MS or not before PhD? (biological sciences)

<p>What are your thoughts on masters programs on biological sciences (evolutionary biology / neuroscience in particular)? My ultimate goal is PhD, but I am considering masters as well, especially if it would help my chances of getting admitted to a PhD program. Does having a masters degree shorten the time it takes to complete a PhD? I also know that masters programs don't automatically guarantee financial aid the way PhD programs do, so all thoughts on the financial aspect would also be appreciated. Thanks.</p>

<p>My thoughts? waste of time. Masters degrees in the biomedical sciences rarely give funding and they don’t really enhance ones career. Have you considered working as a tech for a couple of years? That would do the same thing as getting a masters, but without the debt.</p>

<p>i second belevitt. i did the ms then phd route and felt that i should have just done without the ms. also, as far as i know the ms will not count towards the phd.
so, if you want to get more experience go with being a tech- at least you get paid well.</p>

<p>I’m thinking of MS because I might not have the grades to get into PhD program right away after getting my BS. I’ll have probably 3.2-3.3 GPA and even though I have plenty of A’s, I also have some C’s, including Gen Chem 2 and Calculus 1… (haven’t taken GRE yet)
So, I’ve been thinking of MS as a credit booster in order to get into the kind of school I’d like to get in…</p>

<p>That’s kinda similar to my situation. I’m an international student with no publications, a little research experience, a so-so GPA and I’m afraid that I wouldn’t make it straight into a PhD program at one of top schools. So I’m too thinking about using a master to eventually get into a top school’s PhD program. If someone has some suggestion on this matter that’d be great!</p>

<p>I’m not exactly sure how much good research experience weighs as opposed to GPA. Even though my GPA is low, I do have done 2 semester-length research projects and I’ll have another one done before I graduate. Basically my 3 recommendations will be from 3 different professors who have advised my research projects. </p>

<p>Even with good research experience in my belt, could I even dream about top schools since my GPA is on the lower side?</p>

<p>I wouldn’t consider the MS until you know for a fact, by applying to reputable PhD programs, whether your stats are good enough to get you in. Significant research experience weighs far more heavily than GPA and will make-up for any shortcomings in grade, provided the GPA isn’t absolutely terrible (and yours isn’t).</p>

<p>If you just settle for an MS program when you otherwise would have been accepted by a good PhD program, you will have only wasted your own time.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>When I went to the University of Michigan, the last day was an open house. They talked about applying to the program, and the director gave a presentation saying what was most important to them.</p>

<p>Number one, bolded and in italics, was extensive research experience. Number two, in italics, was that the applicant’s letters of recommendation were solid. Number three was a mix of GPA/GRE/TOEFL.</p>

<p>I think it’s safe to say you have a shot at top programs. They seem interested in me, and I have a little less than a year’s research experience and only a 3.2 GPA.</p>

<p>That sounds good. University of Michigan is one of the schools that I’d be interested in attending.</p>

<p>Serric, would you care to share info on your research experience? I’ve got 1 year doing final year thesis and 3 months as a research assistant and a GPA of 3.6 but still I think my application is pretty weak. UMich is one of the first considerations in my list</p>

<p>As an admissions committee member, I concur with the posters that obtaining research experience, demonstrating an understanding of a research career, and obtaining enthusiastic LORs from respected members of your field is a much higher priority than taking a diversion for a MS. Obtaining a MS will also not have any effect on changing the time it takes you to obtain a PhD.</p>

<p>A masters itself will not help you, but more research experience will help you. I would work as a tech for several years to get a strong letter, full time research experience, and maybe pubs. This would help your app. The degree itself would not help you, and it would cost money. If there is particular school you are interested in, I would try to get a tech position there since it would help your app to that particular school. You can also check out post-bac programs at NIH and minority ones at some schools (Penn and Baylor are examples).</p>

<p>In about 80% of cases I’d agree, with 2 exceptions. The first is if you’re not really sure what you want to do. The more important however, would be to realize that it can be hard to find a lab tech position. I tried this route first, but after a year of getting no where I decided a masters would be an equally good way to get that experience. Why was it so hard to find a tech job? Well for one, where you live matters more than you may consider. If you’re applying out of state, often people screen out your application from the beginning, because there are plenty of in state applications that a good. The other part is experience: RNA work, especially, is important. So often times you start looking for a position to get experience and can’t find one because you don’t have the experience.
With me, I had 2+ years of research and lab experience in microbial genetics and working on medical studies, and great references, but I couldn’t even get the interview, because I’d not worked much with RNA, not done much with proteins, etc. My work was too focused, and more importantly I was always having to apply at schools four states away, only a few schools hiring on a regular basis. So if you don’t live in the right area, know the right people, etc, you may want to consider a masters. </p>

<p>It’s really no different than what the people here are suggesting, that you work as a tech for a few years before applying for a PhD. You’re doing it as a middle step to get more experience and have a better resume, so you can apply to a better college. Though I would suggest that you don’t go to the same college as your undergrad. Find a different school, meet new people, explore new ideas, etc.</p>

<p>I should add, it’s not unheard of to take 1-2 years some times to find a job with a BS. A friend of mine with a chem degree, took about 2 years to find a job with USA in Florida. Getting a job as a lab tech, depending on your background and what you want to do, isn’t so easy. You may find a job your first week out, you may not consider a masters and then spend 2 years looking for a job to get that experience for a PhD. </p>

<p>The bottom line is, time is not such a big thing. And either way, you’re getting the experience you want before a PhD. Also, in biology assistantships may be harder to come by, which means you may be stuck with a teaching and not research assistantship, but many if not most colleges will support you in a masters program. So I disagree with that comment above.</p>

<p>Topic was 2 years old. I’m sure the OP has made a decision by now.</p>