<p>Hey I was hoping for someone to clarify somethings to me about choosing a Masters or PhD program. I understand that a PhD is obviously more research orientated and that would probably be the first pick for me. Currently I'm going into my Junior year with a double major in Biology and Environmental Studies, this summer I am working on my first research project with a professor (which should be published), and I'm working on a government Environmental Assessment also. Research and papers are my thing but do I skip straight to the PhD or do I get the Masters first? I am getting both responses from Professors in my different fields. I would like opinions also from people who are not my Professors. Pros, cons, etc with the "at the end of the day, it's your choice"</p>
<p>Thanks in advance! :)>- </p>
<p>One of the big differences is that Masters are usually (although not always) unfunded, while PhDs are usually funded. So for an unfunded Masters program you are stuck paying tuition plus living expenses. In a funded PhD program you do not pay tuition and you are given a stipend to cover a chunk of your living expenses. In return you act as a TA or research assistant. </p>
<p>If you think that you will want to get a PhD eventually, then it doesn’t make sense to pay for a Masters and then apply for a PhD program. A possible exception is someone whose application at the end of undergrad is not strong enough to get into a PhD program and needs a chance to demonstrate better performance in a Masters program before applying for a PhD.</p>
<p>Also, it depends on what you want to do with your degree. If you want to be a professor, then a PhD is necessary. If not, a Masters may be sufficient.</p>
<p>A lot will depend on the grad school that you apply to. Some will admit you M.S./Ph.D. and will absolutely require that you complete a full M.S. with thesis before proceeding into the Ph.D. programs. Some will admit you to a Ph.D. program in which you will collect an M.S. without writing a thesis after you have reached a certain point in the program and are beginning your Ph.D. research. Some will admit you to a Ph.D. program and only award an M.S. as a kind of booby prize if they decide you don’t have what it takes or if you decide to leave without finishing the Ph.D. And there always is the option of completing an M.S. at one place and then applying elsewhere for a Ph.D. or to the Ph.D. program at the place where you already are.</p>
<p>But before you sign on for grad school, spend some time thinking about just exactly what kind of job it is you want to have, and whether or not either of those degrees is necessary. What does that job market look like four to ten years out? Will there be any jobs for you when you finish your studies?</p>
<p>Don’t just stay in school forever because you don’t know what you want to do with your life. Have a very good reason for going to grad school or you will be miserable there.</p>
<p>As happymom said different grad schools have different admissions policies. Some may require M.S., some will not. Many PhD Programs will give you a Master’s along the way. </p>
<p>This is very good advice, thank you very much everyone</p>
<p>I’m going to go out on a limb and say that a PhD isn’t always more research-oriented in content; there are very research-oriented MS programs as well. I think the main difference between a research-based MS and a PhD program is that while both can prepare you to enter the field as a professional researcher/scientist, an MS prepares you to work on a team of scientists as one cog/part of that team, while the PhD prepares you to lead a team of researchers and/or a particular research project.</p>
<p>For example, with an MS you could work as a research associate in a variety of contexts. Academic medical centers and clinical trials often hire a variety of MS-level researchers to assist in administering projects - both the bench science/field science aspects of it and the more administrative aspects. I’m in a clinical trial myself and my primary contact is a master’s degree holder; she performs all of my study interviews. In fact, I think I have met the PI exactly once. I’ve been in the trial nearly 2 years. Or if you went to work at a think tank or in a federal agency, you’d carry out research tasks on a specific team or project, usually under the direction of someone with a PhD. You will have freedom to choose projects based on where you apply to work, and you may even have more or less input on the shape and direction of a project, but generally you’re not the lead.</p>
<p>But with a PhD, you are usually the lead/supervisor/director of a research project. If you become a professor with a lab, you will be the one writing the grants and deciding what research to pursue. You decide the major aspects, and you hire MS and BS-level researchers (as well as grad students and postdocs and sometimes undergrad RAs) to help keep your lab running smoothly and do those tasks you need done. Even if you went to work in a non-academic research position, likely you would be the one planning and executing research projects under the auspices of your organization. MS-level researchers will work under your direction. There’s a lot more autonomy and control.</p>
<p>I only say this because I want people to know that it’s entirely possible to work within research, pursuing a passion, without getting a PhD. It’s not a discouragement - in fact, I think if you KNOW you want to be a researcher, getting a PhD is probably the best decision. And yes, if your application is strong enough, you can skip the MS and go straight to the PhD program. But getting an MS and working in a research support role is also an option.</p>