next »

[acrimone]

I have, in my time, considered applying to graduate programs and find this information all very helpful in understanding something that I found very, very confusing.  Like many students growing up well outside academia, I always viewed it as a straight hierarchy -- you got your high school diploma, your college diploma, your Master's, then a Doctorate.  I was confounded first by law school -- which had no Master's program so to speak but has TWO "doctor" degrees (SJD and JD), and then later by the plethora of programs that were master's only, and then the pure PhD programs (people I knew who had a Master's and went to get their doctorate somewhere else), and then the "straight-to-PhD" programs that never seemed to bother with the Master's.

As I said... it was all quite perplexing.

Thank you, to everyone, for your answers.

[iomhaigh]

acrimone, with your JD (correct?) you should be able to side-step the MA at some schools, depending on what PhD program you're looking at. 

Each school does things a little differently, and each school is going to have a different threshold for making accomodations for people who did not go the "traditional" route (whatever that is for each school.) 

If you do decide to go back to school, then I'd suggest figuring out what programs & schools interest you first, and then asking them how many credits you can transfer from your JD, whether you need an MA, etc. 

[acrimone]

Each school does things a little differently, and each school is going to have a different threshold for making accomodations for people who did not go the "traditional" route (whatever that is for each school.) 

That is definitely the sense I've gotten.

[locutus]

and then the "straight-to-PhD" programs that never seemed to bother with the Master's.

In my experience it's kind of a strange hybrid heirarchy. In my field, for people interested in research, the masters is seen as a 'useless' degree. It's generally PhD or bust. So the prestigious programs are all stright-to-Phd. However, in the more applied side of my field the masters seems more common as those people often get jobs outside of academia.

[dr_crankypants]

I imagine it is going to vary by field.  ....  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.

On further reflection, I think field probably does have a huge deal to do with this--not to mention the age of a program.  In history, as I mentioned earlier, the tendency seems to go the other way: prestigious programs are more likely to be a PhD-only department (with prominent exceptions).  And part of that difference may be the relative value of the MA, which depends a great deal on the field.  In short, does a MA program have any snob appeal for a prestigious institution?  It doesn't in history, but I could easily imagine that it would in the arts, where a MFA can get you quite far. 

One more reflection on the prestige factor of MA/PhD v. PhD-only programs.  MA students often have to pay their own way, which can dampen the prestige of a program.  (After all, if the university doesn't have to pay a fellowship, it will admit more students, including some marginal ones.) 

[scheherazade]

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?

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. 

I assume you mean for theater - for history, most of the top programs only offer PhD - no MA route.

*EDIT - crossposted with Dr. C, sorry!

[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?

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. 

I assume you mean for theater - for history, most of the top programs only offer PhD - no MA route.

*EDIT - crossposted with Dr. C, sorry!

Yup -- and Dr. C. I think has offered a really good explanation of why this might happen in our world.  Our MA programs have people en route to PhDs, en route to high school teaching jobs, and en route to industry jobs (largely front of house, education & research jobs), etc., and the MFA is a terminal degree for other industry jobs (not that a degree is required, but that's a whole other discussion).  The Theatre MA is not necessarily a research degree.   

Plus, a lot of colleges & unis these days are asking for PhDs who can also teach extensively in one of the MFA disciplines, hence students sometimes go the dual terminal degree (MFA/PhD) route in order to give themselves a leg up in the market and the skill set needed to get a non-office industry job in production (MFA) in case the academic search doesn't work. 

[ahhh_history]

I have, in my time, considered applying to graduate programs and find this information all very helpful in understanding something that I found very, very confusing.  Like many students growing up well outside academia, I always viewed it as a straight hierarchy -- you got your high school diploma, your college diploma, your Master's, then a Doctorate.

I had the same background, and didn't find out one could go straight from a BA to the PhD program until near the end of my MA.  Given my grades and situation, I could have gotten through much faster and with less student-loan debt if I had known all of my options.  (Thank you mono-syllabic-response-only undergrad academic advisor.) 

[polly_mer]

One reason to do a MS and then a Ph. D., even from the same program, is the opportunity to work on two very different projects with publications from both.  I am unfamiliar with the notion that a master's degree doesn't require publishable research and is a consolation prize for passing some classes and a few tests.  People leave with an MS because that's all they need for a good industrial job.  People who aren't good enough simply leave with no degree.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I am unfamiliar with the notion that a master's degree doesn't require publishable research and is a consolation prize for passing some classes and a few tests.

Clearly field-specific.  I certainly had not conducted publishable research in my field before being awarded my masters (I had papers in two other fields, but not related to that program).  I think "some classes and a few tests" is pretty dismissive, in that (in my field anyway) this amounts to a serious evaluation of  the entire pre-research phase of a student's mastery of a broad range of subdisciplines.  At my alma mater I believe the fraction of students who entered the PhD program and made it through the complete suite of written and oral qualifying exams was well under 50%. (Where I am now it is too variable to estimate a percentage.) - DvF

[post_doc4now]

In my program (social science), students were accepted into the PhD program but got a MA degree along the way.  They did a MA project which was defended and at the same time their committee decided whether they could be advanced to candidacy which would be they officially become a PhD candidate.  Occasionally, students would be granted the MA but not advanced which means they could not go on to the PhD.

I actually came in with a terminal MA from another school which meant I advanced through the ranks quicker and advanced to candidacy in my 2nd year (most advanced in their 3rd year).

[captain_obvious]

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.

This pretty much describes my program, minus the weeding-out factor.  The only students who entered my program with an MA in hand were either international students (generally from British-style educational systems) or students who felt their undergrad record wouldn't be strong enough to get them into a top PhD program.  One big difference between students in the PhD program and those enrolled in the terminal MA is funding: MA students don't get any.

[rcmoss]

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.

I got my PhD without getting an MS.  In science I think this is pretty common.  At my PhD program at a big state university, I would say that less than half of the PhD candidates came in with their MS.

I would also echo what you say about MS applicants.  My wife tried to apply to the program as an MS student and they told her not to bother unless she wanted a PhD...