<p>Considering one's ultimate goal is a PhD, what are the advantages of obtaining a master's first, then applying for a PhD?
I can think of two:
1. You get to know the field you're interested in more and better. In BSc, one gets only a rudimentary knowledge of everything. After getting a master's, I guess one can better identify what exactly they're interested in and want to devote 4 years of their PhD on, and they can chose the school and the program that suits them best for PhD.
2. If one's bachelor's GPA or resume is not competitive for top programs, they can compensate for it in the master's and they'd have a better shot for PhD.</p>
<p>However, I guess lots (if not most) of those whose ultimate goal is PhD, apply directly for PhD. For these two reasons, I guess:
1. Master's programs are integrated into PhD programs, that is, in the first 1-2 years of the PhD program.
2.Financial aid available to PhD students.</p>
<p>What are your thoughts on these? Any more advantages/disadvantages to any of these two approaches?</p>
<p>If you don’t know exactly what you’d like to study at the PhD level, then you shouldn’t be applying for a PhD. The program isn’t structured to allow one to explore until they find an interest - students have already found a passion and are looking to delve into it. They have identified faculty doing relevant research and join in those labs. A masters degree may give you more time to explore, but it is a costly way to do so.</p>
<p>Yes, most PhD programs are fully funded, while funding for masters programs can be difficult to come by depending on the field. And yes, if your undergraduate record isn’t strong enough for PhD admissions, taking graduate level courses can help, although you don’t necessarily need to enroll in and complete a degree program. You can enroll as non-degree-seeking and take courses that interest you, get to know the faculty, involve yourself in their research, etc.</p>
<p>Getting a masters degree first also does not necessarily cut 2 years off of the PhD. Some courses may transfer, but you are still looking at 4-6 years of a PhD program AFTER the 1-3 years of a masters program. That’s a long time to be in school for many people, although some will work for a while before and/or after each degree to gain experience or pay down debts.</p>
<p>Also, a terminal masters program is often more applied; meaning it’s setting you up to graduate and get a job, not to do research or prepare you for a PhD. You can get involved in research, and some programs require a thesis, but not all will place an emphasis on the things that will make you most competitive for a PhD program. In many cases you need to identify and seek out opportunities yourself.</p>
<p>…and that’s what you should be doing at the undergraduate level. Exploring opportunities to gain research experience, narrow down your interests, see what really excites you. You can also take some time off after graduating to explore other topics and see where your professional interests really lie while gaining work experience.</p>
<p>"some programs require a thesis, but not all will place an emphasis on the things that will make you most competitive for a PhD program. "</p>
<p>So, what are the things, other than thesis, that a master’s program can emphasis that make one more competitive for a PhD program? Maybe providing an opportunity for the student to join some lab? Would the internship help? Also, don’t master’s students usually have something published, assuming they’re interested?(this can make one more competitive)</p>
<p>The issue with the question is that attempting one path does not necessarily preclude the other. You can apply for Master’s and PhD programs at the same time (even at the same school in most cases). Then it becomes a question of “did i get in to the PhD program” rather than “can I get in.” If you get into the PhD program, then great! If not, and you want to take another shot, you will need to improve your application, and a master’s degree can help with that. I would not recommend doing a master’s to improve your application unless you know for sure that your application is not good enough.</p>
<p>I would argue that this depends on the program. At least in my experience, you don’t need to know exactly what you want to study. You do need to have a general field area narrowed down - like it’s not a good idea to get a PhD in psychology if you aren’t sure between psychology, sociology and anthropology or something. But it’s fine to get a PhD in social psychology if you know that you are interested in the cognitive bases of prejudice and discrimination, but you’re not exactly sure how you want to study that.</p>
<p>Also, a terminal master’s is only more applied if you go to an applied program. Some master’s programs are very explicitly for the purpose of preparing students for PhDs, and those will be very research oriented.</p>
<p>The answer to this question really depends on the field.</p>
<p>I’m in an interdisciplinary program that straddles two fields. In one (psychology) a master’s is all but useless. Master’s classes usually do not transfer into PhD programs, so it doesn’t take any time off of the degree. And there are several better ways to get the research experience you need or to improve your portfolio, such as working as a research assistant or coordinator for 2-3 years after graduate. Plus there aren’t that many terminal MA programs in the field and the few that exist are not necessarily in the best departments. So there, I always advise students not to do an MA unless their undergrad grades were really bad; it’s far better (and cheaper) to get a research job and then take some grad classes as a non-degree student.</p>
<p>But in my other field (public health), virtually all PhD programs either require or recommend that a person has an MPH or a relevant MA before entering. In my cohort, I was the only one who had come straight from undergrad and only one of 2 or 3 (out of 6) that did not have a master’s degree before entering. In public health, a master’s can reduce your time to degree by as much as a year because your classes usually count. And public health is a field that is often not offered at the undergraduate level, so many PhD programs want to see that you have exposure and experience to the methods and substantive research in the field before you start a PhD program; a master’s is the best way to do that.</p>
<p>So basically, I say look at the conventions of your field - in some fields almost everyone gets a master’s before the PhD, and in those cases you’ll need the master’s first or it will significant improve your likelihood of admission.</p>
<p>But like raneck says, I would try to go straight through first (or at least try to get into a PhD program without a master’s, not necessarily right after undergrad). You can apply to PhD programs and master’s programs at the same time.</p>
<p>Well yes, I don’t mean that you need to have your exact hypothesis narrowed down, but that you know the sub field you’re interested in. When I was looking at social psychology programs, not all programs had faculty studying topics on prejudice and implicit emotions, so it was best to know I had those interests in advance. I would have been very stuck in a program studying other topics in social psychology, such as pro-social behavior. Some departments are very diverse in research interests; others may share common themes across faculty.</p>
<p>Internships may or may not be useful depending on the relevance of work to your research interests and the field you are in. PhD programs are looking to produce researchers who can contribute to their fields. They want to know that you’ve been introduced to basic research principles, that you have a realistic idea of what you’re getting into, and show promise to perform well in the program and thereafter. </p>
<p>Undergraduates can be included in publications, they just wouldn’t typically be a first author. Masters students have additional training and time in the lab, so they may have several publications which will strengthen their applications. At the same time, I’ve seen masters students graduate with no publications. </p>
<p>Overall I believe that a program, whatever the degree level or field, is what you make of it. If you go after the opportunities available to you, you will get more out of it than someone who just shows up to class and goes home. A program doesn’t have to require that you join a lab in order for you to look into those options, and it doesn’t have to require a thesis in order for you to research an interesting topic in depth. Don’t feel like you have to attend a masters program to do research and publish; you can do that at the bachelor’s level if you create those opportunities.</p>