Masters before PhD or straight into PhD from undergrad?

[Marinebio444]

I will be graduating in the spring with a bachelors in marine science, biology, and mathematics, and I've started looking into graduate schools. I had a conversation today with my mentor from my summer research internship, and he highly suggested a masters before going into a PhD. It started me thinking about things, since I had been saying I want to go into a PhD program right out of undergrad ever since I knew I wanted to go into research. Does anyone have any suggestions or experience with this issue? I would be looking at marine science programs if that helps at all...

[Gram Neutral]

In my unprofessional opinion, unless you think you will struggle getting into a PhD program, or aren't sure, there is no point to getting a masters first.

[mop]

In biomedical sciences in general it is common to enter without a masters, I don't know if that is true for marine sciences. If you have the research experience necessary to get into a PhD program it will save you the two years of tuition which is always great

[astaroth27]

If you are seriously considering pursuing a PhD in the US then a Master's is a total waste of time in almost every circumstance. I believe it is different in Europe and Canada where they expect you to come in with a Master's. The only time it may be worthwhile is if your undergraduate grades were sub 3.0 and even then you might still get into some mid-tier PhD programs with enough research experience and good letters of rec. Even as a fallback for someone who isn't sure about research I wouldn't recommend it. I don't know what the hiring prospects are in marine biology with just a Master's but in most biological fields the job prospects aren't really any better than for someone with a Bachelor's.

[shadowclaw]

It depends on a lot of things. Do you have a low GPA? If you've taken the GRE, were your scores mediocre? Do you have limited research experience? Do you attend a school that no one's ever heard of in the middle of nowhere? There are lots of things that can weaken your application and get you passed over for admission into a PhD program, but having one or several of these weaknesses can be balanced out by amazing stats in other areas. Also having a potential advisor who really really wants you in his/her lab is also a HUGE help. Getting a masters first can help remedy weaknesses and make you more competitive, especially if you can publish during that time period. I don't know if you have any of these weaknesses, but they are something to think about.

 

It's not true that getting a masters first is useless. For one thing, if you do the masters and PhD at the same school, you generally spend the same about of time there as you would if you went straight into the PhD program and some programs will let you switch to the PhD track after the first year if you do well. This does depend on the school's policies, though. Even if you don't attend the same school for your PhD, you will likely not have to start over unless your school doesn't accept transfer credits (which is also something to keep in mind if there's a program you REALLY want to attend). You may spend an extra year compared to going straight in the PhD program, but depending on your research topic, you may not. Most PhD programs are also funded, so tuition isn't something you will likely need to worry about when you get to the PhD stage. However, many masters programs are not. If you want to avoid paying tuition during a masters program, you will need to shop around for professors and programs with funding who are actively recruiting masters students.

 

I personally did a masters first because I had some weakness (low overall GPA and not a lot of research experience), plus ecology programs are very difficult to get into due to needing to find a potential advisor who matched my interests prior to applying and having them support my application. Funding was the biggest issue, as many potential advisors didn't have funding or openings in their labs. I believe this is also true for marine science programs. While it would have saved me some time going straight into a PhD program, I loved my program and got to do some amazing research that took me across the globe. Given the chance, I would do it again.

 

Also, forgot to add, some programs here in the US actually DO require a masters before entry in the PhD program. So keep an eye out for them!

Edited August 6, 2015 by shadowclaw

[Marinebio444]

Thanks for the replies! Some of the benefits he numerated were 1) A traditional BS -> MS -> PhD path is more recognized by potential employers as being a legitimate path than a BS -> PhD path, 2) If you do your MS first, as long as it is through a different institution as your PhD, the MS broadens the scope of your network and your experience and gives you more opportunities for connections later on in your career, and 3) An MS serves as a better transition from more class-based BS to a research-based degree. Taking those factors into consideration, would you still recommend looking into more PhD programs? My application would be pretty strong (3.75 GPA, haven't taken GRE yet but I've gotten pretty high on practice tests, 3 summer research internships including Hollings internship through NOAA, lab experience sophomore through senior year, will have two publications under my belt by the end of senior year, one as first author).

[eeee1923]

A master's is fine. It exposes you to graduate level research at a slower pace than a PhD so that when you transition to the PhD, you have an easier time getting into your research. Also if an extra 2 years of doing research would make you a stronger researcher - is it really worth it to not take the opportunity? I personally did a MS and found it to be helpful in focusing my research and career goals (and I had a similarly strong profile going into the MS). 

[ballwera]

You'll likely get into a lot of PhDs right now. Are you having cold feet about completing a PhD? Honestly an ms is pointless if it's not a terminal degree. I cannot advise anyone at all to do one unless it's free. If you are seriously concerned about your research experience, take a few years and work as a tech. I don't see the point in taking on debt if PhD is the end game... Just my 2 cents

[bsharpe269]

As someone who has done an MS and started my PhD about a month ago, I can provide someone info on how it has helped me so far. If I had to do it all over again, I would without a doubt to the masters first again. For me, none of the masters credits are transferring so it isn't going to speed me up in that sense but it has put me SO far ahead academically. I worked my butt off during my masters and got 2 first author publications and 1 middle author one. I also presented at multiple conferences where I got to know many of the big name people in my field. This is in addition to the publication and presentations I had from undergrad. As someone who wants an academic job one day, it is great to already have all of this on my CV.

 

As one example of how the MS has helped me, I recently submitted an abstract for a conference this fall. The two 2nd year grad students who are in the lab that I am currently rotating in also submitted for the same conference. I was asked to give a talk based on my abstract and one of the 2nd years also was (he also got a masters before the PhD) while the student who went straight from undergrad was declined. It is definitely not common for 1st year PhD students to speak at this conference. I feel excited and lucky that I get to!  I am also getting emailed by multiple professors, asking if I will consider rotating with them. Some of these professors have reputations for being very picky about who they will admit to their labs but their interest in me simply stems from my already strong background in their work that I got from my masters degree and having met them at conferences during my masters.

 

I also notice a huge maturity difference between those who came straight from undergrad and those who waited a couple years. The students who came straight from undergrad goof off on their computers and phones during seminars or get on facebook while in the lab. This obviously  isn't true of everyone who came straight from undergrad but there it is true of many. I don't think that a MS is the only or even best way to get the head start and skills I mention above but I do suggest taking some time to get more experience. It sounds like you can get into good PhD programs now with your current application but I do not know a single person who regrets taking a couple years off. Most people find it very helpful!

Edited August 8, 2015 by bsharpe269

[Chai_latte]

@bsharp- that's excellent

This blog post raised some interesting points: https://membracid.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/did-the-phd-kill-the-masters-degree/

[rising_star]

I'm not in biology but the blog post linked by Chai_Latte makes several excellent points, particularly the one about how your research can define your career. I actually switched topics (within the same broader subfield) between my master's and my PhD and have zero regrets about it. But, that subfield is how I define myself in grant applications, job cover letters, etc. If you aren't quite sure how you want to define (and be defined by) your research, then doing a master's is a great idea. A master's is also a great time/space within which to learn new research techniques, bone up on any skills you might be lacking, develop a poster or paper to present at a conference, and get involved in collaborations. There's definitely nothing wrong with doing a master's before doing a PhD and you may find that doing so changes what you want to do at the doctoral level for your research. It might also open up opportunities to attend programs that wouldn't be available to you otherwise.

[mop]

I'll point out that in the biomedical sciences, the particular bit of science you work on as a PhD student absolutely does not dictate your future career, it is relatively common to change fields into another branch of biology for your postdoc.