MSc first or straight to PhD?

outnumbered

Hi everyone,

I'm sorry if a thread like this already exists but i couldn't find it if so.
I have googled this question and can only find American perspectives.
So yeah, would it be advisable to do a masters before your PhD (for the biological sciences)? I know of some in my course who went straight into a PhD and some who are doing a masters. What is the norm? What would be the pros and cons of either?

kisaragi

Hey there,

I'm at the end of my PhD (Neuroscience), and while I went straight into it from a B.A. (psychology) I know a couple of people who did masters first. The advantage to doing a taught masters in a relevant area is that you might learn some more in-depth knowledge you might have missed out on during your undergrad - and it might put you in a better position to get funding. If you're thinking of doing a research masters I suppose it's good in that when you start your PhD you'll already know how to do a couple of lab techniques and won't have to waste the first few months learning protocols and getting things right The other "advantage" is that if you do a research masters you get to experience what full-time research is like before you commit to 4 years of it - it's not for everyone.

But to be honest, at the end of my PhD now I think it would have been pointless to do a masters first. Sure I might have learned a few things - but most of them would have been irrelevant and I had to learn the important ones anyway during my PhD, just at a faster rate! When you're looking for postdoc jobs/funding I don't think they really care what came before your PhD - they're mostly judging you on your publications and experience. As well as that you're obviously giving up a year of time.

So if you already have funding and a supervisor I would say go for the PhD straight away.

outnumbered

kisaragi wrote: »

Hey there,

I'm at the end of my PhD (Neuroscience), and while I went straight into it from a B.A. (psychology) I know a couple of people who did masters first. The advantage to doing a taught masters in a relevant area is that you might learn some more in-depth knowledge you might have missed out on during your undergrad - and it might put you in a better position to get funding. If you're thinking of doing a research masters I suppose it's good in that when you start your PhD you'll already know how to do a couple of lab techniques and won't have to waste the first few months learning protocols and getting things right The other "advantage" is that if you do a research masters you get to experience what full-time research is like before you commit to 4 years of it - it's not for everyone.

But to be honest, at the end of my PhD now I think it would have been pointless to do a masters first. Sure I might have learned a few things - but most of them would have been irrelevant and I had to learn the important ones anyway during my PhD, just at a faster rate! When you're looking for postdoc jobs/funding I don't think they really care what came before your PhD - they're mostly judging you on your publications and experience. As well as that you're obviously giving up a year of time.

So if you already have funding and a supervisor I would say go for the PhD straight away.

Thank you, that's good advice!

djpbarry

outnumbered wrote: »

So yeah, would it be advisable to do a masters before your PhD (for the biological sciences)?

There really is no need to do a Masters first. A MSc is not a prerequisite for doing a PhD and in no way prepares you for life as a researcher – it’s just a more specialised degree than a BSc. Not only that, but masters obviously tend to be very expensive.

If you want to do a PhD, then do a PhD – you don’t need a “bridging” qualification.

JenMol

outnumbered wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I'm sorry if a thread like this already exists but i couldn't find it if so.
I have googled this question and can only find American perspectives.
So yeah, would it be advisable to do a masters before your PhD (for the biological sciences)? I know of some in my course who went straight into a PhD and some who are doing a masters. What is the norm? What would be the pros and cons of either?

Hi,

I'm just after completing my Bachelor Degree. I studied biological and chemical sciences in UCC and I am graduating in Biochemistry. To be honest it seems in UCC there isn't much funding compared to previous years and because of this there is no PhD scholar programs this year. Because of this most students are advised to do a Masters so they will gain another 6months in labs which will look better when applying for funding.

I am starting a PhD but I was lucky because my supervisor is very well known and to be honest his research is known worldwide. If you want to go straight into a PhD you will need a 1H1 or else a high 2H1.

If you were to go straight into PhD bypassing the Masters it would make no difference. Okay maybe you might know more lab techniques but you save a lot of money. Most of the lectures in my field all went straight into a PhD. So the only benefit is knowing more lab techniques.

djpbarry

JenMol wrote: »

I'm just after completing my Bachelor Degree. I studied biological and chemical sciences in UCC and I am graduating in Biochemistry. To be honest it seems in UCC there isn't much funding compared to previous years and because of this there is no PhD scholar programs this year. Because of this most students are advised to do a Masters so they will gain another 6months in labs which will look better when applying for funding.

