<p>Can anyone offer information/insight/personal experience with regard to applying to master’s versus PhD programs after undergrad? Why one would make a particular choice, how it worked out? Any information is, as always, gratefully received.</p>
<p>(Mods, please don’t move this to the graduate school forum as it is not very active and I am particularly hoping to hear from the group of posters here with whom I have developed familiarity over the years. Thank you!)</p>
<p>Can you specify the field?</p>
<p>My D worked a couple of years after college for an economics consulting firm before making grad school plans. (Her undergrad was in econ.) She knew she would not be Ph.D. bound – did not see herself doing six years of intense research, etc. Her decision was between an MBA and a master’s in econ. Decided that the MBA crowd was not “her people” so applied to econ programs – one at an Ivy and one a big state school in a neighboring state. (Restricted her options due to a relationship.) Got accepted at both, but with full funding (no tuition) and a TA-ship (modest salary, mostly graded tests and had office hours for helping undergrads) for applied economics at the state school. I think her strong recs from her work experience were a major factor. They also tried to talk her into a Ph.D. but she just left it an open option. Turns out she was one of very few master’s only candidates to have been awarded funding, and many in the Ph.D. program did not have funding either. (The first year of her program the master’s and Ph.D. students took all the same classes.) The whole thing worked well for her – the program worked well for her goals and she had very supportive profs. She is now employed in her field in the Boston area and had several options. No regrets that I know of. </p>
<p>But again, IMO this choice is very field specific.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the field. My older child applied to PhD programs after working in a somewhat unrelated field for one year and received full funding and a moderate stipend at the ones that accepted him–standard procedure, I gather, in the liberal arts fields. He received his PhD several years ago and like most of his peers who completed the program is not teaching at the college level but does have a good job that he would not have if he were not a PhD. It is my impression that the few of his cohorts who are teaching in colleges are not in tenure track positions, which are scarce as hen’s teeth, to use an unscholarly term, and even scarcer if you want to be in a specific area of the country.</p>
<p>My younger chid worked for three years after college, then entered a two-year professional master’s program that gave some money but not full funding. She completed the program and was very fortunate to get a job in the field she wanted afterward.</p>
<p>In general (and I’m sure there are exceptions) PhD programs are fully funded and MA/MS programs are not funded. That has certainly been the experience of our older two. One often cited rule of thumb is that if you are going to a PhD program you should only go to one that funds you, otherwise it is not worth it (in your time and forgone earnings).</p>
<p>Also generally PhD programs are aimed at training new professors, and are thus aimed at the academic job market. Depending on the field, of course, there may be many or few job opportunities outside academia. For example a PhD in biochemistry may have many job opportunities outside of academica, while a PhD in medieval art history will have many fewer job opportunities outside of academia.</p>
<p>Graduate students in PhD programs may not intend to go into academia, but their professors will strongly encourage them to do so. Status among professors is determined, in part, by where their advisees go. Top points for an advisee going to a tenure track position at an R1 university. Lower points for an advisee going to a tenure track position at an LAC. Much lower points for an advisee going to a non-academic position.</p>
<p>In some fields of business a PhD is a big advantage, but in other fields can make the holder seem like an ivory tower academic, which can be a disadvantage. It is important if you are in a position of doing expert testimony: e.g. Congressional hearings, state licensing boards and commissions, legal cases, etc. A PhD is designed to train you to do original research, so non-academic positions where the job is a research one may well be able to take advantage of your research training.</p>
<p>Three stories, each in a different field.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>My husband. He entered a Ph.D. program in a department where there were no master’s candidates. It was Ph.D. or nothing. They handed him a master’s degree along the way, which might have come in handy if he had decided not to complete the Ph.D. (Lots of people don’t complete Ph.D.s – of the people who entered with him, only half finished.) But he did complete the Ph.D., so for him the master’s is irrelevant.</p></li>
<li><p>My son. He entered a Ph.D. program in a department where there were also master’s candidates. After a couple of years, he and his advisors realized that the Ph.D. program wasn’t working out well for him. He switched to the master’s program (and kept his financial support), but had to take a bunch of extra courses to complete the degree. The course requirements for an M.S and a Ph.D. were quite different. He did complete the M.S., and it helped him get a good job.</p></li>
<li><p>Me. I entered grad school as an M.S. candidate (in a field where there were TAships available for M.S. candidates). Some of my fellow students were direct Ph.D. admits, others were M.S./Ph.D, and others were M.S. When I finished the M.S., I was told that if I applied for the Ph.D. program, I would be accepted. But I had no intention of doing this. By the end of the M.S. program, I had decided that I hated research, and I couldn’t get out of grad school fast enough.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Three different fields. Three different experiences.</p>
