Research Masters

ford_fiesta

Hi all

I will get to the point, two questions:

1 > I want to get into lecturing will a research masters help my case or is a taught masters the way to go?

2 > Is a research masters similar to a huge thesis?

any help would be appreciated!

cheers

Lockstep

Depends in what area but my dad (who is a lecturer) claims that for the humanities, research masters are certainly worth looking into as so many people have taught masters these days. You'll need to do a PHD if you really want to get into lecturing and a research masters (M.Litt) can be a good way to get this.
Basically, you do the first year of your M.Litt and if it's up to scratch, you can then move from the M.Litt course onto the PHD course. This means that the M.Litt is replaced by a PHD course with all this entails.

You could always do a taught masters and then go onto a PHD but you could always skip the taught masters and just go onto the PHD route.

Word count for an MA thesis is 15-20k words (over the summer), 50-60k for an M.Litt (done over 2 years) and around 100k+ for a PHD thesis (3-4 years)

ford_fiesta

Cheers for the info!

Im considering doing either a taught masters in business or a research masters in an topic in IT

need to figure out which would help me get my dream job the quickest!

any info would be greatly appreciated!

brianthebard

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Depends in what area but my dad (who is a lecturer) claims that for the humanities, research masters are certainly worth looking into as so many people have taught masters these days. You'll need to do a PHD if you really want to get into lecturing and a research masters (M.Litt) can be a good way to get this.
Basically, you do the first year of your M.Litt and if it's up to scratch, you can then move from the M.Litt course onto the PHD course. This means that the M.Litt is replaced by a PHD course with all this entails.

This is definitely how a lot of people do the M.Litt, but that suggests it is not a worthwhile qualification, certainly not if someone wants to get into lecturing. Someone described an M.Litt to me (without a follow up phd) as second place in junior infants. It can definitely be used as a means to an end but there are few disciplines where it would be enough to qualify as a lecturer imo.

Odysseus

Some courses offer a MA by Research too rather than an M.Litt. Mine was not all thesis work, as it was relevant to my topic I was able to attend a clinical case conference in St Vincent's Hosp. That aspect was part of a taught Masters in the same college. If it wasn't for that my MA would have consisted of working on the thesis and meetings with my supervisor.

I believe it is common for research students to attend some aspects of taught courses if they can prove it is relevant. In total my thesis was 56,000 words.

Ostrom

brianthebard wrote: »

This is definitely how a lot of people do the M.Litt, but that suggests it is not a worthwhile qualification, certainly not if someone wants to get into lecturing. Someone described an M.Litt to me (without a follow up phd) as second place in junior infants. It can definitely be used as a means to an end but there are few disciplines where it would be enough to qualify as a lecturer imo.

I would broadly agree, especially in the humanities and social sciences where the increase of graduates over the last ten years (and lack of comparable public sector opportunities) has made things very competitive.

Lockstep

brianthebard wrote: »

This is definitely how a lot of people do the M.Litt, but that suggests it is not a worthwhile qualification, certainly not if someone wants to get into lecturing. Someone described an M.Litt to me (without a follow up phd) as second place in junior infants. It can definitely be used as a means to an end but there are few disciplines where it would be enough to qualify as a lecturer imo.

Nah, it certainly is a worthwhile one; halfway between a taught MA and a PHD. To quote one of my lecturers, an MA these days is more like a 4th year of the BA.
An M.Litt (without transferring) involves 2 years of research work which certainly isn't something to be sniffed at.

However, given that the OP is hoping to go into lecturing, then an M.Litt would be better suited as an entry route into the PHD (given that they usually require a 1st Class Honours BA or a masters)

brianthebard

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Nah, it certainly is a worthwhile one; halfway between a taught MA and a PHD. To quote one of my lecturers, an MA these days is more like a 4th year of the BA.
An M.Litt (without transferring) involves 2 years of research work which certainly isn't something to be sniffed at.

However, given that the OP is hoping to go into lecturing, then an M.Litt would be better suited as an entry route into the PHD (given that they usually require a 1st Class Honours BA or a masters)

It might be a fourth year of a BA, but once you have a PhD very few people will continue to look at your other qualifications and unless you have a 1.1 or something equally interesting they won't be of much significance in a job application.

Choosing an M.Litt as a way into a PhD is all well and good, but why not apply directly to the PhD programme? Also if you don't get funding or transferred in the second year you will have to complete the M.Litt, then take up the PhD afterwards if possible.
There will be a much larger overlap between the M.Litt and the PhD than there will be between an MA and PhD, which leads to a person either doing the same work twice or having to change topics anyways.

Plus since an M.Litt is purely research, there is far less guidance, teaching or supervision than there would be in a structured PhD programme or a taught MA. In this instance I would view the 'fourth year of a BA' aspect as a very good thing, introducing a higher level of study and conversation, as well as a dissertation at the end.

If a person's goal is a PhD then they should find the quickest and most straight-forward route to it, rather than taking a chance on an M.Litt which may or may not work. Imo an M.Litt is borderline redundant in this day and age, certainly for anyone who wishes to have a career in academia.

Lockstep

brianthebard wrote: »

It might be a fourth year of a BA, but once you have a PhD very few people will continue to look at your other qualifications and unless you have a 1.1 or something equally interesting they won't be of much significance in a job application.

The OP was requesting info on getting into lecturing and the merits of a research masters.
In this case,a research masters would be of benefit as it would allow them to progress onto/complete a PHD quicker than doing a taught MA.

brianthebard wrote: »

Choosing an M.Litt as a way into a PhD is all well and good, but why not apply directly to the PhD programme? Also if you don't get funding or transferred in the second year you will have to complete the M.Litt, then take up the PhD afterwards if possible.

