Diff between MSc and MA

Hello Everyone:

Forgive my ignorance, but what's the difference between MSc and a MA degree. My friend who just received a MSc is claiming that its more prestigious than a MA.

 

I was an admissions counselor at NYU's grad school, and basically the only difference is the MS has more "science" classes than an MA. It's not necessarily more prestigious, but an argument could be made it's more rigorous in science.

 

Your friend is right. Of course I may be a tad biased.

Honestly, I agree with what gtobin stated.

 

Actually, some of the most oldest and most prestigious universities in the country issue BA or MA degrees instead of the BS or MS, even for degrees in the sciences. Examples would include Harvard and Princeton.

 

Rackwin,

Your friend is mistaken. A Master of Science degree (M.S. or M.Sc.) is no more prestigious than a Master of Arts degree (M.A.). Studies comparing the two degrees have shown them to be identical, along with a host of other master degree titles. Departments within a university will generally offer either the M.A. or M.S. degree, but typically not both. Several universities offer the B.A. or B.S. in the same department--the B.S. degree typically has a more extensive math/science requirement. The same does not hold true for the M.A. vs. M.S.

Some years ago, I conducted a study of masters degrees offered in the field of instructional technology to see whether the name of the degree (M.A., M.S. or M.Ed.) made any difference in the course work requirements or the culminating activity (thesis, project, comprehensive exam or course work only). I found that the name of the degree was not a good predictor and that there was generally no difference between M.A., M.S. and M.Ed. degrees (e.g. I found several M.Ed. programs that required theses or projects and M.A. and M.S. programs requiring coursework only).

There are a few masters programs considered to be terminal professional degrees, such as the M.B.A. and the M.Div., which require more course work than a typical M.A. or M.S.

 

There is usually no distinction in quality, rigor, etc. between an MA and MS degree. The choice of MS or MA is normally driven by the discipline in which the degree is awarded. The MS degree is typically awarded in science and technical areas, while the MA is typically awarded in the arts and humanities. An MS in Literature would have an external validity problem. Likewise, an MA in engineering would likewise have an external validity problem.

That being said, there is often a distinction between specialized professional degrees such as the MBA or MFA, and, the MS or MA. An MBA usually requires more coursework than an MA or MS in Management. Ditto for an MFA versus an MA in Art.

 

MA and M.Phil

I want to go one further ... What are the differences between an MA and an M.Phil? The question that is driving this is that my boss that is from India is writing his CV and is unsure how to list it in the US. He has done a dissertation (becuase that's how the Brits refer to it istead of thesis I guess)for his MA and he said that he also wrote a thesis for his M.Phil and this was required before he could be a professor in India. I know that we have a CAGS or an Ed.S here but I don't know if either one of those would be the equivalent. Thanks for the help ....

 

Re: MA and M.Phil

Generally the MA contains significant coursework vs the M.Phil. which is predominantly a research based degree.

Re how to list a M.Phil in the USA: Just list it as a M.Phil. since this degree is also awarded by some US universities.

 

Thanks Ian .... I didn't know that US uni's awarded that one. Thought it was a strictly overseas designation.

 

Ah, yes, indeed! One of my undergrad poli sci profs had an MPhil degree, from Syracuse, I believe, and he explained to me that the MPhil is kind of like a super-master's and that by law in New York state, if an individual completes the coursework phase of a doctorate but does not complete the dissertation, the school must award the student a piece of paper and the New York universities have chosen the MPhil designation for that piece of paper. The MPhil is, of course, the dissertation-only master's program of UK universities, though it can also be a coursework plus thesis master's degree above the Master of Arts, as at Madurai-Kamaraj University www.mkuniversity.org . So, yes, an American employer would understand the MPhil to be an advanced master's degree.

 

Re: MA and M.Phil

Comparing degrees from foreign institutions to those from the U.S. can sometimes be a confusing business. A case in point is the M.Phil., which is not really a known degree in the U.S. Any difference between an M.A. and an M.Phil. offered by the same institution would be up to that institution.

I do not know whether the M.Phil. requires a previously earned master degree for admittance, but the Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study (CAGS) and Educational Specialist degree (Ed.S.) are post-masters programs that typically consist of course work only without a thesis.

 

Interesting detail, Tony. But ed degrees are somewhat of a world apart from the Arts and Sciences, and also apart from the lay perceptions I think the query this thread generated is about.

The deep impression of most people is that an MA is an arts degree, and therefore a generalist education, whereas almost any MS degree is likely more technical - demanding - rigorous, and therefore a qualification to do something specific that lay people (or Arts educated) can't.

True or not, in general, even I believe it - despite the fact that most any MA in economics is more rigorous than any MS in sociology.

But would I more admire the MSc holder from LSE in sociology over the MA in econ from Harvard? Now that's a tough question!

 

I'm not so sure how far apart the different disciplines really are--perhaps in the mind of some--but when you look at what is actually required for the degrees themselves, the differences are not all that much. While I do not see many M.A. degrees in physics and chemistry (although I am certain that some institution offers it), plenty of universities offer the M.A. or M.S. in psychology and many other disciplines.

I think that we also run the risk of equivocation when we make blanket statements like "most any MA in economics is more rigorous than any MS in sociology". Do you have evidence to back up this claim? Taking your example, do you really think that the Harvard sociology degree would be less rigorous than the LSE econ degree? When we get into the business of discipline snobbery, it destroys collegiality, as the "hard science" disciplines will always be perceived as "more doctoral" than humanities, social sciences, business and education.

