(BS + MS + PhD) OR (BS + PhD)?

[Lex Shrapnel]

Most of the graduates I know skipped the masters degree and applied directly to the doctoral programs. I, on the other hand, am applying to a masters after by BS. I am absolutely certain that I will earn a PhD in my field (physics). The reason for my doing so is simple - I wanted to get a more solid foundation before I go for the PhD. Also, a strong GPA from an MS would increase my chance of getting in to a good program too (or so I hope).

 

Anyway, I am now confused about the overwhelming lack of students doing MS in my field in the US. Everyone I talk to appears to be doing a PhD and think of MS as a shortcut in to some industry based career option, which, in my case is not true. I am interested in earning that PhD and building a research based career instead.

 

I want your honest opinion on the matter and experience in this field. Is MS a bad choice for me? btw, I am currently admitted to a couple of MS programs and might eventually join one. So this post could potentially help me to change/reinforce my decision.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Lex Shrapnel

[Vene]

It's certainly not typical in the sciences to do a MS first unless you're trying to make up for some sort of deficiency or if you're not certain you want a PhD.

One part of this is funding, although there are funded masters programs out there PhD students get more of it. Another major aspect is that the coursework for a MS or a PhD is more or less the same and if you move from a MS to a PhD you're going to be repeating coursework you previously did, the exception being if you manage to move from MS to PhD status in the same university.

[Lex Shrapnel]

It's certainly not typical in the sciences to do a MS first unless you're trying to make up for some sort of deficiency or if you're not certain you want a PhD.

One part of this is funding, although there are funded masters programs out there PhD students get more of it. Another major aspect is that the coursework for a MS or a PhD is more or less the same and if you move from a MS to a PhD you're going to be repeating coursework you previously did, the exception being if you manage to move from MS to PhD status in the same university.

I have heard that the first 2-3 years are regular coursework in the PhD program. Is this true? Is it going to be exactly the same thing that I would see in the MS (absolutely nothing new)? How does students usually manage this repetition?

Edited November 20, 2014 by Lex Shrapnel

[Vene]

In my program the first two years are coursework driven, plus research. If I were to leave with a MS the only difference is I'd be expected to have done less research. Most of my cohort have bachelors degrees, but a couple came in with a masters and they have to take the exact same classes. It might be a little easier for them as they've already done similar classes, but that's about their only advantage.

[TakeruK]

Indeed, if your ultimate goal is a PhD in the United States, then you should apply to direct PhD programs and get a Masters "along the way". You should only apply to terminal MS programs (i.e. programs where you are meant to leave with a Masters) if you feel that you cannot get into a PhD program (even so, only apply to them as a backup). The United States is not like other countries! If you are applying to places in e.g. Canada, then you would definitely want to get a MSc first and then a PhD afterwards. 

 

I have a Canadian MSc and when I started my PhD program, I started all over. It was in a slightly different field so the classes do not overlap much, but there was some repetition. 

[Lex Shrapnel]

Indeed, if your ultimate goal is a PhD in the United States, then you should apply to direct PhD programs and get a Masters "along the way". You should only apply to terminal MS programs (i.e. programs where you are meant to leave with a Masters) if you feel that you cannot get into a PhD program (even so, only apply to them as a backup). The United States is not like other countries! If you are applying to places in e.g. Canada, then you would definitely want to get a MSc first and then a PhD afterwards. 

 

I have a Canadian MSc and when I started my PhD program, I started all over. It was in a slightly different field so the classes do not overlap much, but there was some repetition. 

Actually I do have plans to go to Canada for my PhD, many of my friends and relatives are there - most of them are working there. So, are Universities there expecting an MS from PhD applicants? Do you know why this difference is there in the system? I mean, there are several other differences such as GRE scores and their necessity, undergraduate major etc, right?

Edited November 20, 2014 by Lex Shrapnel

[Lex Shrapnel]

In my program the first two years are coursework driven, plus research. If I were to leave with a MS the only difference is I'd be expected to have done less research. Most of my cohort have bachelors degrees, but a couple came in with a masters and they have to take the exact same classes. It might be a little easier for them as they've already done similar classes, but that's about their only advantage.

