Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not accurate. Certainly a grad degree will make it easier in some sense (especially right out of school) to get an "actual research" position, it is in no sense impossible to get into such with just a bachelors.
How do YOU know that? You can go look on the USAjobs website and see for yourself. Bachelors, might, get you contracted hours but you need a masters to get an actual position. This is because to get a masters in most science fields you have to have conducted your own actual research as opposed to bachelors degrees which almost no one does their own research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I'm not sure where you got this idea.
From working in the marine science and biology fields.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Most people go straight into Ph.d programs from bachelors, this is the expected sequence if you are interested in a ph.d Getting a masters first will not help you at all in itself.
Are you a field biologist? Research oceanographer? Involved in conducting primary research at all? Because a masters will get you a job and a bachelors will not. From their many, many people realize they do not want to be a postdoc. Some realize they do. If you have the masters it does not take any additional time to get the PhD than to go straight through. Most Masters programs in science have the same course work and just less research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Although for some getting a masters first can help, in particular when your undergrad work is lacking.
What undergrad work do research biologists do? Classes? Masters ensure you have done research and written a REAL thesis. Now capstone masters may not help but a real masters will
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Sure, but nothing guarantees that this sort of thing will happen and there is no way to know before hand. But that is the issue, you just don't know to what degree your masters course work will transfer over to whatever ph.d program you get into.
What are you talking about?? Almost every accredited science program accepts ALL of the course work and research credits from every other accredited grad program.
Second, many, many PhD programs in field research will not admit you directly to their PhD program without an MS first.
" Prospective students who will not have a master's degree before beginning their doctoral studies can only apply to our M.S. program."
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Given this and the additional funding ph.d students get over master students I really see no reason why someone would start in a masters program if they were at least reasonably interested in getting a ph.d.
Funding? or Pay? They are not the same thing. I have my masters and work for PAY on a grant that was given to a Postdoc. Not to burst your ignorance bubble chuckles but rarely do the PhDs actually do their own research. They have minions (like me) with masters degrees to run their grants and maybe they hire a couple of bachelors degree holders to clean up. The Postdocs need folks with masters so they can be sure they actually know the research process. That is something someone with only a bachelors will not know.
Now if you want to do your own research (by getting funding) than you will NEED a PhD. Most of us who work in research do not reach that level and many of us do not want too. I get to publish my own side projects, I do not have to play politics, and I get out of the lab. Masters wins IMHO.
So once more, THE NEED FOR A MASTERS IS DEPENDENT ON THE FIELD!!!
I must have missed it, can you point to where you gave an example of a 3-year masters program?
Quote:
Originally Posted by f_m
I gave it as an example of what happens at the top schools. So all top universities are like that "their Ph.d student lapdogs", is that what you are saying?
You dropped the names of some top schools, I'm not really sure what your point was though. And yes, that is generally how graduate programs work.
Regardless, faculty prefer to get ph.d students to do the meaty research. The reason being that 1.) they are usually better, 2.) they are there longer, 3.) they may do their dissertation work on the topic, 4.) they have a better background. That does not mean masters students can't get involved, they can. But so can undergrads. But they will usually be given the grunt work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by f_m
What proof have you provided in this thread concerning these topics?
I'm sorry, but there are far too many pronouns in your sentences to know what you are talking about.
Regardless, faculty prefer to get ph.d students to do the meaty research.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The reason being that 1.) they are usually better,
at what? Rutgers (since I went there) has the exact same course work for both MS and PhD candidates. The difference is the number of research credits not the quality of the students. Hell they have the exact same admissions requirements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The difference is 2.) they are there longer, 3.) they may do their dissertation work on the topic, 4.) they have a better background.
I agree that PhD candidates will be around longer but many if not most of them end up doing multiple projects instead of just one long one. All the MS candidates do their thesis research on projects run at the institute. What else would they do them on?
Once more, if they have the exact same course work, exact same admissions requirements how are the PhD candidates better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
That does not mean masters students can't get involved, they can. But so can undergrads. But they will usually be given the grunt work.
To get a MS you have to complete a thesis, same as the PhD, its just the length and number of research projects you complete. I did a two year study (with a PhD faculty member BTW) and had a defense with my committee. You cannot complete a thesis doing "grunt work".
You seem to be very opinionated and yet equally mistaken. Strange combination.
Well, because I know people with bachelors in the sciences that have "actual research" positions.
People are almost neurotically obsessed with job listings these days. Job listings are often created by the HR department and many positions are filled before a listing is even made. In other words, just because a job listing mentions a masters degree does not mean one cannot get a job with just a bachelors. For example, a company would be stupid to higher a kid with a masters from Beer-State over a kid with BS that worked with a distinguished geneticist, etc. But the reality is that the latter kid will likely have a job lined up for him after graduation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
opposed to bachelors degrees which almost no one does their own research.