I think we’re conflating MSc (taught masters) with an MPhil (masters by research). You won’t get any research experience in labs doing an MSc, whereas in a lot of third-level institutions, all PhD students begin life as MPhil students and “transfer” to the doctorate register after 18 – 24 months.

JenMol wrote: »

I am starting a PhD but I was lucky because my supervisor is very well known and to be honest his research is known worldwide. If you want to go straight into a PhD you will need a 1H1 or else a high 2H1.

I wouldn’t agree with that at all. A high grade certainly helps, but someone with a good degree could well lose out to someone with not such a good degree, but experience in a research lab with demonstrable relevant knowledge and skills. A good undergraduate student does not necessarily make a good postgraduate, and vice versa.

challengemaster

djpbarry wrote: »

MPhil (masters by research).

MRes? No?

You won’t get any research experience in labs doing an MSc

Not true. At all.

JenMol

djpbarry wrote: »

I think we’re conflating MSc (taught masters) with an MPhil (masters by research). You won’t get any research experience in labs doing an MSc, whereas in a lot of third-level institutions, all PhD students begin life as MPhil students and “transfer” to the doctorate register after 18 – 24 months.
I wouldn’t agree with that at all. A high grade certainly helps, but someone with a good degree could well lose out to someone with not such a good degree, but experience in a research lab with demonstrable relevant knowledge and skills. A good undergraduate student does not necessarily make a good postgraduate, and vice versa.

Well sorry now but in UCC you DO gain research experience in the placement section of the Masters. In order to do a thesis in a Biotech or College lab you need to do research. It might be different wherever you went to college but from looking at MSc in Ireland, you do gain research experience. I'm guessing you're talking about a MRes before a PhD.

Well in order to qualify for a PhD in the biological science departments in UCC you needed a high 2H1 or higher is required. It might be different in other areas of biological sciences including plant science and other colleges but from all the emails my class received for PhD positions it was stated a high 2H1 or 1H1.

djpbarry

challengemaster wrote: »

MRes? No?

They’re similar, but an MRes is more likely to have taught components, as far as I’m aware.

challengemaster wrote: »

Not true. At all.

Generally, it is. A MPhil is a 100% research-based qualification. In terms of research experience, there’s no comparison between that and a lab-based practical assignment that might be completed as part of a MSc.

djpbarry

JenMol wrote: »

Well in order to qualify for a PhD in the biological science departments in UCC you needed a high 2H1 or higher is required.

The point is it’s not set in stone – it’s generally at the discretion of the supervisor as to who they want to take on. I had no formal training in biology whatsoever when I started my PhD (I had a 2.1 BEng).

challengemaster

djpbarry wrote: »

They’re similar, but an MRes is more likely to have taught components, as far as I’m aware.
Generally, it is. A MPhil is a 100% research-based qualification. In terms of research experience, there’s no comparison between that and a lab-based practical assignment that might be completed as part of a MSc.

Strangely enough, I hadn't heard of a MPhil before this thread...

You are most definitely wrong on your point of MSc not having any research. Certainly in terms of biological sciences, it is common practice that the "Third semester" is solely dedicated to research. And while that might not be comparable to an MRes or MPhil, upon finishing my MSc, I'll have a solid 4 months of research experience, be first author on a review paper and have significantly contributed to a research paper (Every person in the course will also have contributed to a paper in some way, some will have contributed to IP). There's also a huge array of techniques learned, obviously these vary person to person.

Make of that what you will.

djpbarry

challengemaster wrote: »

You are most definitely wrong on your point of MSc not having any research. Certainly in terms of biological sciences, it is common practice that the "Third semester" is solely dedicated to research.

No, it is common practice that there would be a significant portion of the course dedicated to lab work. That does not necessarily mean it will be meaningful research, which depends heavily on the student and, more importantly, their supervisor.

challengemaster wrote: »

And while that might not be comparable to an MRes or MPhil, upon finishing my MSc, I'll have a solid 4 months of research experience, be first author on a review paper and have significantly contributed to a research paper (Every person in the course will also have contributed to a paper in some way, some will have contributed to IP). There's also a huge array of techniques learned, obviously these vary person to person.

All that in just four months? You sure you’re being completely honest there? Because it takes the average PhD student a good 18 – 24 months before they really start building momentum in the lab. Writing a review paper alone would take the guts of four months for an inexperienced researcher.