Masters & PhD vs. straight to PhD?

gutenberg

Hi all, I'm new here but would appreciate the benefit of your collective wisdom

Basically I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I have an offer for a Master's course in Cambridge, and also an offer to do a PhD in TCD. I'm a bit confused about which road to take.

I did my undergrad in Trinity (humanities subject), and I started applying to master's courses before being approached about doing a PhD in Trinity, in a topic similar to what I had submitted to Cambridge. The PhD in Trinity would be funded (fees-only, as part of their Foundation Scholarship); the Master's is not, I've been waitlisted for several scholarships in Cam, but I doubt I'll secure much if any funding at this stage. My parents have offered to guarantee a loan to enable me to go, if it's what I want.

I'm very confused about the whole thing. Obviously, a master's is another year in study, plus the money issues, but then again it is Cambridge, and the supervisor I will have is a really big name in the field. I've talked about it with my sup in TCD, who is willing to have me defer a year to go.

Basically, I'm looking for people's opinions on the value of Master's courses, the positives and negatives of studying elsewhere for a while, that kind of thing. The money issue kind of worries me- I don't like the idea of my parents or myself in debt, but when it's education, and therefore your future... Ack, confused!

Any opinions would be GREATLY appreciated!

bobbytables

To be honest the real answer to your question depends on what you want to do career wise. Generally if you see yourself staying in academic research / lecturing, then PhD; otherwise masters.

Amtmann

It depends on a variety of factors, not least the field and your own personality. My advice to you is to really ask yourself why you truly want to do a PhD.

Consider the following:

• Do you want above everything else to work as an academic?
• Will a PhD improve or hinder your career prospects? This is a deceptively broad question.
• Will a PhD leave you over-qualified but under-skilled?
• Are you willing to put up with the social and professional isolation that may result from doctoral studies?
• Are you willing to relocate for research purposes to different universities/countries for protracted stints during the course of your PhD research? If yes, what bearing will this have on your finances and relationships with friends/family/partners?
• What will you do for money during and immediately after the PhD?
• Do you have an abiding passion for the subject area?
• Are you considering a PhD in part because it seems like a glamorous option?
• Are you a focused, disciplined and determined person?
• Do you function well working in isolation, or do you thrive in situations where you have comrades and peers?

A vital thing to consider before starting a PhD are the social ramifications. Do not neglect this aspect in your decision-making. Too often people consider only the supervisor/thesis topic/funding options and are then blindsided by a severe case of postgrad blues or apathy.

A large percentage of PhD candidates drop out of their programme, not because of academic reasons, but because they find the existence socially and financially miserable.

A well-chosen MA can lead to a very fulfilling programme of study as well as an excellent career.

Also, forget not that if you start a PhD and then drop out, you will have to pay full fees for any other course you choose to do, even if your PhD fees were covered by an award or grant.

Also, it's very important that you at least have a viable plan b for yourself if the PhD isn't working out for you. Seriously.

gutenberg

Hi guys, thanks for all the really helpful replies so far, keep them coming!

Just to clarify a couple of things, if it helps people formulating responses:

• If I go to Cambridge, I intend to continue to a PhD- in Trinity, Cambridge or somewhere else, but it has always been my ultimate goal, because-
• I do want to go into academia, ultimately (though I appreciate that it's a tough field);
• I am aware of the difficulties of PhD life, all too well- some of my good friends are doing doctorates, and I have watched them struggle- but also succeed, and how much they love/loved it. I ADORE my research area, and I did a research dissertation as part of my undergrad. Granted it was much much shorter than anything I would attempt at MPhil/PhD level, but it was by far & away the most exciting and fulfilling thing I did as part of my BA- a good foundation for further study, one would hope

Amtmann

I would do the MA first OR an MPhil. As you noted, there's a gargantuan difference between a dissertation and years of doctoral study. At least by doing an MA/MPhil first, you can confirm to yourself that a PhD is what you really want, by getting a realistic glimpse of postgrad life. If you start off with an MPhil, you can then go PhD-track if you wish, or leave with an MPhil after two years.