Unless you go to a good program which case many undergrads have research experience. Writing a senior thesis is also fairly common.
"The degree program allows students to take graduate level courses in Biology, to explore relevant classes in other departments; and to perform significant research through the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP). "
Involved in conducting primary research at all? Because a masters will get you a job and a bachelors will not.
Yep and naturally I disagree with the second sentence. Can you explain to me why any rational company would insist on hiring someone with a masters and reject anybody with just a bachelors? How in the world would a company benefit from being this dogmatic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
What are you talking about?? Almost every accredited science program accepts ALL of the course work and research credits from every other accredited grad program.
Graduate programs are free to accept or reject whatever they want. But the main issue is that the program requirements are not consistent from school to school as the interests of the faculty shape the graduate curriculum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
.....PhDs actually do their own research. They have minions (like me) with masters degrees to run their grants and maybe they hire a couple of bachelors degree holders to clean up.
It seems as though you are using the word "research" to to refer to lab work, running experiments etc. I'm using it how its often used in academia, namely to refer to "a systematic investigation".
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Now if you want to do your own research (by getting funding) than you will NEED a PhD.
Here is the rigidity again. You are building a rather rigid picture here, where the reality is much more fuzzy. Certainly, most people that apply for grants have Ph.ds as they are usually faculty members of some university, but that is not an official requirement. Scientists at corporations, small businesses, etc can also apply for grants and it does not matter whether they have a ph.d or not.
Lastly, I said this previously to someone else but I primarily have in mind traditional academia, not the more vocational style programs. I really don't pay attention to what goes on in those. And to your last point, I have never claimed that a master degree never makes sense and the value of it most certainly varies from field to field.
at what? Rutgers (since I went there) has the exact same course work for both MS and PhD candidates.
The course work is often the same, but that is not the point. Generally it is harder to get into a ph.d program, therefore the students in them are of a better quality on average than those in the masters program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
I agree that PhD candidates will be around longer but many if not most of them end up doing multiple projects instead of just one long one.
Except that Ph.d students spend most of their time on their dissertation, which is essentially a long research project. Dissertation work is always attached to some faculty or group of faculty members and during their first 1-2 years Ph.d students are usually courted by the faculty members.
Working with masters student is not nearly as beneficial for faculty and these students are usually given the more grunt like work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
To get a MS you have to complete a thesis, same as the PhD, its just the length and number of research projects you complete.
Many masters programs do not require a thesis and when they do its not just a shorter version of a dissertation. But why would it? The master student spends around 1-year working part time on their thesis where as a Ph.d student spends 3~4 years full time working on their dissertation. I have no idea why you mentioned "the number of research projects" a thesis or dissertation is intended to go into depth on a single topic.
Well, because I know people with bachelors in the sciences that have "actual research" positions.
People are almost neurotically obsessed with job listings these days. Job listings are often created by the HR department and many positions are filled before a listing is even made. In other words, just because a job listing mentions a masters degree does not mean one cannot get a job with just a bachelors. For example, a company would be stupid to higher a kid with a masters from Beer-State over a kid with BS that worked with a distinguished geneticist, etc. But the reality is that the latter kid will likely have a job lined up for him after graduation.
Can you read? I said USA jobs, thats the federal government not a company. And once more if you need some to RUN a research project a student who worked grunt work (as undergrads do) will not be able to do that. Hence the need for the MS.
Quote:
Unless you go to a good program which case many undergrads have research experience. Writing a senior thesis is also fairly common.
Where? In what science? Maybe physics but then the research generally consists of advancing a theorem, running computer models, etc; it rarely exists in the life or field sciences since there just is not time.
Quote:
"The degree program allows students to take graduate level courses in Biology, to explore relevant classes in other departments; and to perform significant research through the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP). "
Since when is an internship the same thing as a thesis? Sorry but those "undergrad research opportunities" are not the same thing as a thesis. I know, at Rutgers (a great program by the way) we had to do 6 credits of those to get our undergrad. They still do not replace running your own project.
Quote:
Yep and naturally I disagree with the second sentence. Can you explain to me why any rational company would insist on hiring someone with a masters and reject anybody with just a bachelors? How in the world would a company benefit from being this dogmatic?
Again you are moving goal posts. I didnt say private company. All I did was give a specific discipline that requires a masters. If you wish to conduct scientific research in many of the life and earth sciences you will be at a university not a "company". And I have already explained why you NEED the MS. Those with an MS have to complete their own individual research project. Let me be clear here since you apparently dont understand what that means. That does not mean a capstone, or a review of the literature or what ever else passes for a thesis outside of the scientific world. I mean they actually conducted their own research project from inception to defense. Not the norm for undergrads even those who do internships.
Quote:
Graduate programs are free to accept or reject whatever they want. But the main issue is that the program requirements are not consistent from school to school as the interests of the faculty shape the graduate curriculum.