Mainly as it's hard to get directly onto a PHD program. It usually requires a 1;1 to go directly from a BA onto a PHD. If you don't get the funding (keep in mind there's no guarantees you'll get funding on a PHD either) then you can still complete the M.Litt and will have a higher level masters than having completed an MA. Even if you decide not to go onto a PHD then, you will still have an excellent masters.
There will be a much larger overlap between the M.Litt and the PhD than there will be between an MA and PhD, which leads to a person either doing the same work twice or having to change topics anyways.

brianthebard wrote: »

Plus since an M.Litt is purely research, there is far less guidance, teaching or supervision than there would be in a structured PhD programme or a taught MA. In this instance I would view the 'fourth year of a BA' aspect as a very good thing, introducing a higher level of study and conversation, as well as a dissertation at the end.

Not really, working on the M.Litt shows an ability to do independent research (which is by far the most important thing when seeking work in academia). The guidance and supervision should already be at a reasonable standard upon completion of the BA, so the module aspects of an MA are not that important whereas the dissertation aspect is outclassed by someone who has completed an M.Litt, having shown they can research and write a dissertation that is triple in length to that of an MA dissertation.

brianthebard wrote: »

If a person's goal is a PhD then they should find the quickest and most straight-forward route to it, rather than taking a chance on an M.Litt which may or may not work. Imo an M.Litt is borderline redundant in this day and age, certainly for anyone who wishes to have a career in academia.

The quickest and most straight-forward route onto a PHD is through an M.Litt (which is what I was recommended to do in the event that I don't get a 1;1)

Let's put it this way;
John gets a BA (2.1) and decides he wants to do a PHD. He can either do an MA (MA modules are frequently part of the BA course, as you did yourself when completing your MA) or the M.Litt. Now, assuming John completes the MA, he has completed a small dissertation and a few modules, which could be at BA level. He can then go onto the PHD but will have to start from the very beginning. Nothing wrong with this but the MA won't help his lecturing career prospects much and he'll be waiting an extra year before getting the PHD.
Or John can apply for the M.Litt. If John's work is good enough at the end of his 1st year, he'll be transferred onto the PHD program. If it isn't, then John should really reconsider doing a PHD on his chosen topic. If he's successful, he's shaved a year off his PHD. If he isn't, then he still gets a good masters and was probably unsuitable for the PHD program anyway.

brianthebard

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The OP was requesting info on getting into lecturing and the merits of a research masters.
In this case,a research masters would be of benefit as it would allow them to progress onto/complete a PHD quicker than doing a taught MA.

Mainly as it's hard to get directly onto a PHD program. It usually requires a 1;1 to go directly from a BA onto a PHD. If you don't get the funding (keep in mind there's no guarantees you'll get funding on a PHD either) then you can still complete the M.Litt and will have a higher level masters than having completed an MA. Even if you decide not to go onto a PHD then, you will still have an excellent masters.

More and more programmes are structured Phds and don't always require a 1.1 or a Masters. To say the M.Litt is an excellent or better masters is wrong sighted however since the goal in both cases here is to get a phd, and neither masters will facilitate one getting a job unless there are extreme circumstances.

Not really, working on the M.Litt shows an ability to do independent research (which is by far the most important thing when seeking work in academia). The guidance and supervision should already be at a reasonable standard upon completion of the BA, so the module aspects of an MA are not that important whereas the dissertation aspect is outclassed by someone who has completed an M.Litt, having shown they can research and write a dissertation that is triple in length to that of an MA dissertation.

Its optimistic to say the guidance and supervision of a BA match that of an MA or are at a high enough standard that they are not necessary. The truth is even as a 4th year of a BA an MA is a huge step up in both the level of work required, and the level of guidance, teaching and supervision. If a person goes straight from a BA to an M.Litt, then they are halting their education at that level and moving across into research, wheras an MA can introduce a number of new modules to a student, as well as new teachers, new ways of thinking, an added year of reading across the board rather than solely for your research project, etc, which many will miss if they go straight into research from BA level. Also an M.Litt dissertation is not necessarily triple the length, its probably closer to double, and of course quantity does not equal quality.

The quickest and most straight-forward route onto a PHD is through an M.Litt (which is what I was recommended to do in the event that I don't get a 1;1)

Let's put it this way;
John gets a BA (2.1) and decides he wants to do a PHD. He can either do an MA (MA modules are frequently part of the BA course, as you did yourself when completing your MA) or the M.Litt. Now, assuming John completes the MA, he has completed a small dissertation and a few modules, which could be at BA level. He can then go onto the PHD but will have to start from the very beginning. Nothing wrong with this but the MA won't help his lecturing career prospects much and he'll be waiting an extra year before getting the PHD.
Or John can apply for the M.Litt. If John's work is good enough at the end of his 1st year, he'll be transferred onto the PHD program. If it isn't, then John should really reconsider doing a PHD on his chosen topic. If he's successful, he's shaved a year off his PHD. If he isn't, then he still gets a good masters and was probably unsuitable for the PHD program anyway.

Its true that some MA modules and even structured PhD modules are of BA level. Does that make their teaching redundant? No, it just introduces new topics to the student. What the BA student does not get is the MA classes with that modules lecturer, in a much smaller group and with much deeper discussion and teaching. This of course ignores the MA modules which are exclusive to those programmes and are of a higher level than a BA. Even when taking a BA module the work and reading required for it are of a higher standard than an MA. This is the case for structured PhD's too. The point you are missing though is that in an M.Litt a student will not be introduced to any of this, and will not be given a real chance to develop their reading or their writing, since they will just have one big project to do which may or may not turn out ok.

