Almost exactly four (yikes) years ago, I wrote about some aspects of the issue of advising M.S. vs. Ph.D. students. There has been much blog-ink spilled on this topic, including from the student perspective. A common question that I get from readers is whether they should do an M.S. or go straight to the Ph.D., so this question seems to be a perennial one.
My point of view is, of course, that of an adviser and a professor who has some influence on admissions decisions, so in my earlier post, I wrote about adviser-centric issues such as whether M.S. students are 'cost effective' for advisers like me.
Today in Scientopia I consider this topic again in response to a reader question about whether doing an M.S. is considered a liability (i.e., a "black mark") for those who ultimately want a Ph.D. I certainly don't think it is, but this student was told by a professor that it would/might be, so I am hoping that readers will weigh in with data and advice.
14 years ago
11 comments:
I find it interesting since where I come from, in order to get accepted into PhD program you have to have an MS or maybe "just a" BS.... I know it's different in the Us/canada but still this baffles me.
Guess it might be why I read the title as "MD vs PhD" ;)
My understanding of the chemistry programs in the US: a productive masters (publishable results, 1-2 years) is not necessarily a black mark on the record, particularly if the student stays at their undergraduate alma mater and that institution does not grant phDs. However, none of those credits 'transfer' to the phD program. Even credits earned toward a phD at one institution will not 'transfer' to a phD program at another institution. Bottom line: a productive MS may not be a liability if the student is enrolled in an MS program, but may be a red flag if a student was originally accepted to phD program and did not earn that terminal degree (no matter the reason).
Like @chall, my PhD program requires a master's degree for admittance (and it's in the US).
I originally chose to start with a master's degree because I was switching between two physical science fields, and I wanted to give myself the chance to catch up in the new discipline. This explanation seems to satisfy the very few people who have ever asked me about my master's degree, and why it's from a different institution than my PhD.
Many of the people who are really competitive for jobs in my field right now did a masters first. I think that helped them have a more productive PhD than I did - no struggling to figure out what to do, or how to be a good scientist, or how to write papers, etc. I've never heard of anyone with both MS and PhD having this considered negatively.
Having MS students seems like it would be perfect for faculty with specific short-term projects and the money to do them. Also, in my field the Cal State schools only offer a MS and there are some great professors at those schools to work with, many of whom send students to top PhD programs where they go on academic careers.
I applied for and entered a PhD program knowing I was going to only do a MS. I wanted to work at an R1 school and do a project where I could do amazing fieldwork. The prof I worked for thought I wanted a PhD until I told her after my first field season I wanted to go into industry all along. She was pissed, that I left (and that I now make more money than her), but I didn't want to do a MS at a small school with less resources.
Anon 12:34 - You are really selfish. I bet your former advisor doesn't care that you make more money than she does, but does care that you lied for your own purposes. At least you got to do amazing fieldwork. Clearly that's all that matters to you; not other people's time, efforts, money, trust, whatever. If you ever grow up enough to regret what you did, I hope you will write to your former advisor and apologize for being so deceitful.
Anon@ 1:32: I published 2 papers with her based on this amazing fieldwork in china and we wrote a grant together to fund her group for the next 3 years based on our research. Now in industry I have been recruiting at the university for 10 years and have hire some of her former students.
When I left she did not feel angry, just a little pissed that I chose to pursue industry over academics.
If anyone needs to apologize, it is you for jumping to conclusions.
I had a similar sense of the Anon 12:34's comment. It sounded like "ha ha, I lied for my own selfish purposes and now my ex-advisor, who believed my lie, is jealous of my bigger salary." Not nice. But it sounds like the complete story is not so bad. I wouldn't mind having an MS student who wrote papers and proposals.
In my department (in statistics) it's harder for a borderline candidate to get admitted for a PhD already having a MS, because there isn't a fallback position if they do badly. Someone with just a BS can come in, find out that PhD research in this area is not for them, and leave with a MS. Someone who already has an MS, not so much.
Yes, @9.18PM, it is best to have grad students in your department exactly where you want them so that they do their (and your) research: absolutely dependent on you for their position. God forbid you let in someone with "choices." I think it is best to string them along a little, too, with funding, just so they know they're not secure, and it could be gone at any time. Also, it helps to screen out confident, self-assured people who know their skills might be valid elsewhere. Work, grad-cattle, work!
Anon@01:32:00 PM
There is no reward for being honest. From my experience, I did masters in one field (nutrition) and then did Ph.D. in other field (genetics) from another Univ. Both the degrees were from U.S. Now, I am doing voluntary work (no pay-20 hrs per week) in other U.S. University for almost 6 months with not much job prospects (postdoc or industry in the near future). Being a non-immigrant, the chances are pretty low for me. I would say that when I joined the Ph.D. program, my advisor gave high hopes for getting a job either as postdoc or an industry position. Nothing happened so far. I can anticipate comments such as "You might be lacking a scientific drive or similar..." I have two first author papers from Ph.D. and one first author paper from Masters. The truth is that after months of living in debt, summons letters from creditors, accusations by wife for not having a normal life, a very unstable life with not much hope, immigration troubles, and PIs who keep us in the loop for postdoc position (minimum 2-3 months) and later a "Dear John" letter, I can completely justify Anon@12:34 actions. No need to feel guilty when almost all the PIs I had seen are looking only for their selfish growths. In a perfect world, Anon@12:34 should feel guilty. But, that is not anymore, especially in the science sphere where everyone are running mad for getting grants without even thinking about their teaching responsibilities or grooming young scientists.
Post a Comment