What? You really just make this stuff up dont you? If you are getting a PhD in Oceanography and you have a masters degree in Oceanography the coursework is the same. What part of that can you not understand? Same with a MS in Bio and a PhD in Bio.
Quote:
It seems as though you are using the word "research" to to refer to lab work, running experiments etc. I'm using it how its often used in academia, namely to refer to "a systematic investigation".
LOL! I have stated multiple times that I am referring to scientific research, specifically field studies but applies more broadly than that. And make no mistake scientific research is certainly part of academia.
Quote:
Here is the rigidity again. You are building a rather rigid picture here, where the reality is much more fuzzy. Certainly, most people that apply for grants have Ph.ds as they are usually faculty members of some university, but that is not an official requirement. Scientists at corporations, small businesses, etc can also apply for grants and it does not matter whether they have a ph.d or not.
I have been abundantly clear that I am talking about FIELD RESEARCH but it still applies to almost all of the life sciences research done at major universities. I have stated so multiple times. What corporation engages in such an endeavor? I will wait while you move the goal posts yet again.
I am beginning to suspect you are a troll who just likes to be obstinate in order to avoid admitting he/she is wrong. But if your point is that no one needs a masters in any discipline you havefailed.
The course work is often the same, but that is not the point. Generally it is harder to get into a ph.d program, therefore the students in them are of a better quality on average than those in the masters program.
I gave exact instances where the admissions requirements are the same. Second, for many grad students in the life science, they are applying to a program and do not declare MS or PhD candidacy until second year when they go to get an advisor.
Quote:
Except that Ph.d students spend most of their time on their dissertation, which is essentially a long research project. Dissertation work is always attached to some faculty or group of faculty members and during their first 1-2 years Ph.d students are usually courted by the faculty members.
Didn't happen at Rutgers or UW. Care to give an example where this happens in the life sciences?
Quote:
Working with masters student is not nearly as beneficial for faculty and these students are usually given the more grunt like work.
More making up on your part. How is a published scientific paper "grunt work"?
Quote:
Many masters programs do not require a thesis and when they do its not just a shorter version of a dissertation. But why would it? The master student spends around 1-year working part time on their thesis where as a Ph.d student spends 3~4 years full time working on their dissertation.I have no idea why you mentioned "the number of research projects" a thesis or dissertation is intended to go into depth on a single topic.
I agree. Most masters programs outside of the sciences do not require a thesis. So what? I am talking about the sciences. Second, how is it different than a dissert? Its shorter but its still a project that is defended from beginning to end and my contention is that it is the project, planned from beginning to ending that is needed to qualify for most research positions.
And once more if you need some to RUN a research project a student who worked grunt work (as undergrads do) will not be able to do that. Hence the need for the MS.
Sorry, but at least at good programs a undergrad can get involved in the same sorts of research as a master student can. Sometimes its even easier for them as they've been in the school longer. Furthermore, one can gain research experience in the job place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Since when is an internship the same thing as a thesis? Sorry but those "undergrad research opportunities" are not the same thing as a thesis.
What are you talking about? I never suggested an internship is the same as a thesis nor did I suggest that those research opportunities where the same as a thesis.
The point was simple, undergrads (especially at top programs) have ample opportunity to get research experience. Someone with a BS in biology from MIT is likely better prepared for a job as a researcher than someone with a BS and MS from a mid-ranked state college. Degrees are really just pieces of paper, no rational employer takes them as seriously as you are suggesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Again you are moving goal posts.... Let me be clear here since you apparently dont understand what that means.
No, when you are talking about jobs clearly private companies are relevant. Also, could you please stop suggesting I've said things that I have not? No where did I suggest that a masters thesis is just a "lit review".
Anyways, to say it again many undergrad programs require a senior thesis that has to contain original work. But a thesis is just a process, whether an undergrad gains research experience by working with Professor Dumbo for 2 years and helping write research papers or writes an actual thesis is largely irrelevant. The same sorts of things are done in either case. A thesis requirement just forces the student to do this sort of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
If you are getting a PhD in Oceanography and you have a masters degree in Oceanography the coursework is the same. What part of that can you not understand? Same with a MS in Bio and a PhD in Bio.
You really need to slow down and read what is being stated. The coursework is the same if you are the same school. When starting a masters program there is absolutely no guarantee that you will be able to continue your ph.d work in the same program. The course work from school to school is not consistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
I have been abundantly clear that I am talking about FIELD RESEARCH...
You do realize that you are responding to me, in a thread I created right? You mentioned changing the goal post? I'm not talking about just "field research", or Oceanography, etc. I'm talking about master programs (in particular those in traditional academia) in general.
