<p>^^ I didn’t know there was a tenure metric based on how many PhD students have graduated under a prof. That’s one good reason why the PhD students might be more “valuable” to a prof or department, and hence why a PhD student might be more likely to get funding over a MS student.</p>
<p>But other than that reason, are there other reasons why a top-notch, competent applicant who only wants to earn a master’s wouldn’t be on equal footing with a top-notch, competent applicant who wants to earn a PhD?</p>
<p>I guess what I’m asking is why wouldn’t a fresh-from-undergrad master’s applicant and a fresh-from-undergrad PhD applicant be on equal footing for funding potential? Aren’t both students going to be doing research and starting from the same place anyway?</p>
<p>Is there something else the department gains by luring a PhD applicant over a Master’s applicant? Is it as basic as the amount of time that the student will be there – like preferring to hire an employee who agrees to stay for 4 years over one who agrees to stay for 2 years? So they can save themselves the trouble of “hiring” and “training” a new person 2 years later? Is that why PhD’s are more fundable?</p>
<p>I’m trying to learn more about it. I got my own master’s degree years ago. I was not funded. Strangely, it didn’t even occur to me to ask for funding back then, and I didn’t feel disappointed that I didn’t get it. Ignorance is bliss! 
</p>