next »

[o_rats]

I was talking with my undergraduate adviser recently.  He said that the field of microbiology is losing funding.  Has anyone else heard of something similar?  Do you agree?  I ask this because I eventually want to go into a PhD program in microbiology.  However, if the field is dying then I may have to rethink my plans...  Does anyone have any advice? 

[havesometea]

I don't think the field is dying, but I think it's harder for everyone to get funding. Not just in microbiology.

[chaosbydesign]

What area of microbiology are you interested in? As is (probably) the case in most fields, some areas are more easy to find funding in than others. I don't think it is a dying field in general, though.

Just as a side note, you might want to consider applying for Ph.D programs that will allow you to enter departments other than microbiology after you've completed your coursework and lab rotations. It's good to get a 'taste' of different research areas before you decide exactly which field you want to go into -- if you like microbiology, you might also like molecular genetics, for example.

[watermarkup]

O_rats, have you been accepted to a 4-year school yet? That's step #1 on the path to a Ph.D.

You're at a CC, right? What evidence do you have that your advisor is in touch with the current state of the field of microbiology?

I'm not saying that he's out of touch just because he's at a CC, but as I look around my teaching-focused institution, I see a lot of people who have no idea what's been going in their academic discipline for the last decade or more. Choose your advisors and weigh their advice carefully.

[kron3007]

My former boss, a now retired professor of plant pathology, told me that funding is cyclical.  So while it may be on the decline right now, it will eventually turn around.  Given that, I wouldn't be too concerned about the funding being on the downswing, especially given the current global economic situation.  Further, microbes aren't going anywhere, so I find it hard to believe it could ever be a dying field.

[o_rats]

Thanks to everyone who replied.  Yes, I transferred into a 4 year this semester.  I think my adviser is a biochemist; who teaches many of the microbiology courses. He also said that I should consider the accelerated master's program.  His reasoning being that top programs for the field are looking for people with a publication record, something that I might not have at the end of an undergrad.  Is he correct?  Also, the university I am at is not R1 or even R2, it is considered up and coming (take that as you may).  That being said, I went to this school for financial benefit of living at home which drastically reduces the cost. 

[kron3007]

The only "accelerated" MSc programs I know are course based rather than research based.  If this is what you are talking about you would be unlikely to get a publication from it.  If you can't get into a good PhD program after the undergrad degree, you should consider doing a research based MSc.  I did an MSc prior to my PhD and it worked out well for me.  I got a few publications during the MSc and was accepted into all three PhD programs that I applied to, two of which were in very good schools/programs.  Personally, I feel that doing an MSc before the PhD is better in a lot of ways than going into the PhD directly.

PS

My MSc advisor recommended this route, and stated that most people that roll directly into the PhD end up taking almost as long anyway.  This was true in my case, I finished both in under 6 years of grad school.

[bigghostdini_tha_don]

Microbiology isn't going anywhere, but funding across the board seems to be tight at the moment.

[sciencephd]

I don't get the rec to get a MS first. Strange outdated advice.

[kron3007]

I don't get the rec to get a MS first. Strange outdated advice.

Worked for me.  

Why do you think it is outdated?  Seems odd to me that people presume that there is no benefit to doing a separate MSc.  It was a great benefit to me. 

[sciencephd]

.  It was a great benefit to me. 

What is the benefit ?

[kron3007]

.  It was a great benefit to me. 

What is the benefit ?

Most people coming out of their undergraduate degree dont really have much independent research experience.  Perhaps they have conducted a senior thesis and/or worked in a lab, but most have not gone through the entire procedure from conceiving, conducting, analyzing, writing up, and publishing a research project.  The Masters is a good opportunity to gain these experiences before starting the PhD.  By going through this process, you can learn to avoid many of the common pitfalls in research and are better equipped to conduct PhD level research.  I feel that this experience gives students a better foundation to design and conduct PhD level research, ultimately resulting in higher quality experiments and shorter PhD programs.  The MSc can also serve as a platform to publish articles and make students more competitive, can help students establish a network, and gives more time to determine their research interests.

I'm not saying that doing the degrees separately is the best route for everyone, but I dont think it should be automatically ruled out either.  As I said, I completed both in just over 5 years of grad school, so while it seems counter-intuitive, skipping the MSc dosn't necessarily save much, if any, time.  I also feel that I was able to publish more papers going this route than if I were to go straight to the PhD.  What I liked most about doing them separate is that I was able to start fresh in the PhD and some of the early "learning experiences" didnt follow me through the entire degree. 

     


   

[sciencephd]

I recommend that students find a job in a research lab after the BS. Students would usually be better served by this than an MS.

[kron3007]

I recommend that students find a job in a research lab after the BS. Students would usually be better served by this than an MS.

Most positions in a research lab at that level do not develop the same skills as a MSc.  Lab techs (the most likely job for a BSc grad) are generally not overly involved in conceptualizing and designing research projects nor do they often write up the results for publication, especially as first author.  These are the skills that are needed to do a PhD, and this is the reason that I see value in the MSc.

[polly_mer]

A value in doing either an MS or some research experience is simply having varied research experience.  At some point, someone will want a job.  Having done three or four different projects (all with at least a poster, if not papers) in different labs will be an asset.

I am currently watching two new faculty at my school struggle because they zoomed straight through and only ever had one project.  They are now at a loss on how to ramp up new projects because they don't have that experience as undergrads, master's students, doctoral students, and postdocs.  They are bright people, but that lack of experience is showing.