 

Most MDiv programs that I have seen require up to three times the coursework of a typical MA/MS program, putting them in a similar class with the J.D.

 

An acquaintance was taking an M.Div. at Biola University -- 96 semester units required including ancient greek.

 

Hi Tony - as always, you bring acute observations to the table!

First, to more general issue I've claimed - does an MS degree impart more technical knowledge or skill than the MA? In natural sciences, for example, I think we'd all concede that lab work in mineral analysis as part of the geology MS qualifies the holder to operate specialized equiment that an art history MA holder could not. Similarly with physics (eg, spectroscopy) or chem (and biology (eg, histology, tissue culturing). For instance, I once had a buddy who took his BS in botany and wound up supervising polymerase chain reactions for a med lab doing cancer research - not likely employment for a journalism or communications degree holder!

Now, if the Museum Studies degree holder whose coursework included labs like radionuclear dating techniques, perhaps they could get work in a physical anthopolgy lab or even geology. There are always 'work arounds' in life, as in the world of credentials. And in this sense, the different disciplines are not that far apart, as you wish. In fact, I'd argue FOR your point with respect to to the unity of ultimate methods of inquiry: they are more alike than different. The tools used to get there, however, can be dauntingly different. Hence, the image that technical feilds have for prestige and liberal arts for 'basket weaving.'

For instance, here's a CV for a master's level scientist. http://cremesti.com/rami/ There are no educational prestige brands there - merely what he can do - quite a lot!

Now to the specific question, MA in econ versus MS in sociology. All econ programs require econometrics - economic theory combined with higher math applications. The MS program is always calculus based; the MA needn't be but usually - and almost always nowadays - is. Quant is king in econ - not so in sociology. By contrast, most sociology programs (in the US mind you) that offer the MS require advanced statistics and a course in survey techniques and analysis - but nothing calculus based. Therefore, I conclude that the former is more exacting and difficult than the latter, requiring a higher level of mathematical aptitude.

I'm certainly not making any claim that some fields are more properly "doctoral" than others and therfore presitgious; this thread concerns master's level training, not the PhD. Nor am I making a deeper philosophical and more strictly postivist claim, that 'only the more quantitative fields are truly scientific.' I'm merely allowing for a certain extent of the lay truth that the more demanding a degree's requirements, the more precise or technical the field is - in general - the more difficult the degree is to get. Discipline is normally tantamount to difficulty. If that means "mathematical" to most minds, then so be it.

Now, perhaps this popular perception is more the result of state university education on American culture. I know that many older or traditionally programmed institutions reject degree labels like "Bachelor of Science," preferring only "Bachelor of Arts" in biology (University of Cambridge, University of Colorado). In the US, our publicly supported higher ed system has especially approved of practical and applied specialties (eg, soil science, food science, consumer science, etc), fields never recognized by the Ancient universities or Ivy league schools (excepting Cornell, which in fact as a certified late-comer [1860s] became the model for the land grant institutions I'm generalizing about). I'm prepared to accept this alternative possibility. But how to ferret out a metric to prove it?

-Orson

"All life is problem solving." - Karl Popper

 

Orson,

I would suggest that the faculty committees that propose new masters programs are far less astute than many of the posters on this board as to differences between an MA and MS, especialy in smaller institutions.

This has lead to a blurring of the distinction between the degrees, especially over the last twenty years.

 

This is one of those threads when every time you read a new posting to the thread you say, "Of course, that's right." I can only add the following. In my ignorance, if someone asked me the question that started this thread I'd answer that the MSc degree probably requires more science/math credits than the MA equivalent (as gtobin previosly stated). I don't know that this is really the case but that would be my guess. I would like to add that this does not necessarily make the program more difficult. I have known plenty of people (usually "hard science" people) who would greatly prefer to spend their time crunching equations as opposed to writing essays or 20 page research papers. Finally, I would agree with foobar when he says that there has been some considerable blurring over the years. It's not clear to me that there's a lot of consistency even within a single university. Certainly there's inconsistency within any given country and there's a lot of inconsistency when comparing the universities of different countries. Because of this I think that all contributors to this thread have been correct, at least to some extent. Thanks.
Jack

 

I'm going to take this 180 degrees in some ways and argue that a B.A. or M.A. is MORE prestigious in many ways than a B.Sc. or M.Sc.

Many prestigious American schools, such as Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Rochester, Dartmouth, to name a few, all offer B.A.'s in Engineering Science. These B.A.'s are designed for people who want an engineering degree and are going to pursue more advanced studies in law, business, government, medicine, or graduate studies, etc... The regular B.Sc.'s in engineering science are meant to produce engineers and only engineers.

Until recently, Oxford and Cambridge only offered B.A.'s in most scientific fields and engineering. In fact, I believe they still do in the majority of their disciplines.

John Forbes Nash received his B.A. and M.A. in Mathematics from Princeton University.

There are probably more politicians and world leaders with B.A.'s and M.A.'s than there are with B.Sc.'s and M.Sc. However, there are also probably more people serving Big Macs and fries at McDonald's with B.A. and M.A.'s!

Haha... don't worry so much about the degree title. The school and discipline have more bearing. A B.A. from Harvard versus a M.S. (or even doctorate) from Phoenix bears no comparison... ;-)