All you seem to be saying boils down to "In my field masters are critical if you want to do research". That could have been said much quicker. I am, as I've said numerous times, talking about the subjects that are more so part of traditional academia (e.g., core sciences, liberal arts). These are the areas I'm familiar with, not more vocational like or very specialized programs. Not that I mind people mentioning other sorts of programs that are possible exception to the norm (assuming my claims are indeed true).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
But if your point is that no one needs a masters in any discipline you have failed.
I have not suggested this once in this thread, in fact just stated this to you:
" I have never claimed that a master degree never makes sense and the value of it most certainly varies from field to field. "
I gave exact instances where the admissions requirements are the same.
I guess you don't understand how admissions work? That or you're talking about source requirements again. Don't know. Anyhow, any stated requirements are minimum requirements, who gets accepted each year depends on the quality of the over all applicant pool and the number of positions available in the program. Accepting a new PH.d student is a big financial obligation, as a result their are usually less Ph.d positions than masters and there are more people applying (as the funding is usually much better). The program is also going to be less willing to accept marginal applicants and instead use the money on something else. Now, if we are to believe anything in economics than the ph.d students are going to be better on average than the master students.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
More making up on your part. How is a published scientific paper "grunt work"?
You think because something gets published its a significant piece of research? Grunt work gets published all the time as the results of grunt work are important to the scientific community. When I say "grunt" work I don't have in mind cleaning the lab tables at night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Second, how is it different than a dissert?
Its different in scope and quality. The research in a thesis is the sort of thing you can complete part-time in a year, as a result its very limited in scope. Additionally the source of the thesis is usually rather different. A dissertation is intended not only to be original work but original in concept, on the other hand a thesis is usually based on some question/thought your advisor has. Again, the sort of thing that can be dealt with in a short amount of time. But you seem to have an odd idea about dissertations, you seem to think they are just collections of research projects?!
An undergrad can get the same experience by working on a research project for 1-2 years. You seem to be caught up in formality, but how does presenting your thesis in a room in an "official" setting differ from presenting your research to your research group in an informal setting? There is no clear line here, someone with just a BS can be better qualified to do research than someone with a MS. It all depends on the particular circumstances of the individual. On the other hand, it would possible for an undergrad to do anything that resembles Ph.d level work. And hence why you see only a marginal increase in salary between the BS and MS, and a significant gap between the BS/MS and Ph.d
I guess you don't understand how admissions work? That or you're talking about source requirements again. Don't know. Anyhow, any stated requirements are minimum requirements, who gets accepted each year depends on the quality of the over all applicant pool and the number of positions available in the program. Accepting a new PH.d student is a big financial obligation, as a result their are usually less Ph.d positions than masters and there are more people applying (as the funding is usually much better). The program is also going to be less willing to accept marginal applicants and instead use the money on something else. Now, if we are to believe anything in economics than the ph.d students are going to be better on average than the master students.
You think because something gets published its a significant piece of research? Grunt work gets published all the time as the results of grunt work are important to the scientific community. When I say "grunt" work I don't have in mind cleaning the lab tables at night.
Its different in scope and quality. The research in a thesis is the sort of thing you can complete part-time in a year, as a result its very limited in scope. Additionally the source of the thesis is usually rather different. A dissertation is intended not only to be original work but original in concept, on the other hand a thesis is usually based on some question/thought your advisor has. Again, the sort of thing that can be dealt with in a short amount of time. But you seem to have an odd idea about dissertations, you seem to think they are just collections of research projects?!
An undergrad can get the same experience by working on a research project for 1-2 years. You seem to be caught up in formality, but how does presenting your thesis in a room in an "official" setting differ from presenting your research to your research group in an informal setting? There is no clear line here, someone with just a BS can be better qualified to do research than someone with a MS. It all depends on the particular circumstances of the individual. On the other hand, it would possible for an undergrad to do anything that resembles Ph.d level work. And hence why you see only a marginal increase in salary between the BS and MS, and a significant gap between the BS/MS and Ph.d
You have literally, no idea, what you are talking about. To claim that research that has passed the peer review process is "grunt work" proves how little you know about what actual scientific research entails.
Second, you keep saying part time. I do not know anyone who can get a MS degree part time from a good science grad program. At Rutgers you were not allowed to attend part time and just as many MS candidates taught classes and had fellowships.
The difference between MS and BS in scientific research is almost double. At NOAA a BS in marine science will get you about $34K in contract hours and no benefits. A MS in my department will get nearly 60K and benefits, starting out. A postdoc who is not a team leader only makes slightly more than the MS, in my department the postdoc gets less than 10K more than I do and has the exact same level of experience. The only real jump for PhD comes if you are top tier, lab leading and then you can make well over 100K. Yet again showing you literally have NO idea what you are talking about.
I am done explaining to you since you are obviously incapable of acknowledging that you are wrong and are not an expert in every single thing on the planet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