Whatever you decide, good luck

gutenberg

Tremelo wrote: »

I would do the MA first OR an MPhil. As you noted, there's a gargantuan difference between a dissertation and years of doctoral study. At least by doing an MA/MPhil first, you can confirm to yourself that a PhD is what you really want, by getting a realistic glimpse of postgrad life. If you start off with an MPhil, you can then go PhD-track if you wish, or leave with an MPhil after two years.

The MPhil in Cambridge is actually only 9 months- 8 weeks of research training in Michaelmas before Christmas, then a 20-25,000 word dissertation, to be written over the following two terms. So it's very intense, but you still get to produce a substantial piece of work despite the course being quite short- in contrast, for example, TCD MPhils are 12 months, and have dissertations of 12-15,000 words in most cases.

Amtmann

gutenberg wrote: »

[*]If I go to Cambridge, I intend to continue to a PhD- in Trinity, Cambridge or somewhere else, but it has always been my ultimate goal, because-
[*]I do want to go into academia, ultimately (though I appreciate that it's a tough field);

Just on this, I would advise against putting all your eggs into the academic basket for a few reasons:

• Positions within academia are becoming ever scarcer as more people do PhDs
• If you become disillusioned with academia (it happens) but have acquired a PhD, you will be over-qualified but underskilled for almost every job you apply (particularly if you are in the humanities)
• To get a job as an academic, you have to be willing to do post-docs after your PhD. This will almost certainly involve you having to uproot to a university in another country for a period of no more than two years. After this, you could well have to uproot again to find a permanent position. Imagine you're 23 now. Four years of PhD study will make you 27, facing into a short-term post doc in another country for one or two years, with the prospect of yet more instability as you approach 30. By then you may yearn for stability in your personal and professional relationships and be in a position where that seems unattainable. It happens.

I realise I'm sounding negative about the whole thing; that's a product of my own experience, and those of a few others I knew. I'm just telling you the things that no one told me.

gutenberg

Tremelo wrote: »

I realise I'm sounding negative about the whole thing; that's a product of my own experience, and those of a few others I knew. I'm just telling you the things that no one told me.

Don't worry at all about being negative, it's all part of the factors to consider Part of me wonders whether having a degree from a different university would be useful in the academic field, rather than having studied only at the one institution? Plus the contacts you develop etc; or is it all to do with what you produce for your doctorate, and any attendant publications/conferences etc, plus the willingness to be flexible, like you mentioned!

Amtmann

gutenberg wrote: »

Don't worry at all about being negative, it's all part of the factors to consider Part of me wonders whether having a degree from a different university would be useful in the academic field, rather than having studied only at the one institution? Plus the contacts you develop etc; or is it all to do with what you produce for your doctorate, and any attendant publications/conferences etc, plus the willingness to be flexible, like you mentioned!

I think it's good to go to another university for your own sake. A university can become a very cosy place when you're based in the same one for years. Sometimes the feeling that you want to be a lecturer can become overly influenced by your perception of what it's like to work at the university you're currently in. At least if you go to other universities, it provides an invigorating change, and you get to see what academic life is like beyond the gates of your alma mater. You also get to see if the upheaval of moving from country to country is really for you.

Fragglefur

I went straight into a PhD and if I had to turn the clock back I would have completed a masters first. The area I ended up researching is something I am only mildly interested in, and after 5 years of the area I am quite tired of it. Maybe its just PhD fatigue (I'm writing up), but I feel if I did an MA first I would have had a better overview of my discipline as a whole, and might have picked something more suitable, both in terms of my interest and long term job prospects. In retrospect I needed more perspective and I think time out doing a masters would have given me that.

Also as a previous poster mentioned, I now feel I am overqualified and underskilled and am looking at doing a masters when I've finished.

I have a BSc and two post grad dips, all from different universities, so would definitely recommend moving around for courses. Again it's about perspective as well as meeting new people and situations that challenge you (both in a good and bad way).

gutenberg

Fragglefur wrote: »

I went straight into a PhD and if I had to turn the clock back I would have completed a masters first. The area I ended up researching is something I am only mildly interested in, and after 5 years of the area I am quite tired of it. Maybe its just PhD fatigue (I'm writing up), but I feel if I did an MA first I would have had a better overview of my discipline as a whole, and might have picked something more suitable, both in terms of my interest and long term job prospects. In retrospect I needed more perspective and I think time out doing a masters would have given me that.