Any idea why they chose to do an MS first?

[TakeruK]

Actually I do have plans to go to Canada for my PhD, many of my friends and relatives are there - most of them are working there. So, are Universities there expecting an MS from PhD applicants? Do you know why this difference is there in the system? I mean, there are several other differences such as GRE scores and their necessity, undergraduate major etc, right?

 

Yes, Canadian PhD programs (I've only seen one exception at U. Toronto because they follow the US system) require PhD applicants to have a MS degree first. Here is how grad school normally works in Canada:

 

1. In your final year of your BSc, you apply to MSc programs at Canadian schools.

2. You start your MSc program (2 years).

3. Two things can now happen:

i) After 1 year into your MSc program, you can apply to be "fast-tracked" to a PhD, which means you immediately enter the PhD program at the same school. Your success depends on your performance in year 1 and your advisor's willingness to take you on as a PhD student. If you "fast-track", you will not receive a MSc but you don't have to defend a MSc thesis either. Congrats, you are now in a PhD program!

ii) Or, the regular way is to start applying to PhD programs in the 2nd year of your Masters. It's pretty common for a student to do a Masters and PhD in different schools, but it's also common for students to stay. However, even if you stay, you need to apply to the same school again for the PhD. 

4. You defend your Masters thesis at the end of year 2 and graduate! Then you start your PhD program, congrats!

 

One additional difference between US and Canadian schools is the coursework distribution. In the US, many programs expect students to do the majority of their coursework in the first 2 years and mostly research in the later years. In Canada, research starts right away and you do your PhD coursework over the first 4 years. You only need about half of the total PhD courses to get a Masters (the other half of the Masters is your research/thesis). A US-based program generally awards a Master after the coursework is completed and the Master is not usually based on a thesis or research.

 

Either way, the entire degree will take 5 or 6 years. If you fast track, you will probably finish within 5-6 years and just get the PhD. If you defend your MSc (2 years) and then stay in the same school for your PhD, you will probably only need 3 (maybe 4) additional years to finish. If you defend your MSc (2 years) and then go to another school for your PhD, you generally need 4 more years (sometimes you can do it in 3) to finish.

 

As for the difference, the reason is because in Canada, a MSc degree is a serious accomplishment, not a consolation prize for not finishing a PhD. Usually, if you want a career in Physics/Astronomy but you do not want to do independent research, you need a Masters degree (for example, jobs like teaching first year college classes, being a science director for a museum, etc.) You only stay for the PhD if you want to do independent research in your field. It also gives everyone a chance to consider grad school/research without signing away 5-6 years of your life. About 50% of students in Canada that begin graduate school do not continue on to a PhD. This is good for everyone because it does not waste time (for both students and faculty) or resources training students for a degree they do not want/need.

 

Finally, Canadian programs do not require GRE scores for Canadian students. Some programs will ask for GRE scores for non-Canadian students though.

[Vene]

Any idea why they chose to do an MS first?

Haven't asked. I know one of the MS holders is an international student so that may have something to do with it.

[Lex Shrapnel]

@Takeru Thank you for the detailed description, and I must say, this system sounds a lot better. I am very impressed!

[Catria]

My PI once said that the reason for why direct-PhD is so prevalent in the US is some decision made by NSF (or another grant-awarding agency) somewhere in the 60s or 70s that affected the way professors received grant money to fund graduate students. If a professor asked for, say, $25k to fund a masters student, the prof wouldn't get anywhere close to $25k, if the prof got anything at all to pay for a masters student from the grant, whereas if the prof asked for the same $25k to fund a PhD student, the prof will get a sum much closer to the amount originally requested, although not always the full amount. The NSF claimed back then that PhD students were more productive than MS students.

 

Perhaps that is correct, perhaps it is not.

 

It is undeniable that BSc+MSc+PhD is better from a student perspective, but the time to a PhD from BSc is usually longer in MSc+PhD systems than in direct-PhD ones, assuming fast-tracking is not in use.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Catria

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

I have heard that the first 2-3 years are regular coursework in the PhD program. Is this true? Is it going to be exactly the same thing that I would see in the MS (absolutely nothing new)? How does students usually manage this repetition?

