Which path would you choose based on the following factors (and any other relevant factors)? I know this may be subject to change over time, but just wondering what should be prioritized. Thanks!
duration
research experience (entering undergrad with 3-4 publications, hopefully can land position freshman year)
increased employability
more knowledgeably
still being able to enjoy life
possibility of opportunities (co-ops, internships, summer studies, etc)
cost
Pathway A
BS/MS Chemical Engineering (5 Years) --> PhD Chemical Engineering (4-5 Years) = 9-10 Years
Pathway B
BS Chem Eng w/ Double Major (4-5 Years) --> MS Chem Eng (2 Years) --> PhD Chem Eng (4-5 Years) = 10-12 Years
Pathway C
BS Chem Engineering (4 Years) --> MS Chem Engineering (2 Years) --> PhD Chem Engineering (4-5 Years) = 10-11 Years
[ul]
[]I don’t know what your bulleted list has to do with your three proposed pathways, especially the second one.
[]All of your pathways include getting an MS. If you are so sure you want a PhD, then why not just skip the MS?
[]You appear to be someone who is still in high school. I wouldn’t hang all your career plans on going to graduate school at this point. You have no idea how much you will actually enjoy the subject matter. Focus on your undergraduate work and just keep the graduate school option in your back pocket until you have a better idea of exactly what you would even want to study.
[]With a PhD, it is incredibly difficult to plan ahead like this. You can assume 4 to 6 years to finish a PhD, but the standard deviation is quite high, and it skews toward longer periods of time (i.e. a lot more people tend to take 6+ years than 4- years).
[li]What is your ultimate career goal? [/li][/ul]
Well, unless you have some very unusual circumstances in your life, then the odds of entering undergrad with 3-4 publications is quite slim. Did you mean to say “finishing undergrad” instead of “entering undergrad”? The odds of finishing undergrad with 3-4 publications is still pretty slim, but that would certainly help you immensely in graduate applications. It is difficult enough to get even one peer-reviewed publication, though, so I wouldn’t hold your breath. It varies by field and subfield a bit (e.g. engineers tend to publish less than physicists, and experimentalists tend to publish less frequently than their numerical/computational counterparts).
You an certainly become a professor without an MS. I don’t have one and it worked out alright for me. That said, it’s a very difficult path to follow. It is a wonderful goal to have in mind, but keep in mind that the typical path involves 4-5 years of undergraduate study, another 4-7 (ish) years of graduate study, and typically one more postdoc positions after graduate school before having a realistic shot at getting a tenure-track position. Those postdoc positions can be a real killer because they often don’t pay all that well and it isn’t uncommon for people to get stuck in years and years of postdoc positions while they keep applying to faculty jobs. On the other hand, some get lucky and strike gold early on in the process. It’s really hard to predict. The good news is that going this route is (generally) easier in engineering than it is in the harder sciences, which is easier than in the humanities.
Still, as I mentioned before, you haven’t even started your undergraduate studies yet, so you really don’t have to be ready to make that decision yet. Get a few semesters under your belt. Get some research experience. Then decide based on that whether you want to continue along that sort of path into graduate school. If you do, then work your way through that and evaluate whether you still want to be a professor along the way.
I also wholeheartedly agree with boneh3ad in that it is far too early for you to be planning these things out and that the timings of these pathways is much less predictable then you think it is. Even undergrad can be - plenty of undergrads take 4.5 to 5 years to finish a BS in engineering. But either way, it doesn’t really matter. You’ll learn soon enough that one year isn’t that much time in the grand scheme of things, and you kind of have to make decisions on the basis of what’s best for you at the time and what you are thinking is a good idea for you long-term.
It really makes no professional difference which of these pathways you choose - there won’t be any differences in employability, opportunities or probably knowledge depending on what programs we’re talking about. You’d have less time for personal pursuits in college if you are a double major, and I really see no reason to double major when your primary major is engineering. (When bonh3ad says the path is hard to follow, I’m pretty sure he meant that the path to being a professor in general is hard to follow. Going from a BS to a PhD is pretty standard, and many PhD programs offer you the ability to earn an MS along the way.)
I have to say that I am always skeptical of publications begotten in high school, especially when the person in question has more than one. The threshold of contributing to a publication is pretty big - or at least it should be - and a high schooler typically does not have enough knowledge in any field to contribute meaningfully to a publication, much less 3-4. At the very least I would advise you to be prepared to discuss those papers in some depth.
BS in Chemical Engineering (4 years) -> PhD in Chemical Engineering (4 - 5 years).
Some PhD programs don’t require you to have a master’s degree as a prerequisite.
For example, I know someone who got his bachelors from MIT and went to Cornell for his PhD.
For some schools, when you go into their doctoral program without a master’s degree, you have to do the full PhD credit load… a load that may be reduced if you have a master’s degree. Also, for some schools, you may be awarded a master’s degree over the course of pursuing your PhD if you don’t already have one.
For example, at Columbia University, when you have finished all the coursework and just have to do the dissertation stuff, you can get a M.Phil prior to getting your PhD.