M.Eng. vs M.S.

[gunsharp]

I know it's kinda late to ask since I already applied but...is there any difference between the two degrees? M.Eng. is supposed to be a course-oriented graduate degree, but as far as I know, all M.S. degrees also have course-oriented paths. I just want to make sure that M.Eng. isn't some type of inferior degree to M.S. before I consider paying 32k a year in tuition. Thanks!

[errjun]

Ive heard that M.Eng is more for people looking to go into industry right afterwards...M.S. is more for eventual PhD's

[tahncol86]

Is there any difference in acceptance rates? For example it's harder and more competitive to get into a top school's PhD than into a masters program.

My apologies for the shallow question.

[123456789]

[Edit]

Put simply, they aren't the same thing, though plenty of employers don't know the difference and assume they are. An M.Eng. can help you get a job, boost your GPA, and allow you to explore a major other than your undergrad. Because they aren't focused on PhD track students, there tends to be a lot of emphasis on getting students into industry positions. The administrators in my M.Eng. program worked tirelessly to find jobs for students, digging through their contacts, sending out plenty of job posting emails, sometimes catering assignments to give us specific job search-related skills. Basically everybody that wanted a job had one within a month after graduating, except a few stubborn jackasses (mainly me) who refused to settle for anything less than our dream research jobs.

The M.Eng. is kind of in limbo between undergrad and grad education, so you can really embrace graduate-level coursework and research if you take the initiative (read: worth the money), or you can use it as an extension of undergrad style assignments and projects (read: not as useful). If you're ultimately looking to get a PhD, you can use the M.Eng. to enhance your application and prove your mettle, but it's nowhere near as seemless a transition as M.S.->PhD. A few students in my M.Eng. program (myself included), are now either in on or applying to PhD programs. However, we had to go through the entire application process again, and none of us will be getting our PhDs from the same institution as the M.Eng. I absolutely have a vastly stronger PhD app than I would have without the M.Eng., but that is because I applied myself intensely, and I am still a year behind where I would be.

The other issue is that, since some employers don't know the difference between the degrees, sometimes (and I stress sometimes) an M.Eng. from [Prestigious School] can get you a closer look than an M.S. from [Less Prestigious School]. I've experienced this first-hand.

Bottom line:

M.S. is more prestigious, harder to get accepted into, probably better preparation overall, has the potential for funding, and is a much more direct track to a PhD

M.Eng. is more what you make of it. If you aren't going to take it seriously, you are probably wasting your money. All other things being equal (i.e., not considering a university's prestige), I would treat it more as a backup.

[tahncol86]

Thank you for the detailed response.

So if I don't plan to get into phD + want easier admission, Nuclear.Eng (Engineer's degree for NE) is the way to go I guess. However, I've noticed that for Berkeley or MIT, the N.Eng course requirements are more intensive than M.S.

N.Eng: 162 credits + thesis (2 years)

M.S: 66 units + thesis

"The program for an engineer's degree requires more advanced and broader competence in engineering and science subjects than for the master's degree, but with less emphasis on original research than a doctoral program."

I guess M.S. requires more research while N.Eng focuses on courses. I'm still slightly unconvinced that the Engineer's degree program is easier to get in than the M.S. program.

Thanks again~

[JazzB]

Hi guys, my friend is doing a course on Eletrical Systems at Nottingham University and I was thinking about applying for it too. I've been interested on it for a while but took sometime to research and have finally decided. He kind of convinced me and said their installations are impressive. I was wondering what kind of jobs can I do with this degree?

Many thanks,

[was1984]

You are confusing the masters level degree of M.Eng. with the 'doctoral' level degree of N.Eng. or E.Eng. Those are like the M.Eng. equivalent of a PhD.

Not all M.S. degrees are created equal, either. Some M.S. Degress are coursework only at some schools, with an optional thesis requirement.

[gatorgirl]

From all of my research on degrees and programs, I have come to find that M. Eng and MS are just different. Neither is more prestegious than the other, they just offer different qualities for preparation and are routes to different career paths. An M. Eng would be similar to a non-thesis Masters, with a possibly more broad education base. The M.Eng is a path to industry while since the MS is more research oriented it provides a better path to a PhD and into academia. Another point that matters is the combination of your degrees. For example, getting a MS in Chem E after a BS in Chem E is considered pointless (if this is to get to a PhD then just skip the MS and go straight to the PhD program) since the education levels are not very different. In this case, a MS in Chem E is actually targeted towards those with a non-engineering BS. On the other hand, one with a BS in Chem E (or EE or Mech E) could do a Masters in Biomedical eng and the difference in fields would allow for an expansion of their current knowledge into the field they want to join.

This forum seems to be quite biased to research oriented (PhD) fields and canidates. People do tend on here to favor the MS, since most want to persue a PhD. I, on the other hand, actually want to end up in industry and NOT in academia. For this purpose, a M. Eng is best for me (or a non-thesis MS). I have applied applied to both types of programs, yet the M.Eng seems like the courses are better suited for my needs.