<p>I’m currently making this choice in a field where if I want to stay in the US, a PhD is almost the only option in my field. When I am fresh out of college in June, I do not think I will be ready to go for a PhD and pretty much permanently commit to a field and a career. So I’ve decided on applying to Master’s programs outside the US and jobs. (Many international master’s programs are much cheaper than US ones.) Very few of the PhD students at my school went directly from undergrad to doctoral studies and few professors around me advise it. Most of the students worked in vaguely related fields or found research positions for a few years before moving towards a PhD. OTOH many of the international PhD students at my school in the US and many of the PhD students I work with in France (who are Egyptian, French, Chinese, Vietnamese, Czech, etc.) did go straight to Master’s programs.</p>
<p>May I say that you guys are the best!</p>
<p>The field is medieval studies (possibly medieval art history). The ultimate plan is art conservation but she wants to get either the master’s or PhD in content. As you can tell, this is the first member of our family to do such advanced study and I would like to have some idea of what she is talking about. Just to be clear, this is not advice for her, it’s information for me to understand the process and others’ experiences.</p>
<p>Oh, and the other thing is that she is looking at and being encouraged to programs in the UK.</p>
<p>We’re active in the grad school forum, it’s just that the chances threads are kinda pointless at that level. :)</p>
<p>I wound up applying for my PhD straight out of undergrad. I had spent a summer or two in industry and knew I was more interested in an R&D career than the traditional process engineer type. I also spent a significant amount of time in undergrad doing research with professors, and really enjoyed most of it.</p>
<p>Finding the right PhD program is actually pretty difficult. You can ask current professors you get along with well for suggestions on which programs you’d have a good shot at, but that doesn’t tell you how you’d fit in. I spent a lot of time reading professor’s websites, but they’re generally a pretty mediocre source of information as most don’t keep them updated (my own group, seven years after I joined, still has me as the newest student). Reading through journals within your field is a good way to see who’s publishing exciting stuff. The goal, I feel, is to only apply to schools where there’s at least 3+ professors working on something you want to do. You can get away with 2 profs at smaller schools with smaller programs (for example, my program only has ~6 professors in the department).</p>
<p>After applications, the schools you’re accepted to will fly you out for interviews. If this is before or after acceptances go out depends on your field and the school. This is where you really get to find out where you fit in and whose research is what you’re excited about. Try to talk to current grad students in the group. Learn about the funding situation for the group. Are they poor or do they have as much cash as they need? Do you need to show up 6 days a week for 12 hours a day, or are hours however you set them? How often is the faculty member around? How are projects determined? What is work/life balance like? What sort of stuff do the students there do for fun? What sort of freedom do you have in coursework selection? What’s the typical graduation time for students in this group? Have you had any students leave without getting their PhD (or leave the group for a different one)? How much do you have to TA? </p>
<p>Talk to a few different students in the lab to try and get a less biased opinion. All those questions don’t have a ‘right’ answer, as different students want different things from advisors.</p>
<p>Keep in mind a PhD in the STEM fields are typically fully funded, plus you’ll be given a stipend. It’s unusual if you need to take out any loans to cover living expenses, and if you’re accepted without funding, you’re not really accepted.</p>
<p>So for medieval art history with an interest in conservation and museum work I would advise her to talk to as many museum people as possible in an “informational” interview. What she wants to find out is when they look for new hires, what are they loooking for? A MA, a PhD, any particular schools, etc.</p>
<p>For this kind of field in particular I’d advise only going to a PhD program if it is fully funded, preferably with a stipend she can live on. I know someone who is doing a medieval history PhD, and she has been advised to count on 7 years for the full program, because her job prospects in the academic market depend on her writing a killer thesis - not just one good enough to get the PhD.</p>
<p>dadx3, she’s actually in good shape with what she knows, it’s just me who doesn’t know/understand. She has absolutely no interest in being an academic, she will go back and conserve/curate her particular specialty. She could do it in a specifically technical way (it’s a chemistry field and she has excellent chemistry grades through orgo), but she wants to know the context of the objects she will care for. I’m trying to understand why people do one or the other and what the different admission requirements would be. She is the TA this year for the Big Fish in the international aspect of her particular pond, a fish who hasn’t taken on a TA in many years, and she is having her research published and attributed in his latest book. I’m a high school graduate and I’m trying to understand what she’s doing, why she’s doing it and what can be expected going forward. The Big Fish has been incredibly helpful to her, but I’m not there with her it’s all mystifying to me.</p>
<p>I was in a graduate program at the U of C where everyone was accepted into the MA program, then had to be reaccepted into the PhD program. There was no funding for MA candidates at all. No assistantships. Certainly no idea of being flown in for an interview! This was a long time ago, though, so things might have changed.</p>
<p>I think that informational interviews with museum people is a great idea. And if I am not mistaken there are non-PhD conservation programs at some major museums…possibly the MFA in Boston, for example?</p>