The latter part of that message is just wishful thinking tbh, there's just too many variables. Will John be transferred into a structured programme and have to catch up on modules? Will he be doing the same topic for his PhD as their M.Litt (although it is implied he would, there is plenty of scope for where this could change). Will John need an extra year anyways and end up taking the same amount of time? Will John actually be able to do the PhD or will he request or be requested to hand it in as an M.Litt? Most importantly, will John get a job quicker than the person who took the MA? No, and he won't be awarded an M.Litt as well as a PhD because he did not complete that programme, once again showing how the M.Litt is redundant.

Lockstep

brianthebard wrote: »

More and more programmes are structured Phds and don't always require a 1.1 or a Masters. To say the M.Litt is an excellent or better masters is wrong sighted however since the goal in both cases here is to get a phd, and neither masters will facilitate one getting a job unless there are extreme circumstances.

Most do (in the humanities anyway). Maybe this will change in the future but PHD programmes are constrained by your ability to find a supervisor who is an expert in the field you want to write 100k+ words on/ one you actually get on with.

If you really feel that in academic terms, the M.Litt is not better than an MA, then I can't help you (given that I'm going by the words of practicing academics on the subject of my own future academic plans, including my own father). Especially as the OP's goal is to get into lecturing whereby the M.Litt would allow them to get the necessary minimum qualifications in one year less.

brianthebard wrote: »

Its optimistic to say the guidance and supervision of a BA match that of an MA or are at a high enough standard that they are not necessary. The truth is even as a 4th year of a BA an MA is a huge step up in both the level of work required, and the level of guidance, teaching and supervision.

And the M.Litt is a higher level of research and supervision still.
Given that we both attend NUIG, we both know full well that MA students are frequently doing classes with undergrad students (in the humanities anyway) and ECTS wise, their module and examination work accounts for the same credits as an undergrad student. They make the ECTS up via a thesis, which is over double the length of a final year undergrad dissertation (7k vs 15-20k. A level up of course but the M.Litt is a step up further still.

brianthebard wrote: »

If a person goes straight from a BA to an M.Litt, then they are halting their education at that level and moving across into research, wheras an MA can introduce a number of new modules to a student, as well as new teachers, new ways of thinking

They are in no way 'halting' their education. They're moving from a system focusing on classes, lectures and exams (the BA) into an emphasis on research (which is much, much more important for academia) The MAs weighting of both examinations and research make it a sort of halfway house. (The way the M.Litt was explained to me was that it's academically viewed as level 9.5 on the NFQ)
The MA might suit some people very well (putting them in a semi-familiar situation before they proceed to the PHD level) sure but in objective terms, the M.Litt would allow someone who knows they want to enter academia to get cracking on a PHD thesis quicker.

brianthebard wrote: »

an added year of reading across the board rather than solely for your research project, etc

You don't need to be in university to read across the board. Especially in the humanities.
Universities don't want generalists, they want experts in particular fields. By the end of the BA, an aspiring academic should know what area they want to specialize in. If they don't, there's no harm in the MA but if they do, then the M.Litt allows them to get started on their chosen area as soon as possible.

brianthebard wrote: »

which many will miss if they go straight into research from BA level. Also an M.Litt dissertation is not necessarily triple the length, its probably closer to double,

Going by the Postgrad Prospectuses that litter my house;
Standard length of a taught humanities MA thesis; 15-20k words.
Standard length of a research humanities MA thesis; 35-40k words.
Standard length of a humanities M.Litt thesis; 60k words.

brianthebard wrote: »

and of course quantity does not equal quality.

If this was the case, an excellent MA over a mediocre PHD would be enough to work in academia. Quantity might not equal quality but it is absurd to dismiss the value of the word-count required for an M.Litt or PHD.
Research work takes great lengths to write. It's relatively simple to write a thesis of a few thousand words, much much harder to write one multiple tens of thousands as you're forced to look further and further afield for new information and sources.

brianthebard wrote: »

Its true that some MA modules and even structured PhD modules are of BA level. Does that make their teaching redundant? No, it just introduces new topics to the student. What the BA student does not get is the MA classes with that modules lecturer, in a much smaller group and with much deeper discussion and teaching. This of course ignores the MA modules which are exclusive to those programmes and are of a higher level than a BA. Even when taking a BA module the work and reading required for it are of a higher standard than an MA. This is the case for structured PhD's too. The point you are missing though is that in an M.Litt a student will not be introduced to any of this, and will not be given a real chance to develop their reading or their writing, since they will just have one big project to do which may or may not turn out ok.

The above operates under the assumption that M.Litt students are simply given a library card and told to get cracking on a thesis. Which just isn't the case. M.Litt students have to undertake research methods like historiography seminars and are also able to undertake some taught modules on their area. I know this as I had the exact same pre-conceptions about M.Litts as you currently do and so I sought clarification on them before deciding on what I wanted to do. In effect, most of the above paragraph is unfounded and baseless.

brianthebard wrote: »

The latter part of that message is just wishful thinking tbh, there's just too many variables. Will John be transferred into a structured programme and have to catch up on modules?

Possibly. In the humanities, the majority of students study in an area they have familiarity with (I probably wouldn't be accepted onto a course on Japanese history for example). Not set in stone but is a general guideline, unless the student can show knowledge in the subject.

brianthebard wrote: »

Will he be doing the same topic for his PhD as their M.Litt (although it is implied he would, there is plenty of scope for where this could change).