I guess the moral of all this is that the difference truely depends on your goals and your background. Yet, I do want to make the point that prestiege is not truely what matters. You need to choose your degree path by where you want your career and education to lead. What truely matters is that you get the education and develop the skills to acquire the job you desire. If you just care about the prestiege, you will not end up where you want to be. For those who want to join the industry, you CAN become over qualified. For everyone, don't go somewhere just because it is prestiegous, you may hate it there. Do your homework and persue the degree and institution that best suits your needs.

Good luck to all!

[nuclear_engineer]

I recently completed my M.ENG degree (Nuclear Eng.) from Penn State with funding from my company.

An M.ENG degree is a non-research degree. You basically take approx. 30 hours of coursework and possibly a professional paper i.e. a mini self-guided project.

I would highly recommend you to go into industry and seek company reimbursement if you are going after an M.ENG.

[yhk331]

I am currently a 2nd year Master's student at University of Toronto. I am graduating in mid-September. From my experience at University of Toronto, Master of Applied Science (MASc) is the research-based degree and it is definitely more prestigious. Having that said, it doesn't mean M. Eng. has no value to it. I have definitely seen examples in which M. Eng. gets hired quickly, whereas MASc's have to strunggle to find job. Perhaps it is like what @123456789 said. M Eng program focuses on getting a job. Here is the catch though - MASc is almost free because UofT provides you with funding (which is capable to paying for daily expenses plus tuition), but M. Eng, you got to pay yourself. M Eng is a way for universities to make more money (whether you believe it or not).

 

My personal preference is still MASc because not only it is free (at least cheap), you get learn how to do research. Research is not something you born to know how to do it. Plus, doing a MASc is a great way to test if you actually like the life of a PhD. Here's a little of my own story. I always thought I wanted to be a researcher or professor and wanted to my PhD after my MASc. But after 2 years in research, I am tired with it. I have never foreseen that I will actually get tired with research. The sad truth is I don't like research as much as I think I like. But, I am cool with it because I got a nice job offer. LOL.

[efh0888]

Thank you for the detailed response.

So if I don't plan to get into phD + want easier admission, Nuclear.Eng (Engineer's degree for NE) is the way to go I guess. However, I've noticed that for Berkeley or MIT, the N.Eng course requirements are more intensive than M.S.

N.Eng: 162 credits + thesis (2 years)

M.S: 66 units + thesis

"The program for an engineer's degree requires more advanced and broader competence in engineering and science subjects than for the master's degree, but with less emphasis on original research than a doctoral program."

I guess M.S. requires more research while N.Eng focuses on courses. I'm still slightly unconvinced that the Engineer's degree program is easier to get in than the M.S. program.

Thanks again~

 

At this point, that is, four years later, you probably don't care for a response. But just in case, an Engineer's degree is more advanced than a Master's, i.e. you need a Master's degree to pursue an Engineer's degree, which affords students the opportunity to pursue more rigorous coursework, presumably at the PhD level, and receive a credential/degree without having to do any research/dissertation as would be required for a PhD.

[smalik]

I applied in National University of Singapore(Research Masters), McGill U (Research Masters) and Imperial College London (Taught Masters). Ihave received the offer of admission from ICL but not from others yet and have to reply by the end of April. Any advice? Should I go for Imperial??

[rova94]

On 7/20/2013 at 1:29 AM, yhk331 said:

I am currently a 2nd year Master's student at University of Toronto. I am graduating in mid-September. From my experience at University of Toronto, Master of Applied Science (MASc) is the research-based degree and it is definitely more prestigious. Having that said, it doesn't mean M. Eng. has no value to it. I have definitely seen examples in which M. Eng. gets hired quickly, whereas MASc's have to strunggle to find job. Perhaps it is like what @123456789 said. M Eng program focuses on getting a job. Here is the catch though - MASc is almost free because UofT provides you with funding (which is capable to paying for daily expenses plus tuition), but M. Eng, you got to pay yourself. M Eng is a way for universities to make more money (whether you believe it or not).

 

My personal preference is still MASc because not only it is free (at least cheap), you get learn how to do research. Research is not something you born to know how to do it. Plus, doing a MASc is a great way to test if you actually like the life of a PhD. Here's a little of my own story. I always thought I wanted to be a researcher or professor and wanted to my PhD after my MASc. But after 2 years in research, I am tired with it. I have never foreseen that I will actually get tired with research. The sad truth is I don't like research as much as I think I like. But, I am cool with it because I got a nice job offer. LOL.

This is interesting because I have just been offered admission to UofT for MEng in Materials Science. My problem is that while I am interested in research I know that MEng is not focused towards giving students research experience of any kind. I wanted to know, from what you have observed at your university, is it easy to fast track from an MEng Program to an MASc? By the way, my undergraduate was in chemical engineering (4-year B.E) and this is a bit of a change of field for me.