in the early classes, but all my advanced classes are good, especially senior year. This includes advanced math and physics courses.

 

As far as my research, I have some, but I never got anything published, and honestly, I hardly did anything. :/ 

 

You made some convincing statements about the PhD. It really is a commitment. I think in an ideal world I'd definitely go with the Masters first. Now it just becomes a question of funding though  

[spectastic]

it'd be good to think about what you want to do with your career. if a terminal master's is enough, then it'll be worth it to seek some fellowships or TA/RA. If my end goal were Master's, I'd much rather just pay that and start working than dragging out 5 years in a degree that I have no strong desire for. 5 years at $25k/year or buying a Masters and making bank after that?

 

 

some people do a phd with the intention to drop out with a master's, just so they can have the school pay for their degree, but I don't like that at all. they're basically taking away a position better suited to another applicant, and putting that money in their own pocket. not very ethical

Edited May 5, 2014 by spectastic