Transferring straight from the M.Litt to the PHD would involve him doing his PHD on the same subject as the M.Litt.

brianthebard wrote: »

Will John need an extra year anyways and end up taking the same amount of time? Will John actually be able to do the PhD or will he request or be requested to hand it in as an M.Litt?

Extremely pedantic; you know full well I am talking about typical students and lengths here.
Otherwise we could just as easily claim that the MA could take John ages to complete or he could complete his M.Litt in one year.
Keep in mind I pointed out that if John's work is insufficient to be accepted to PHD level, then he's probably not cut out for a PHD anyway. If he decides not to keep it on, then that's cool. He still ends up with a masters out of it anyway and one that is higher up than an MA.

brianthebard wrote: »

Most importantly, will John get a job quicker than the person who took the MA? No, and he won't be awarded an M.Litt as well as a PhD because he did not complete that programme

Ah but assuming there are Johns who are identical (apart from one did his MA and then went onto a PHD and the other went through the M.Litt through the PHD) means that John BA PHD would have an additional year to publish and look for jobs than John BA, MA, PHD (who's MA would be fairly redundant when seeking academic work as he already has the PHD)

Also, when compared side by side, an M.Litt is more distinguished than an MA. Of little importance when both Johns have a PHD but John BA M.Litt would find it easier going when seeking TA positions than John BA MA.

brianthebard wrote: »

once again showing how the M.Litt is redundant.

The M.Litt is in absolutely no way redundant, otherwise it wouldn't be offered as a standalone degree at all.
I know you've done an MA yourself and so are presumably eager to view your own pathway as the best way to go about things but to be honest, I'd be more inclined to go by the advice of working academics.

Ostrom

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The quickest and most straight-forward route onto a PHD is through an M.Litt (which is what I was recommended to do in the event that I don't get a 1;1)

Let's put it this way;
John gets a BA (2.1) and decides he wants to do a PHD. He can either do an MA (MA modules are frequently part of the BA course, as you did yourself when completing your MA) or the M.Litt. Now, assuming John completes the MA, he has completed a small dissertation and a few modules, which could be at BA level. He can then go onto the PHD but will have to start from the very beginning. Nothing wrong with this but the MA won't help his lecturing career prospects much and he'll be waiting an extra year before getting the PHD.
Or John can apply for the M.Litt. If John's work is good enough at the end of his 1st year, he'll be transferred onto the PHD program. If it isn't, then John should really reconsider doing a PHD on his chosen topic. If he's successful, he's shaved a year off his PHD. If he isn't, then he still gets a good masters and was probably unsuitable for the PHD program anyway.

That model is dying a rapid death, all university social science faculties are now partners to GREP (graduate research education programme), and every new entrant is automatically registered on a structured doctoral programme with a heavy taught component.

Theses are getting shorter, and the education broader. The focus is very quickly moving from the 'big-book' model - looking at my own department, I was the last of, and now one of few remaining, who came in under the old apprenticeship route. The integrated masters/doctoral is a combination in name only, very few register initially with any intention of completing an M.Litt, and the number of graduates is fewer still.

Intersting note on the wordcount - many are now reprimanded for exceeding word limits (a few internals have refused to examine PhD theses exceeding 100,000). 80,000 for a PhD will be the norm in a few years - as soon as the first cohort of integrated students begin writing up. Overall I think it is positive - it focuses your thinking and forces you to eliminate the fluff

brianthebard

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Most do (in the humanities anyway). Maybe this will change in the future but PHD programmes are constrained by your ability to find a supervisor who is an expert in the field you want to write 100k+ words on/ one you actually get on with.

If you really feel that in academic terms, the M.Litt is not better than an MA, then I can't help you (given that I'm going by the words of practicing academics on the subject of my own future academic plans, including my own father). Especially as the OP's goal is to get into lecturing whereby the M.Litt would allow them to get the necessary minimum qualifications in one year less.

A phd thesis is not 100k+, and an M.Litt does not allow you to get the minimum qualification a year sooner.

They are in no way 'halting' their education. They're moving from a system focusing on classes, lectures and exams (the BA) into an emphasis on research (which is much, much more important for academia) The MAs weighting of both examinations and research make it a sort of halfway house. (The way the M.Litt was explained to me was that it's academically viewed as level 9.5 on the NFQ)

That it is viewed as level 9.5 just reaffirms the fact that following PhD will be going over old ground and that the M.Litt is surplus to requirements once a PhD is the ultimate goal.

The MA might suit some people very well (putting them in a semi-familiar situation before they proceed to the PHD level) sure but in objective terms, the M.Litt would allow someone who knows they want to enter academia to get cracking on a PHD thesis quicker.

I've already shown how this might not be the case in many instances, I'm not going to go over it again.

You don't need to be in university to read across the board. Especially in the humanities.
Universities don't want generalists, they want experts in particular fields. By the end of the BA, an aspiring academic should know what area they want to specialize in. If they don't, there's no harm in the MA but if they do, then the M.Litt allows them to get started on their chosen area as soon as possible.


Going by the Postgrad Prospectuses that litter my house;
Standard length of a taught humanities MA thesis; 15-20k words.
Standard length of a research humanities MA thesis; 35-40k words.
Standard length of a humanities M.Litt thesis; 60k words.

If that is the case why are so many multi-disciplinary phd's popping up? And why are the structured PhD programmes actively seeking ways of giving people a more general background and reading/learning experience before they focus on research? Regardless of that one needs the widest base possible before focussing on a single topic.