I have a BSc and two post grad dips, all from different universities, so would definitely recommend moving around for courses. Again it's about perspective as well as meeting new people and situations that challenge you (both in a good and bad way).

That's a really interesting perspective (pardon the pun), thanks. That is how I feel about the master's to be honest- it'll give me a bit more grounding in my field, plus the chance to really hone my interests and my writing; the topic for the MPhil is similar to what I would want to do as the PhD, so I think it would give me a great overview of the topic, what the sources are like etc., before taking the doctoral plunge; hopefully I'd be a bit more focused and direct with the PhD, if you get my drift?

Sinfonia

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone could elaborate on the over-qualified/under-skilled thing..
If one were in a highly academic field of the humanities, say musicology or art history, what would a masters facilitate that a doctorate wouldn't?

gutenberg

I would also be interested to hear about the overqualified/underskilled aspect. Would you recommend taking training courses etc while researching to up your skills?

Also, any more perspectives on the MPhil & PhD vs. solo PhD would be much appreciated- don't be shy Thanks!

Amtmann

Sinfonia wrote: »

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone could elaborate on the over-qualified/under-skilled thing..
If one were in a highly academic field of the humanities, say musicology or art history, what would a masters facilitate that a doctorate wouldn't?

I would have acquired skills in early modern German, palaeography, archival research and Latin had I persevered with my PhD. Outside of academia, these skills aren't worth anything in today's competitive work environment. I would have had 'PhD' after my name on my CV and a somewhat impressive list of esoteric skills - but nothing that *most* employers would be impressed by, or would find useful.

That's what I mean by overqualified but underskilled.

In terms of a Masters, well, I would certainly argue that an MA in an obscure subject area is also not career-friendly. But a practical, well-chosen Masters can be, and can be concluded in 12 months vs. three or four years for a PhD.

It depends on your motivations of course. If you want an MA that is employment friendly, choose wisely. You might love to do an MA or PhD on Ascendency archaeology or the history of philosophy in 18th-century France, but don't be surprised if you end up long-term unemployed after it.

djpbarry

Tremelo wrote: »

If you become disillusioned with academia (it happens) but have acquired a PhD, you will be over-qualified but underskilled for almost every job you apply (particularly if you are in the humanities)

That really depends on the research area. For example, I did my PhD in bioprocess engineering and the skills I acquired during the study would be transferrable to industrial environments.

Sinfonia

djpbarry wrote: »

That really depends on the research area. For example, I did my PhD in bioprocess engineering and the skills I acquired during the study would be transferrable to industrial environments.

Yeah, I'm a musicology student starting a PhD in September (I've already done my MMus), and really there's nothing the Masters would get me that the PhD wouldn't (except for entry into the PhD, probably) but that's largely because the scope of application for musicology/music analysis is pretty narrow, and most of what would be covered in an MMus programme is an reasonably minor development of a BMus anyway.

scotty_irish

you're brave taking on a phd without funding! it gets tough sometimes and that bit of cash in the old bank account at the end of the month sometimes is what gets me through!

i know people are gonna say you're doing something you love, yada yada yada, but think deeply about being skint for three plus years, especially mid 20s when your friends are earning and doing things and you can't. you gotta have a life too.

Sinfonia

scotty_irish wrote: »

you're brave taking on a phd without funding! it gets tough sometimes and that bit of cash in the old bank account at the end of the month sometimes is what gets me through!

i know people are gonna say you're doing something you love, yada yada yada, but think deeply about being skint for three plus years, especially mid 20s when your friends are earning and doing things and you can't. you gotta have a life too.

This is one thing I've been warned about over and over (although I won't be doing it without funding, I'll at least need my fees paid). Thing is I'm already 25 and have been skint all the way along. I feel it might be a better idea to continue being broke for a few years, rather than get used to having money and then go back to it..!

Amtmann

djpbarry wrote: »

That really depends on the research area. For example, I did my PhD in bioprocess engineering and the skills I acquired during the study would be transferrable to industrial environments.

That's why I said *almost* and "particularly if you are in the humanities". Certainly it does not apply to all disciplines, but were the skills you picked up really of that much more use to you in the workplace than an MA would have been, given all the extra effort required for the PhD? In your case, they might have been; but for *most* people, the answer would seem to be no.

