next »

[acrimone]

Is there any sort of formal difference between PhD programs that take you on as a doctoral candidate (i.e., with Master's in hand) and those that will take you straight out of undergrad?

Is there any informal difference that is universal enough to merit mention? 

I was struck by someone's recent post on having finished their M.A. and not feeling "prepared" for a PhD program... but lots and lots of fairly prestigious programs will take you straight out of undergrad for a 5-7 year program... I just feel like there's something out there that I'm missing about the distinction between programs.

[helpful]

The only difference is that the straight to Phd programs require you to do a qualifying year. You don't get a Masters out of it, but you get into the Ph.D program without having to do a thesis. This is good for people who know they want to do a doctorate and see the Masters as a bit of make work. I know this is the case for one social science program and one science program I know of at a prestigious university.

[acrimone]

Thank you.  That was quite helpful.

[helpful]

I know one student who went from an honors undergrad into a doctoral program. Hu immediately got a research assistantship during their qualifying year (which involved a lot of classes to get hu up to speed on research methdologies) and is involved in research projects not normally accessible to masters students.

[iomhaigh]

I imagine there is a good deal of variety based on field, but...

Some straight-to-Ph.D. programs will give you a "pity MA" when they boot you from the doctoral program after 8 years without producivity or progress. 

Some Ph.D. programs (like mine) make all of their MA students apply for the PhD so that they can weed out the "looked good on paper but holy hell please go away" students before they agree to let you stick around for the long haul, before you become deadwood sucking up an assistantship line, before they let you teach the undergrads, etc. 

The biggest differences can sometimes be with funding:  Some places simply do not fund MA students even though they do fund their PhD students.  Sometimes, even if you are in an MA program at a school which has a PhD and to which you are admitted (one joint MA/PhD admission process), your funding doesn't kick in until you get to the PhD level.  At others, if you are admitted to the straight-to program without an MA, you get the same number of years of funding as someone admitted with an MA. 

[betty_p]

My grad institution accepted most folks with a BA, and granted the MA on the way to the Ph.D. as long as you had completed your course work and passed your qualifying exam. The grad program director actively encouraged you to fill out your MA graduation paperwork before you moved on to the diss prospectus. He needed to show numbers of degrees granted, and he knew how many folks drifted away in the ABD stage.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

In my field it is not usual for a student to get a MA or MS in one department with the goal of then getting a PhD elsewhere.  Most students who apply to a program as a masters candidate do not plan on a PhD, and most students interested in a PhD apply as a PhD student though get a masters degree along the way for free after passing prelims (usually after year 2 or 3).  None of the departnments I've been in have anything resembling a "qualifying year".

A fair number of our foreign students do come in with a masters degree or equivalent.  - DvF

[onion]

My program (in history) accepted both students with terminal MAs (very few) and those going "straight through."  Those who had terminal MAs from elsewhere had to do one year, and then were sent on to prepare for qualifying exams.  Those who came in with a BA did two years of coursework, and one of their seminar papers was turned in to a committee as their MA thesis.  They were then evaluated, given a masters degree or booted from the program.  Those who survived moved on to the quals stage.  Many were booted after quals--passing quals gave you the MPhil, but at this point you had to "apply" again to the PhD program.  The successful dissertation proposal defense is what "officially" marked you as a PhD student.  It was year 3 or 4 before most knew if they were in the PhD program for certain.

[dr_crankypants]

One important distinction between such programs is often not simply the question of whether a program will accept you with or without a MA, but whether the program offers a terminal MA as a regular degree.  Many PhD-granting departments in history don't offer a terminal MA; the MA is the degree that someone gets when they drop out of the PhD program, not something that is originally intended.  Such departments accept either BA or MA students, sometimes with only minimal differences in required coursework.  My sense is that departments that offer the MA and PhD as a separate track often seem to require that a student finish the MA--either there or elsewhere--before moving into the official PhD program. 

[acrimone]

This is all quite helpful... one more question: is there any trend that "all in one" straight-from-undergrad programs are generally the more prestigious?  Does the answer vary by field?

[englitprof]

Some programs in literature will not credit an MA done elsewhere.  I know this is (or was) the case for Columbia University.  In my field, my impression is that  the programs that don't have a separate terminal MA program (that is, only those who don't get booted from the PhD program are granted an MA) are indeed more prestigious, generally speaking.  But this is based on a very unscientific sample.

[dr_crankypants]

In my limited, anecdotal experience, the straight-through programs tend to be more prestigious, but there are too many prominent exceptions to generalize safely.

But it does seem to me that the presence of a large cohort of master's-only students does affect the intellectual character of a department.  It can be good, in the sense that it provides the numbers to guarantee enrollment for specialized courses that couldn't be offered in a smaller, PhD-only program.  And that's a decidedly good thing, in my view.  But it does affect the tone of the classes (the quality of the students is part of the issue, but more importantly, MA students and PhD students have different long-term aims--perhaps teacher's certification rather than dissertation writing).  What they want--and need--to get out of their training is not necessarily the same thing.

[vardahilwen]

I was in the middle of my M.A. when I applied to Ph.D. programs, and was accepted based on my first year of the M.A. program.  When I was unable to finish the M.A. because of medical issues, the Ph.D. program didn't care.  Some of my cohort have master's degrees, and some don't.  Our faculty doesn't differentiate between us.

Bottom line - I don't really see that it matters.  It just depends on the individual.

Vardahilwen

[drsyn]

I went straight through from BS to PhD.  In my department, having a master's didn't shorten the time to PhD, it did make you a little more prepared to deal with grad school.  At the end of your second year, you were 'down-graded' to the master's if they decided you weren't PhD material.  Pity the person who already had a master's.

In my field, if you want a master's and are applying to a department that grants a PhD, don't tell them you are going to stop at the master's.  They won't want to bother with you.  Get accepted into the program and then in your second year, go for the master's degee.

So what do you mean by a pure PhD versus a straight to the PhD?  To me, the straight to the PhD is 'purer' than detouring to get a master's.

Master's are more employable in industry than a PhD.  You can pay an MS less than the PhD for the same work.  (Isn't that an arrogant thing to say - another way is that PhDs are too deeply immersed in a very focused subject)

So, I advise my students who are weaker, who might have trouble adjusting to a 'big school', or who aren't positive that grad school is for them to get a master's degree at a master's granting university.  If they really love grad school, they can transfer into a PhD program or apply after getting their master's.  Good, well prepared students should go straight into a PhD program.

[iomhaigh]

This is all quite helpful... one more question: is there any trend that "all in one" straight-from-undergrad programs are generally the more prestigious?  Does the answer vary by field?

I imagine it is going to vary by field.  We have some programs that only offer MAs, and some of those programs are seen as high quality feeder programs for the PhD programs.  We also have a lot of people who do MFAs before going for the PhD.  So, the MA/MFA at one school and then PhD at another is a common route.  

If I am remembering correctly (and I did just doublecheck a few places), most of the top schools, though, do not admit straight into the PhD program.  There are places where you can apply for the straight-to-PhD program and then get offered a slot as an MA student if they don't think you're ready for the PhD yet.  

Then there's Yale, which has to be different and grant a degree that no one else does: the DFA.