<p>So I am a mechanical engineer, about to be a senior, and I know I definitely want to get my PhD because I enjoy doing research and I would like to one day either be a professor at a university or work for an organization such as NASA. </p>
<p>I was wondering if I could get some opinions on the two different routes to a PhD in engineering. The masters->PhD route or the direct PhD route. </p>
<p>I am just curious about the advantages and disadvantages of the two choices.</p>
<p>only do the masters if youre lacking the credentials to be a competitive admit</p>
<p>Whatever you do, don’t teach!! Haha, j/k, if you really want to go for it.</p>
<p>I believe I will have a competitive application, I have had multiple research internships, as well as research at my school. And I have good grades and expect really good letters. </p>
<p>I guess part of the reason I am asking is because I am not 100% sure what I want my research to focus on. I am interested in a lot of things and I just havent narrowed it down. So I am thinking that might be a good reason to go for a masters first. </p>
<p>Are there any disadvantages for going for a masters first, such as funding, the amount of time it takes, likelyhood of admission. Also, if I decide I want a masters first do I have to apply for MS programs or can I apply to PhD programs and just get the masters on the way?</p>
<p>If you do a master’s first, you’re probably going to have to pay for it (and it’s quite expensive). If you do the PhD route, they’ll pay you (a stipend and tuition remission, usually). It may take a little more time to do both an MS+PhD than just a PhD, but maybe not. If you apply to PhD programs, you get a PhD when you finish, not an MS and a PhD (there may be some exceptions, but not many). Sometimes, you can choose to leave the PhD program early and get an MS only. Getting a PhD implies that you did MS-type work along the way. Having an MS and PhD isn’t any better than having solely a PhD.</p>
<p>I’m not too familiar with engineering graduate school, but in the sciences many people go into PhD programs without knowing exactly what they want to research. You usually have time to figure that out (at least a year or so) while you take graduate classes and do rotations.</p>
<p>Stickid, lack of funding is the major disadvantage to getting into a Masters degree instead of a PhD from the start. Rarely is somebody in a PhD program not funded, and rarely is somebody in a Masters program funded in their first semester.</p>
<p>Masters programs do have lots of advantages though. They are easier to get into, so you may be able to get into a more prestigious program compared if you were applying to PhD programs only. People get into Masters programs, get an RA, and switch into PhD programs all the time. In this sense you may be able to “buy-in” to the program of your choice by applying to a Masters program first.</p>
<p>Also, when you are funded thru a PhD program, you’re going to have some obligation to work with a certain professor who is directly or indirectly funding you. If you are a paying Masters student, you may get the opportunity to shop around for the professor and research or your choice. The disadvantage of this is that it may be more difficult to get a RA as a Masters student at some universities vs others. There are no gurantees in other words.</p>
<p>If you are in a Masters program and decide to work afterwards it is also not an issue. No bridges will be burned. If you are in a PhD program and decide to leave with a masters because you just want a job, it may be a yellow flag if you ever try for a PhD later in your career.</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen and heard so far:
<p>Financially, a typical PhD program pays for your tuition, health insurance, and plus you get minimum wage for your effort (better than nothing huh?). In terms of admission competitiveness, the standard for MS might be lower for a reason. However, it is difficult to decide on ‘the better program’ without an absolute research interest; as most CCers would agree - research fit and PI’s popularity matter the most. So even if you attend a lower ranked school for PhD (vs. MS program in a more prestigious school), depending on your research interest, your chosen lab might be as good or even better than the theoretically higher ranked school. </p>
<p>At the end, we’re dealing with ‘research’. A lab in a top 50 school may be productive, and conversely, a lab in a top university might have slower progress due to unexpected problem, etc. IMO, money is money - if you can save & make some while studying, why waste it for something that is so uncertain (e.g. prestige)?</p>
<p>
Does this mean that there may be funding available for subsequent semesters?</p>
<p>lkf725…Yes that is what it means. I got a Masters degree in a field of engineering, and paid the first year, but had a Teaching Assistantship for the rest of my time which funded me. Others have gotton a RA after a semester as Masters students. It really depends on the program.</p>
<p>its rare, though, as most of the assistanceships go to the doctoral students and the masters students get whatever’s left (if any)</p>
<p>True enough…I got lucky…It was 1999 at the height of the tech bubble and great economy we used to have. My grad school was desperate for engineering TAs and had loads of money. I got an e-mail a week or two before school started saying I was funded. It is a tough chance to take these days to think you’ll get funded sometime during your Masters career. You can’t expect it.</p>