For those who know a lot about the PhD process: I spoke to a PhD holder today who told me that if I wanted to eventually pursue a PhD, to skip the masters, and take the (longer) road going straight into a PhD program (like she did- 6 years). Her field is in education, so perhaps that is a different process than in other fields? I really don't know anything about it, so I have a few questions- - is this the kind of thing people do? This is only the second time I have heard about it, but never on this board- only on the ground. - what would be the pros and cons of such a track? - is this kind of option that exists in the online world? Every online PhD option I have looked up in the past hour requires a masters for admission. - has anyone here pursued a track like this? THANKS a bunch!
I'm glad I earned an MBA along the way. A masters degree is a good thing to have IMHO. I just wish I would have written a thesis, wish would have helped me greatly through the dissertation process... Life as an adult learner is tough, and I think that I'd be leery of putting all of the eggs in one basket and skipping the Masters Degree. Shawn
I agree with Shawn. The masters' as an intermediate step is a good way to do it. You could, for example, start teaching earlier if you wanted. It is also good if you stop partway, because at least you have the intermediate degree. However, some schools (like Northcentral U, if I'm not mistaken) count the PhD as ~80 credits, with ~35 credits for the masters, so if you come in with a masters you get some credit or you can start the PhD with zero credits and work up to the 80 at the same time.
It is entirely possible to get into a doctoral program as a direct admission from the bachelor's while taking the master's in passing. In doing so, one would still take the same number of graduate credits as if one had been admitted first to the master's and then re-applied and gotten admission to the doctorate.
What Ted said. Traditional doctoral programs often admit at the bachelor's level. Many award the master's along the way, but not all. I think non-traditional Ph.d. programs require the master's because they're targeted towards mid-career professionals who already have master's degrees. Of course, one may enter their master's programs with the goal of continuing to the Ph.D. In any case, the amount of work is likely the same. In other countries, such as the UK, the master's is often a consolation award, given to candidates who fail their doctoral dissertations, or are not allowed to continue to the dissertation.
I'm not a doctor nor do I play one on T.V. but I have been researching doing a doctorate myself lately and in my opinion getting a masters along the way just makes more sense. If you're doing the work and paying the fees anyways, why not get some credit for it along the way?
Umm, because the original purpose of the Ph.D.--preparing for an academic career--makes the master's moot. The idea is to take undergraduates and pipeline them into academic positions and careers via the Ph.D. What matters is where you studied, with whom you studied, what you studied and researched, and what you've written. Not the master's degree they handed you along the way.
If one falls short in a PhD program, one can usually walk away with an MS, as stated above. Similarly, sometimes people who are rejected when applying for a PhD program are offered admission into the MS program. So, in my mind, the following issues are at play (maybe less so for non-quantitative fields): Funding (much, much better for PhD applicants) (applies to on-campus students) For quantitative fields like computer science, statistics, etc., most PhD applicants get funding (RA/TA positions) before starting. However, I guess in fields like education, there are less opportunities for RA/TA positions. So this may be less of an issue. Getting Admitted to a Top School/Department (better for MS applicants) It's easier to get into a top-ranked department if one applies for the MS program. Then, after being in MS program for a while or after completing it, one is in a better position to apply to top PhD programs.
I think you all might know more about this than me but the only reason I can think of for getting the Masters first and then moving on to a PhD program is if you want to get these two grad degrees in different fields. For example, I might think about getting a PhD in English Literature but I might want to earn an MFA in Creative Writing first. Beyond that I think Rich is entirely accurate in his posts.
Right on Kizmet. However I still maintain that for the non-traditional student it may be better to get the MA/MS along the way if already paying the fees and doing the work if for nothing other than perhaps a mile marker. Of course I'm speaking strictly of getting your doctorate online vs. being on campus and working as a TA during your course of study. Besides, what could it hurt?
I would have thought the reason for taking the master's in passing would be in order to have a qualification that would allow you to take adjuncting positions while working on the PhD.
If you want to skip the Masters degree, then you could simply get two specializations on your way to the Doctorate, which would broaden your ability to teach at the collegiate level. And since both specializations would be attached to the doctorate, it would make you more marketable. However, let's not forget that the vast majority of people who embark on a doctoral degree never finish it, so the aspiring student might end up being awarded with a Masters degree as a consolation.
BTW, I think some if not most PhD programs award an MS while you are still working on the PhD. So, in a PhD program, you don't necessarily have to "walk away" in order to get the MS.
My step daughter just finished her PhD in marine biology at UCSC - she did not bother with a masters degree. She is now doing a post-doc and intends to teach.