<p>Cross-posted: sounds like she is doing VERY well! that’s great. :)</p>
<p>I applied solely to PhD programs after graduation because there just wasn’t typically funding for Masters students.</p>
<p>I chose where to apply based on recommendations from my professor/advisor, who was involved in the same basic areas of research that I was interested in. In hindsight, this man was not as up on the field as he thought he was and a lot of the recommendations he gave were poor ones. What I should have done was read the literature and see where the majority of it was coming from (didn’t even apply to UMass Amherst which is where several of my professors got their PhDs - fail). </p>
<p>However, one he did not personally recommend was the university in my backyard, but I looked into it just in case and found out that not only was my intended program there, but there was a researcher doing what I wanted to do who was respected in the field. </p>
<p>Visits are of absolute utmost importance. Without visits, I probably would’ve chosen a different school and it would’ve been a terrible, terrible mistake. The personality of your advisor/PI is incredibly important and the one I nearly went to work with badmouthed her current graduate student to me. Big red flag. </p>
<p>I ended up choosing the school I did because my advisor’s work was closer to my interests and he was very open to letting me do my own thing even if it wasn’t exactly what he did. We also had a good personality match and it was obvious from the other graduate students that he was very pleasant to work with. </p>
<p>I’m really concerned at this point though because many of the graduating cohort are really struggling to find jobs. Many are ABD (all but dissertation) and having trouble finding adjunct work, let alone tenure-track. Even getting the PhD is not enough in and of itself - unless it is accompanied by at least a couple first author publications you’re probably in trouble. I’m definitely struggling with the real possibility that I could do all of this work and not even be able to find a job in the end.</p>
<p>I got my Masters in Art History and went on to study conservation in Italy. I would recommend that she look into an interdiscinplinary program that blends both science and art history such as CISA3 at UC San Diego. Someone I knew from grad school,M. Saracini, has brought the UCSD program into the forefront of research and technology. [In</a> Search Of History: UC San Diego Merges Art And Science To Decode The Hidden History Of Works Of Art, Architecture And Archaeology](<a href=“http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/03-07CISA.asp]In”>http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/03-07CISA.asp)</p>
<p><a href=“http://cisa3.calit2.net/cisa3/[/url]”>http://cisa3.calit2.net/cisa3/</a></p>
<p>Art conservation is now highly technical and demands extensive experience in chemistry, engineering and physics. More so than art history. Just my .02.</p>
<p>Addendum: just an example as to what conservation institutes are looking for in Post Doctoral studies: </p>
<p>[Conservation</a> Guest Scholars, Postdoctoral Fellowships & Graduate Interns](<a href=“http://www.getty.edu/conservation/our_projects/education/scholars/index.html]Conservation”>Conservation Guest Scholars, Postdoctoral Fellows & Graduate Interns)</p>
<p>“The Postdoctoral Fellowship in Conservation Science is a two-year program designed to provide recent PhD recipients in chemistry and the physical sciences with experience in conservation science.”</p>
<p>“Applicants should have a recent (2008 or later) PhD in chemistry or another physical science, experimental research experience, strong instrumental analysis skills, an aptitude for learning and adapting new analytical techniques. Applicants should be creative and versatile problem solvers and be able to work effectively in small teams. Candidates should have an interest in the visual arts and a serious interest in pursuing a career in conservation science within the museum environment.”</p>
<p>It is often the case that a student will take a master’s before a PhD because they want to be sure that the PhD is their goal or to strengthen their overall PhD app or to get the research experience necessary to prove they are ready for a PhD.</p>
<p>Not every undergrad knows they want to go straight to PhD, so taking that master’s gives them a chance to explore further. Vocational masters, like an MBA, OT, PT, etc seem to not be funded. A master’s in English or Psych or something like that can be funded, depending on the school and the strength of the application.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, don’t feel bad. D’s boyfriend is in graduate school and it sounds like they are talking another language. I have no idea what goes on.</p>
<p>To the OP: it sounds as though your daughter has everything well in hand. The advice and support of the department, and of somebody well established in the department and the field–that is the bottom line. What other posters have said may he you fill in some gaps in your own understanding but I think beyond that your daughter sounds like the best person to keep your informed and in the loop. Based on the achievements you have described, she understands the process and there is not much else that matters. Sounds like a very specific area of interest, in which there are not a lot of parallels to other fields that people refer to.</p>
<p>S good luck to her, and don’t worry!</p>
<p>zoosermom,
My son was a Ph.D candidate and received his Master’s along the way. As far as I know, a big difference was that the M.A. candidates generally were not funded. They had to pay to get the Master’s. However, the Ph.D candidates are generally fully funded for a number of years. Their tuition is paid for and they receive a living stipend. As has been said upthread, if a Ph.D. program isn’t offering you full funding, don’t bother. It means they don’t really want you.</p>
<p>Your daughter sounds like she is really on top of this. Congrats!</p>
<p>MS degrees in engineering are usually funded, at least in my experience. I had more discretionary income as a grad student than I do now! Back then, the stipend wasn’t even taxed. It is now.</p>