doctorate vs 2nd masters

Looking for opinions on whether it is better for me to obtain a 2nd masters degree from a well-respected school (i.e., penn state, duquesne, GWU etc.) or pursue a doctorate from less respected online school (i.e., northcentral, capella, walden, etc.)

The degree would be used to enhance my professional credibility and possibly open up some other options (i.e., getting published). I'd also like to do some teaching in the future.

I currently work as an independent consultant.

 

If you already have a Masters from a well respected university, then I'd recommend getting an online RA doctorate with one caveat: If you don't finish the doctorate, then make sure you could easily turn it into a second Masters degree in a different field.

 

Get the doc

 

As long as it's regionally accredited, get the doctorate... or so it is my opinion based solely on the information you've provided... which really isn't enough to make such a declaration.

We've talked around here about second bachelors versus masters and that one, it seems to me, is a no brainer (i.e., usually, just go get the masters and stop wondering about it).

But a second masters vs. a doctorate is not so clear cut. A doctorate is a decidedly larger (with emphasis on both "decidedly" and "larger") undertaking than is a second masters. And unlike a second bachelors, a second masters really can enhance credibility in most (or even all) of the desired ways, depending on what it's in and in what ways one wishes to impress, etc. But even then, it's still not as impressive as a doctorate.

And if it's a largely taught doctorate -- with at least thirty-something (or more) hours of coursework -- it probably could be turned into a second masters if you just can't find a way to finish the research and the dissertation. But if you think you'll ever need a parachute like that, get, in writing, that you'll be allowed to before you undertake the program... as me again rightly and smartly advised.

 

I will agree with the others in saying that the doctoral degree might serve you better. I can imagine some circumstances where the second Masters might be preferred but I don't think this is one of them.
Jack

 

For an independent consultant, I agree that the doctorate is a better choice. On the other hand, if you were working for a large corporation (e.g. a pharmaceutical company 25 miles NNW of Philly), then the answer might be different -- it's perhaps not a good idea to have better credentials than your boss and your boss's boss, etc.

If I recall correctly, you're an IT person (or a Telecommunications person)?

 

If you need the prestige of a "name" school, get the 2nd master's.

If you need the prestige of the doctorate, go get that.

If you need the education (to enter a new field, say), get the 2nd master's. (Faster, more easily entered, etc.) Consider the doctorate instead, but only if you can take the time, spend the money, and get admitted.

My entire professional life changed upon earning the Ph.D., even in areas where my field of study isn't all that relevant.

 

If you're thinking about getting published, by all means, get the doctorate.

 

I respectfully disagree with this. I have only a masters, and have published numerous times in peer-reviewed, internationally circulated, archival journals. Any good journal will consider your submission on its merits. Once, I asked the editor of a well known journal about my situation (i.e., not having a PhD). His reply was that my record of earlier publication was a far stronger credential, in his view, than having a PhD. So, once you get your foot in the door -- which can be done with some good work -- the lack of a PhD seems to make little difference, in my experience.

 

Just wanted to add something else re credibility: one of my papers was cited as authoritative in a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (one notch down from the Supremes). Having or not having a PhD made no difference . . .

-- gasbag

 

Quite true, one can get published on top scholarly journals without a doctorate--the quality of the manuscript is most important. However, non-scholarly publishers like being able to put "Ph.D." on the jacket (witness the fact that several prominent authors have non-accredited doctorates). Since your (Tel's) goals are using the degree "to enhance my professional credibility and possibly open up some other options (i.e., getting published)" and doing some teaching, these goals would be better met with a doctorate from a regionally accredited university than with a second masters.

 

But it cannot be often enough repeated:

A dissertation doctorate is an enormous, multi-year, backbreaking, all consuming task. It is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from a Master's degree or professional doctorate.

Chances are, unless you a strongly motivated to pursue a career involving extensive, independent research, either academic or professional, in your chosen field, you will probably not complete the degree.

 

Good point -- the trade press and the popular publishers are different worlds, I would guess . . . (I have no experience there).

-- gasbag

 

Did you sign the paper, "gasbag"?

 

The school's tax status is irrelevant. I have a doctorate from Union, a non-profit, and I don't think it is any more valuable than the for-profit DL degrees around. Although, I believe, like Fielding, Union has a terrific academic culture. I'm not so sure that's the case with Capella, NCU, TUI, etc. (Nova Southeastern has it, but they're also B&M.)

 

No need to -- you can infer same from the paper itself!

-- gasbag

 

I think this has been asked before. If you are looking for job as an employee in industry, a second master's degree from a top school would do more for you than a PhD from a low tier.

If you are self employed and work as a consultant, the PhD would make more sense as customers rarely ask about the origin of your degree. If you are thinking about teaching, a PhD from a low tier would do more for you as many schools require this as the minimum requirement.

It really depends on what you want to do with it.

 

I don't agree with this. A PhD from a low tier could be finished in even 3 years part time while an MBA from Harvard needs two years of full time work. An MBA from a top tier school normally requires 4 years of part time work as well. So a PhD doesn't mean always larger than a second master's.

I think this is a valid question as a second master's from a top school might take even more effort than a PhD from a low tier.

 

RFValve has some valid points.

If the question were in general would it be better to get another Masters or a doctorate....I would say doctorate. Why expend a given amount of energy for another Masters when you could earn a doctorate for a little more work and energy. A doctorate carries a certain amount of prestige (or in some cases baggage....I have seen folks excluded from jobs because they have a doctorate).

However, as RFValve points out, you are asking about a top tier Masters and that may very well carry far more weight than a doctorate from NCU, NSU, U of Pheonix, UIU, etc. There is in some cases a negativity toward on line schools when people can discern that the school is one. I remember folks joking about a guy with a doctorate from U of Phoenix (had a number of residencies and was no push over program) as PhD.com and wondering if he would get his diploma e-mailed as an icon.

Only you can answer these questions in terms of right fit and what you want out of it. A good doctoral prgram like Union, or from a bricks and mortor school like Nova may be a good fit for teaching, etc.

Hopefully a lot of others will chime in.

In my case I wanted an accredited doctorate in an area like pastoral counseling. Found a program, accredited, affordable, VA approved, etc. But...I am under no illusion that I will be teaching at U of Michigan, Dallas Theological Seminary, etc. Met my goals but if teaching at DTS were my goal then I would have needed to look elsewhere for my doctorate.

Good luck.

North