 

I did a MS first. I passed the qualifier exam before school started. I got 3 courses transferred officially (with credit) and for the remaining course credits I do whatever I want instead of taking core classes.

[St Andrews Lynx]

I have heard that the first 2-3 years are regular coursework in the PhD program. Is this true? Is it going to be exactly the same thing that I would see in the MS (absolutely nothing new)? How does students usually manage this repetition?

Depends on the Dept (and funding) exactly how much coursework you get to do. At my school I only took 1-2 classes per semester, for the first academic year (if I hadn't transferred credits from my previous degree I would have needed to take 5 classes in total those first 2 years). However, the people in my cohort who received a fellowship took 2-3 classes per semester (since they didn't have to TA, and I did). In other universities I know that the coursework is significantly more intense. It's something to ask about at visiting days.

 

Yes, there was some repetition in the classes, but I looked at it as "revising/strengthening my core knowledge" rather than "repetition" per se. And honestly, I appreciated that the classes didn't take too much time out of my research. I was also able to transfer those credits from my MS degree and get an exemption from some classes, but I had to complete 2 semesters of credits first (that's another thing to look out for in your school's PhD guidelines). 

 

My opinion is that if you can get accepted into a PhD program without a Masters...then go for it! 

[juilletmercredi]

I wouldn't say that it's "undeniable" the BS -> MS -> PhD is better from a student perspective.  I went straight from a BA to a PhD and quite frankly, in my field, I don't see a real difference.  In the first 2.5 years of my program I completed pretty much the same curriculum a master's student would - in fact, most of my classes were taken with mostly other master's students.  If I had gotten a master's first and then gone to the PhD, I would've been taking a lot of classes all over again.  Plus I would've had to pay for the master's.

 

The people who had gotten a master's first spent, all told, at least 1-2 more years in graduate school total than I did. Case in point, one of my close friends actually did her master's at the institution where we did our doctoral degree.  She still had to take 30 more hours of coursework (the normal is 60, so she got exempted from 30 hours because of her master's).  I remember her struggling to find relevant classes that she didn't already take in the department, and she only finished one year before me.  Time isn't everything, of course, and I do think that there can be a benefit to doing a master's first depending on the student.  But it's not a universal thing, IMO.

 

The only other thing I will add is that while it is true that you usually do your coursework first and the later parts are mostly research, in the U.S. you also begin research right away in a PhD program.  A new graduate student will usually begin assisting in the lab with some lesser tasks and perhaps presenting a poster at a conference and/or giving a brown bag in the department.  As time progresses, they take on more demanding/advanced/independent tasks and spend less time on coursework.  But it's not like you are doing no research in the beginning; you're juggling research and classwork and sometimes TAing.

[TakeruK]

I should clarify that the "BSc->MSc->PhD" path in Canada is not the same as the "BS->MS->PhD" path in the United States. In Canada, the term "graduate school" refers to both MSc and PhD and both parts are fully funded. And, yes, if a student does complete both parts then there should be no difference between "BSc->MSc->PhD" vs. "BSc->PhD" at all. The only reason/advantage of the split process is so that a student who started grad school and then realises that they do not want to continue with a PhD will get something useful out of it. A Masters degree is often a requirement in Canadian jobs for any work that requires expertise in the field but not to the level of an independent researcher. 

 

The system does break down when someone (e.g. me) goes from the "BSc->MSc->PhD" stream to the "BS->PhD" stream. I basically redid the two years of my Masters degree at my PhD school because I made this switch. But I felt it was worth it for the much better research fit in my field.  

[Catria]

I seem to remember that humanities are bigger proponents of BA+MA+PhD than, say, physics, where BSc+PhD is strongly encouraged.

 

Most en-route masters I know about are awarded conditionally to the passage of quals; a few are awarded upon completion of coursework but failure of quals (the consolation prize my PI talks about when talking about en-route masters in the US).

 

But most people around me in school (keep in mind I am still in the Canadian system for now) say that en-route masters earned by passing quals are "fake" masters and terminal masters (usually understood as being with thesis in my field) are real. Yet, if one gets to the point where, under a direct PhD plan, one is taking quals, usually people will have earned some research skills and experience beforehand.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Catria