If this was the case, an excellent MA over a mediocre PHD would be enough to work in academia. Quantity might not equal quality but it is absurd to dismiss the value of the word-count required for an M.Litt or PHD.
Research work takes great lengths to write. It's relatively simple to write a thesis of a few thousand words, much much harder to write one multiple tens of thousands as you're forced to look further and further afield for new information and sources.

You said that if a person doesn't get upgraded from an M.Litt to PhD in second year they should probably rethink their options. The same could be said about not getting a PhD place after an MA. I never commented on a word-count, but since your main plan for the M.Litt is simply to upgrade to a PhD it doesn't matter what hte word count is cause you don't intend to finish it. Do you realise you won't end up with an M.Litt if you follow the route of upgrading? Most of your defence of the M.Litt is obsolete precisely because of the same reasons you suggest taking an M.Litt.

The above operates under the assumption that M.Litt students are simply given a library card and told to get cracking on a thesis. Which just isn't the case. M.Litt students have to undertake research methods like historiography seminars and are also able to undertake some taught modules on their area. I know this as I had the exact same pre-conceptions about M.Litts as you currently do and so I sought clarification on them before deciding on what I wanted to do. In effect, most of the above paragraph is unfounded and baseless.

You don't do a fraction of the reading and topics that are covered in an MA or structured PhD.

Transferring straight from the M.Litt to the PHD would involve him doing his PHD on the same subject as the M.Litt.

It doesn't always, topics are always subject to change even when a person is in the PhD programme. I know one guy who is working under my supervisor this year who transferred from an M.Litt in one college to a Phd in ours, changed his topic and is in first year now. Did his M.Litt really make that much difference? It certainly won't show up on his cv, since he won't get the M.Litt.
I know another guy who's finishing his M.Litt and is starting a PhD, he has a new topic too. There are many many reasons why transferring programme will also entail a change in topic, sometimes completely, sometimes only a portion. There are also the issues of plagarism.

Extremely pedantic; you know full well I am talking about typical students and lengths here.
Otherwise we could just as easily claim that the MA could take John ages to complete or he could complete his M.Litt in one year.
Keep in mind I pointed out that if John's work is insufficient to be accepted to PHD level, then he's probably not cut out for a PHD anyway. If he decides not to keep it on, then that's cool. He still ends up with a masters out of it anyway and one that is higher up than an MA.

Its not pedantic at all there may be an average length of phd but many people go past it, and you seem to be completely ignoring the growth of structured PhD's which are 4 years and which are replacing the traditional 3 year PhD. I also have a friend who followed your route, got funding and upgraded to a PhD and will still be taking 4 years to finish the PhD, so how exactly is he getting his qualification a year earlier? What good is it ending up with an M.Litt if you didn't want one in the first place? If you go the MA route you still end up with a Masters and a year earlier. If you think the difference in the type of Masters means anything to anyone outside of academia you are wrong. So really where is the benefit of getting the consolation prize here?

Ah but assuming there are Johns who are identical (apart from one did his MA and then went onto a PHD and the other went through the M.Litt through the PHD) means that John BA PHD would have an additional year to publish and look for jobs than John BA, MA, PHD (who's MA would be fairly redundant when seeking academic work as he already has the PHD)

Also, when compared side by side, an M.Litt is more distinguished than an MA. Of little importance when both Johns have a PHD but John BA M.Litt would find it easier going when seeking TA positions than John BA MA.

One can publish while writing one's PhD, whether one has an additional year or not is not the deciding factor in this. It is also unfair to suggest the M.Litt route is more beneficial in this regard too. Also John BA MA has an MA thesis to hawk for publication and conferences, whereas M.Litt John hasn't.
As for TA that has fairly little to do with the question in hand, and the John BA M.Litt just spent an Extra year working on an M.Litt that is redundant once he gets a PhD. So how does that back up your point again, and doesn't it conflict with the paragraph directly before that?

The M.Litt is in absolutely no way redundant, otherwise it wouldn't be offered as a standalone degree at all.
I know you've done an MA yourself and so are presumably eager to view your own pathway as the best way to go about things but to be honest, I'd be more inclined to go by the advice of working academics.

Offering degrees and useful degrees are two different things. I know people who went my route and people who went your route and they are no better off. My supervisor advised against the M.Litt and he's a working academic. I don't care if a person follows my path or not because there are obviously many things I would change about the way I did it, but the path you suggest is over complicated and has more potential pitfalls than the MA-PhD/Structured PhD route I am suggesting and that is the bottom line for me.

Finally, agree 100% with everything efla said, and I fully expect not to go over 80k with my thesis.

Lockstep

brianthebard wrote: »

A phd thesis is not 100k+, and an M.Litt does not allow you to get the minimum qualification a year sooner.

First point; fair enough. It seems they vary between 70-100k.
2nd point; completely untrue. The de facto minimum qualification for lecturing is a PHD; the M.Litt allows one to achieve the PHD one year quicker than going through the MA and then applying for an additional 3 years.

brianthebard wrote: »

That it is viewed as level 9.5 just reaffirms the fact that following PhD will be going over old ground and that the M.Litt is surplus to requirements once a PhD is the ultimate goal.

Well of course it's surplus once a PHD is the ultimate goal; so is an MA. The difference being that one can transfer straight from an M.Litt onto a PHD which isn't the case with an MA (unless there is some special MA I am unaware of)
As a terminal degree, an M.Litt is better than an M.A. If a PHD is the ultimate goal, then an M.Litt is a better way of going about this as it allows a faster completion.

brianthebard wrote: »

I've already shown how this might not be the case in many instances, I'm not going to go over it again.