I've heard of people who do a good MA and get a job based on that, and who then - after some years of work - decide to do a PhD to supplement their MA skills while within a chosen career. That can be a good option for some.

Turbulent Bill

Tremelo wrote: »

That's why I said *almost* and "particularly if you are in the humanities". Certainly it does not apply to all disciplines, but were the skills you picked up really of that much more use to you in the workplace than an MA would have been, given all the extra effort required for the PhD? In your case, they might have been; but for *most* people, the answer would seem to be no.

I've heard of people who do a good MA and get a job based on that, and who then - after some years of work - decide to do a PhD to supplement their MA skills while within a chosen career. That can be a good option for some.

I did an engineering PhD, and the skillset that I gained from this was light years ahead of what a normal MSc could provide, mainly down to the level and depth of the study involved. In addition, I could take concrete examples from the PhD to demonstrate these (problem solving, numerical analysis etc.). Obviously the humanities might be different but you shouldn't pigeon-hole your employment prospects narrowly on your study area.

Motivations for doing a PhD vary massively but I was just interested in the project, never wanted to enter academia.

On a practical basis, you can't submit the same work for two different degrees, so going the MA+PhD route would require different study areas.

gutenberg

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

On a practical basis, you can't submit the same work for two different degrees, so going the MA+PhD route would require different study areas.

Of course you can't submit the same piece twice, but I know people who are working on very similar areas in their PhDs to what they wrote Masters theses on. As you said yourself, the scope & depth of a PhD is much greater, so a Masters would only give a foundation.

You'd just have to be careful not to plagiarise, i.e. cite yourself if necessary.

Sinfonia

gutenberg wrote: »

Of course you can't submit the same piece twice, but I know people who are working on very similar areas in their PhDs to what they wrote Masters theses on. As you said yourself, the scope & depth of a PhD is much greater, so a Masters would only give a foundation.

You'd just have to be careful not to plagiarise, i.e. cite yourself if necessary.

+1

My PhD will be a development upon the work in my MMus thesis, which in turn was a development from my BMus thesis. It can't be copied/pasted, but it doesn't need to drift extensively from the original work.

gutenberg

Sinfonia wrote: »

+1

My PhD will be a development upon the work in my MMus thesis, which in turn was a development from my BMus thesis. It can't be copied/pasted, but it doesn't need to drift extensively from the original work.

It was exactly for perspectives like this that I made the thread.

I'm thinking a Master's can only help inform a PhD further down the road- you'll have the experience of another university, possibly country (and culture), supervisor (and their attendant opinions & ways of doing things), plus a deeper understanding of the topic and the surrounding academic field. Plus the additional research skills, writing practice etc.

CatFromHue

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I did an engineering PhD, and the skillset that I gained from this was light years ahead of what a normal MSc could provide, mainly down to the level and depth of the study involved. In addition, I could take concrete examples from the PhD to demonstrate these (problem solving, numerical analysis etc.). Obviously the humanities might be different but you shouldn't pigeon-hole your employment prospects narrowly on your study area.

Motivations for doing a PhD vary massively but I was just interested in the project, never wanted to enter academia.

On a practical basis, you can't submit the same work for two different degrees, so going the MA+PhD route would require different study areas.

what area did you do your phd in in bill?

Turbulent Bill

gutenberg wrote: »

I'm thinking a Master's can only help inform a PhD further down the road- you'll have the experience of another university, possibly country (and culture), supervisor (and their attendant opinions & ways of doing things), plus a deeper understanding of the topic and the surrounding academic field. Plus the additional research skills, writing practice etc.

I'd agree with this, but more in the sense that it'll clarify whether you want to do a PhD or not. I was registered for an MSc for a year or so before transferring to the PhD register, knew at that stage that I wanted to go deeper into the study area. You have to clearly demonstrate novelty in a PhD too, so it gives you time to pick your niche.

Tremelo makes some excellent points above on the social consequences of doing a PhD, well worth considering.

CatFromHue wrote: »

what area did you do your phd in in bill?

I worked in sensor development, but my current job has very little to do with this. The important thing from an employment perspective was transferrable skills, and you get plenty of these from a postgrad without even realising. Your actual study area will be irrelevant for 99.99% of possible jobs, so the key is to show the skills needed for the particular role.