No you haven't.

brianthebard wrote: »

If that is the case why are so many multi-disciplinary phd's popping up? And why are the structured PhD programmes actively seeking ways of giving people a more general background and reading/learning experience before they focus on research? Regardless of that one needs the widest base possible before focussing on a single topic.

Ah but are these multi-disciplinary PHDs able to be transferred directly onto from an M.Litt?

brianthebard wrote: »

You said that if a person doesn't get upgraded from an M.Litt to PhD in second year they should probably rethink their options. The same could be said about not getting a PhD place after an MA. I never commented on a word-count, but since your main plan for the M.Litt is simply to upgrade to a PhD it doesn't matter what hte word count is cause you don't intend to finish it.

Well yes; a research degree is quite different to a taught one. Being able to complete an MA is absolutely no guarantee that one is capable of completing a PHD whereas your chances of moving from an M.Litt to a PHD are extremely slim if the faculty doesn't view you as up to the challenge. If they do then chances are that you've got what it takes.

I'm really not sure what you're not getting here; an M.Litt is halfway point between an MA and a PHD which is a good way of weeding out students who can't cut it. If they do well, then brilliant, they can move onto a PHD. If they're not up for it, then they finish up and gain an M.Litt which is better than having an MA and a PHD that was abandoned after one year.
And given that your PHD is usually a continuation of your M.Litt idea then your word count will matter (unless you feel like dossing for a year and then making up the slack if you get on the PHD program).
If someone isn't suitable for a PHD then having an MA won't make any difference. At least completing the M.Litt will give them a slight advantage in the jobs field over an MA student.

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you realise you won't end up with an M.Litt if you follow the route of upgrading

Reread my posts;

Basically, you do the first year of your M.Litt and if it's up to scratch, you can then move from the M.Litt course onto the PHD course. This means that the M.Litt is replaced by a PHD course with all this entails.

I don't see where I've claimed/acted as if an M,Litt is somehow tacked onto the PHD award.

brianthebard wrote: »

Most of your defence of the M.Litt is obsolete precisely because of the same reasons you suggest taking an M.Litt.

I really don't see how, feel free to expand on this.

brianthebard wrote: »

You don't do a fraction of the reading and topics that are covered in an MA or structured PhD.

How do you know this? You've already shown that you were unaware M.Litt students do any research or taught modules at all, even though a cursory search of M.Litt programs in Ireland would show you otherwise.
Module topics don't really require heavy reading; a 1;1 in a midterm assignment requires around 6 different sources and the exams themselves require even less depth.
As for the structured PHD; of course a PHD requires more reading and topics than an M.Litt. That's why it's a PHD.

When I was studying abroad, I was following a masters level course (as they were courses offered in English). The modules themselves were pretty much the same level as back home so an MA is certainly no guarantee. Plus you know yourself that BA and MA students are placed in the same class, sit the same exams and perform the same assignments. Not always the case but it clearly shows that the taught aspect of an MA need not be superior.

brianthebard wrote: »

It doesn't always, topics are always subject to change even when a person is in the PhD programme. I know one guy who is working under my supervisor this year who transferred from an M.Litt in one college to a Phd in ours, changed his topic and is in first year now. Did his M.Litt really make that much difference? It certainly won't show up on his cv, since he won't get the M.Litt.
I know another guy who's finishing his M.Litt and is starting a PhD, he has a new topic too. There are many many reasons why transferring programme will also entail a change in topic, sometimes completely, sometimes only a portion. There are also the issues of plagarism.

So he transferred from an M.Litt directly onto a PHD program? Sounds like your making my point for me.
Also he's doing what the majority of people entering an M.Litt do; enter it with the idea of getting a PHD. Good for him, he's getting a PHD out of it which is generally the idea.
Also, what does plagiarism have to do with it?

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not pedantic at all there may be an average length of phd but many people go past it, and you seem to be completely ignoring the growth of structured PhD's which are 4 years and which are replacing the traditional 3 year PhD.

How exactly are they 'replacing' the traditional 3 year ones? They might exist sure but the vast majority have 3 years as the length for a PHD.
A few examples
UCC
Glasgow
Manchester
Durham

Sure some people go past it (my dad was working full time and raising a family while doing his so he took 10 years) , but logically we'd be talking about the typical length.

brianthebard wrote: »

I also have a friend who followed your route, got funding and upgraded to a PhD and will still be taking 4 years to finish the PhD, so how exactly is he getting his qualification a year earlier?

As your friend is the exception to the rule. You know as well as I do that the majority of students complete them in 3 years. Have a look through British and UK universities to see how common it is for 3 years to be listed as the length for a full time PHD (Not American ones, they do it differently)

brianthebard wrote: »

What good is it ending up with an M.Litt if you didn't want one in the first place? If you go the MA route you still end up with a Masters and a year earlier. If you think the difference in the type of Masters means anything to anyone outside of academia you are wrong. So really where is the benefit of getting the consolation prize here?

As completing the MA doesn't mean you'll take to a research degree. Let's say two people are hoping to do a PHD and aren't cut out for it. One has an MA, the other has an M.Litt. The M.Litt student isn't suitable for the PHD program and ends up with an M.Litt. Not a PHD but higher up than an MA.
The other has their MA and can't finish their PHD and gives up. So they end up with an MA and an abandoned project.
If you think employers don't know the difference between MAs, MPhils, M.Litts and MscEcon then you're underestimating the jobs market, especially in something as competitive as history jobs (there are jobs outside of academia in things like archives or one of my friends who got a job in a museum)

brianthebard wrote: »

One can publish while writing one's PhD, whether one has an additional year or not is not the deciding factor in this.

In the same way that one could write numerous books while completing a PHD. Sure it's possible but it's not exactly easy or typical.
You are having to rely on more and more far-fetched arguments.

brianthebard wrote: »

It is also unfair to suggest the M.Litt route is more beneficial in this regard too. Also John BA MA has an MA thesis to hawk for publication and conferences, whereas M.Litt John hasn't.

History academics care mostly about publishing history when giving out jobs. John BA MA's thesis is insufficient for this, whereas the extra year out that John BA PHD has over John BA MA could be used to get cracking on a complete book. Given that an MA thesis is written and researched over the summer he could easily catch up and overtake in a year.

brianthebard wrote: »

As for TA that has fairly little to do with the question in hand, and the John BA M.Litt just spent an Extra year working on an M.Litt that is redundant once he gets a PhD. So how does that back up your point again, and doesn't it conflict with the paragraph directly before that?

No it doesn't as assuming both are unsuccessful in getting a PHD, the M.Litt student would have an edge in getting non-lecturing academic jobs (such as university research staff or as TAs), given the higher standing of his masters over an MA.

brianthebard wrote: »

Offering degrees and useful degrees are two different things. I know people who went my route and people who went your route and they are no better off. My supervisor advised against the M.Litt and he's a working academic. I don't care if a person follows my path or not because there are obviously many things I would change about the way I did it, but the path you suggest is over complicated and has more potential pitfalls than the MA-PhD/Structured PhD route I am suggesting and that is the bottom line for me.

Mainly as in academia, jobs are so scarce that pointing to unemployed people is pretty pointless. You could point to someone who has a history PHD from Stanford and then point to someone who's history PHD is from NUIG. The fact that both are unemployed doesn't mean that Stanford has an advantage over NUIG.
Why was your supervisor telling you not to go onto an M.Litt? You already have an MA (unless he was an MA supervisor) and I'm sure we'd all agree that there is very little point of going from an MA to an M.Litt if the goal is get a PHD.
At any rate I'll go by the advice I was given then as
1) It came from (among others) my dad who is a working academic and has all sorts of vested interests in me doing well. Plus I've seen him work his way into an academic position so know he speaks from experience on the best way to go about employment.
2) It strikes me as a much simpler route for getting into a PHD, mainly as once on the M.Litt program, you'll most likely get onto the PHD program if you're cut out for it.

brianthebard wrote: »

Finally, agree 100% with everything efla said, and I fully expect not to go over 80k with my thesis.

Fair play (I assume 80k is the length for NUIG as it is for UCC), others like Edinburgh expect around 90k, whereas Glasgow expect it to be between 70-100k.

Lockstep

efla wrote: »

That model is dying a rapid death, all university social science faculties are now partners to GREP (graduate research education programme), and every new entrant is automatically registered on a structured doctoral programme with a heavy taught component.

Can't comment on the Social Sciences; but in history, structured PHDs exist but are certainly not the norm.

efla wrote: »

Theses are getting shorter, and the education broader. The focus is very quickly moving from the 'big-book' model - looking at my own department, I was the last of, and now one of few remaining, who came in under the old apprenticeship route. The integrated masters/doctoral is a combination in name only, very few register initially with any intention of completing an M.Litt, and the number of graduates is fewer still.

Well, some Irish universities (like UCC and TCD) require all applicants to enter onto the masters level course and then take it from there, wheter or not they already have a masters.

efla wrote: »

Intersting note on the wordcount - many are now reprimanded for exceeding word limits (a few internals have refused to examine PhD theses exceeding 100,000). 80,000 for a PhD will be the norm in a few years - as soon as the first cohort of integrated students begin writing up. Overall I think it is positive - it focuses your thinking and forces you to eliminate the fluff

Again, this might be a social science phenomenon but history PHDs still vary between 70-100k. Different universities have different limits though.

brianthebard

I cannot believe I allowed myself to be dragged into a debate with this level of multi quoting. All I'm going to say is that going the M.Litt route is fine but it is redundant and obsolete because of structured PhD's, and it is more complicated and has more potential pitfalls than going the MA or structured PhD route. You don't even have to have an MA to do a structured programme in some cases.
I am not going to refute every single post you made, but merely point out the utter silliness that is saying publishing while writing a phd is far fetched. It is the norm, and if you aren't getting articles published you are speaking at conferences.
You may know a bit about studying at university but you have a lot to learn about the day to day of postgrad work, and you should probably find out now that if you intend to do a PhD in history at NUIG it will be structured. Afaik I'm the only humanities PhD student who started a traditional PhD as opposed to structured last year.
Bottom line there is no benefit in an M.Litt that cannot be gotten from an MA if the goal is to progress to a PhD and there are plenty of additional pitfalls. Your posts are at least five years behind the times. You're also asking people to take on a Masters that they don't want, so as to get a PhD they want. There are better routes to the PhD.

ps

So he transferred from an M.Litt directly onto a PHD program? Sounds like your making my point for me.
Also he's doing what the majority of people entering an M.Litt do; enter it with the idea of getting a PHD. Good for him, he's getting a PHD out of it which is generally the idea.
Also, what does plagiarism have to do with it?

No he said he wasted a year doing an M.Litt cause he now has a totally different topic and isn't continuing that at PhD level, one of the many pitfalls I've been talking about. And if you complete an M.Litt at about 60k, and want to then expand it into a PhD, you will have a lot of problems avoiding plagarising yourself, that's what it has to do with it.

Lockstep

brianthebard wrote: »

I cannot believe I allowed myself to be dragged into a debate with this level of multi quoting. All I'm going to say is that going the M.Litt route is fine but it is redundant and obsolete because of structured PhD's, and it is more complicated and has more potential pitfalls than going the MA or structured PhD route. You don't even have to have an MA to do a structured programme in some cases.

They are in no way redundant or obsolete, given the transfer aspect.

If you don't need an MA to get onto a structured PHD, then the OP would be grand. They wouldn't need a masters at all so the debate over MAs vs M.Litts is redundant.

brianthebard wrote: »

I am not going to refute every single post you made, but merely point out the utter silliness that is saying publishing while writing a phd is far fetched. It is the norm, and if you aren't getting articles published you are speaking at conferences.

Indeed it is but you acted as if it was the MA that made the difference. Whereas it is normally written during the summer months so someone doing an M.Litt could use the entire year difference (unless they are an atypical person) to write the equivalent of 2 thesis for conferences and publishing.

brianthebard wrote: »

You may know a bit about studying at university but you have a lot to learn about the day to day of postgrad work, and you should probably find out now that if you intend to do a PhD in history at NUIG it will be structured.

And you yourself have a lot to learn about post graduate work that doesn't fall into your own area. So far you've shown you have little idea of what an M.Litt involves (it involves research seminars and taught modules) or even the conversion aspect (claiming expanding your own work counts as plagiarism. It's not exactly common knowledge (I didn't know about them before I researched them myself) but neither would I attempt to have such loud opinions based on pre-conceptions and assumptions.

On an aside, I have no intention of doing postgraduate work at NUIG. Mainly that there are no experts in my areas of interests (and also where possible it's a good idea to seek a post grad in a different place to your undergrad) Shows diversity and all that.

brianthebard wrote: »

Afaik I'm the only humanities PhD student who started a traditional PhD as opposed to structured last year.

AFAIK, you're right, however, when transferring from an M.Litt, you do the structured aspect in that year. So you could either do the MA and then do the structured PHD, or you could do the M.Litt (which counts as your structured aspect so you then transfer onto the later stages of the PHD)

brianthebard wrote: »

Bottom line there is no benefit in an M.Litt that cannot be gotten from an MA if the goal is to progress to a PhD and there are plenty of additional pitfalls. Your posts are at least five years behind the times.

If your intention is merely to get lecturing, then an M.Litt is a better way to go about it in order to gain the PHD at an earlier stage. I've pointed this out numerous times.

You keep making vague and elusive references to "pitfalls" without making any substantiations (apart from statements that are plain wrong like plagiarism or uncommon situations like taking longer to complete a PHD.

brianthebard wrote: »

You're also asking people to take on a Masters that they don't want, so as to get a PhD they want. There are better routes to the PhD.

And taking an MA just to have the necessary masters to get onto a PHD program is doing the same thing. Key point; the OP wanted to know the merits of taught masters vs research masters to get into lecturing.
Given that a masters is of little help to getting into lecturing, a PHD would be the way to go. And the quickest way of getting a PHD (assuming you're cut out for post-grad academia) is to do an M.Litt.
Now, MAs are very useful in their own way (I wouldn't mind doing a masters in Strategic Studies somewhere down the line). But in terms of getting into lecturing, it's of little use, unless using it to get onto a PHD program. In which case, an M.Litt allows direct transfer assuming you're suited for it.

brianthebard wrote: »

No he said he wasted a year doing an M.Litt cause he now has a totally different topic and isn't continuing that at PhD level, one of the many pitfalls I've been talking about.

You said

I know one guy who is working under my supervisor this year who transferred from an M.Litt in one college to a Phd in ours, changed his topic and is in first year now.

So he took an M.Litt and transferred directly onto a PHD program. That isn't "wasting" a year at all and is pretty much doing what I suggested (doing an M.Litt and using it to transfer onto a PHD program.

brianthebard wrote: »

And if you complete an M.Litt at about 60k, and want to then expand it into a PhD, you will have a lot of problems avoiding plagarising yourself, that's what it has to do with it.

Not sure where you're getting this from; plagiarism is passing the work of another off as your own. Expanding your own M.Litt into a PHD is not.

There are probably a few supervisors who would see it as some form of plagiarism but they'd be a veritable minority and certainly isn't illegal in NUIG (again this is an area I've looked into when deciding if I wanted to go into an M.Litt or not)

brianthebard

Its 100% possible to plagarise one's own work.

Bottom line, an M.Litt is redundant, takes more time and is not a qualification that people desire if they plan to transfer out of it and never complete it.

Lockstep

From the NUI Website;

English Department Plagiarism Rules

Plagiarism means presenting the words of another writer as if they were your own.

NUIG History Department Stylesheet

All work that you submit for assessment purposes is accepted on the understanding that it
is your own work and written in your own words, except where explicitly referenced
using the accepted norms and formats of the discipline of History. [...]
Plagiarism, as understood in the University’s Code of Practice, is the act of copying the
work of another without adequate acknowledgment.

There might be some professors who view it as dishonest, but there's at least 2 (in NUIG) who say it's not plagiarism (compared to none who've told me otherwise) and the university would be unable to make any real accusations against you, given the clear wording in the Code of PRactice.

Bottom line is that an M.Litt is a method of integrating your masters into your PHD, taking less time (unless you are academically poor) and is a higher level qualification than an MA.

brianthebard

The M.Litt is not integrated it is superceded. It doesn't take less time or at least cannot be guaranteed to take less time regardless of academic ability, and it will not end in a higher qualification since the goal is to transfer out of the M.Litt.