Diff between MSc and MA

The difference between an MA and an MS depends on the discipline. The MS in History is likely a very rare beast indeed, but Illinois State University distinguishes (or at least used to distinguish) its thesis-required foreign languages required master's in history from its non-thesis, no foreign languages required master's in history by dubbing the former the MA in History and the latter the MS in History.

 

Hmm, back when I was in school at the UW studying chemistry 25 years ago, they had both a BA and BS degree. The difference between the two was that the BS had more math and a few more science credits requirements. When I took my MS in chemistry at the UW, the only degree offered at the master's level was a MS. I had always assumed that any masters' in a physical science would be a MS.

 

Over the last thirty or twenty years, I think your estimate is right. Ted and Michael's examples are cases in point.

There has been a "dumbing down" of the hard and fast distinctions between the MA and MS through the years.

Now, one good question is 'why?' Has there been a prestige chase to legitimise new fields (eg, MS in Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine)? Or to add lustre to those lacking it? Surely no one will argue that masters degree programs have proliferated...

-Orson

 

Yup. Just checked the old graduate catalog of my undergraduate institution, Western State College of Colorado. As I had thought, Western State College, up until 1989, used to offer an MA in Science with Emphasis in Biology. It was a thesis program.

 

Unfortunately, degree titles are not always determined by the discipline or the school. Often times state legislatures and politics make those determinations. In several states, certain degree titles are reserved for the flagship universities and cannot be offered at the smaller or regional state colleges. For example, in Nebraska, only the university of Nebraska system can offer an MA or MS. All other schools offer M.S.Ed., M.A.Ed., or M.Ed. degrees. The subject matter may be the same, the degrees may even qualify you to do the same thing, but their titles are different. At Chadron State, where I did my masters, they distingusih between graduate degrees for teaches/educators with a M.S.Ed. and for non-teachers with an M.A.Ed.. Several years ago, the college tried to petition to get either an M.A. or an M.S. for the non-teachers and were deinied. The college explained it might make it less confusing for employers hiring their graduates. The courses are identical with the UN system, but must have different degree names so as not to compete. This is true in other states as well. After a number of years Chadron State was able to get an MBA (instead of an M.A.Ed. in business), but it took a lot of negotiation.

In most situations, a masters degree is a masters degree (M.A., M.S., M.Ed., etc.) Exceptions include the MSW (60-72 semester hours), M.Div. (90 semester hours), most counsleing master's (any type, M.Ed., M.A., M.S., etc -- 60 semester hours). Content is typically more important than degree title. I am sure there are others. The other distinction is thesis/not thesis (36 smester hours course work versus 30 smester hours course work and a thesis).

In my own profession degree title means very little. The Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) determines the specifc course requirments, length of program and internship requirements. The university determines the degree title. Often that is determined by the school on campus where the degree is offered. If it is in a school of medicine, it is often an M.S., if it is is a school of arts and sciences and MA or MS, if a school of education an MEd, MS, or MA, and if in independent school of Rehabilitation it is often an M.R.C.. One school even has an MHR (master of human resources in rehabilitation counseling). What matters is course content and whether or not you are eligible to take the national boards.

Hope this information is helpful, but I know it muddies the water more than cleaning it.

 

Originally posted by Orson


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

Thank you, Orson. I have found the same to be true of your posts here.

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!

If one defines "technical knowledge or skill" as knowledge and skill in math and science, then I certainly agree with you. I tend to define "technical" a bit more broadly. For instance, I know digital art majors who utilize technical hardware and software that persons trained in geology, chemistry or physics would not necessarily be able to run. For nearly two decades, I have trained hundreds of professors (including science professors) in the use of various hardware and software technologies for instruction. In these cases, I with my M.Ed. had much more "technical knowledge or skill" than those with M.S. degrees. On the other hand, could I supervise polymerase chain reactions for a med lab doing cancer research? Not on your life.

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.'

I certainly see your point and agree that the different tools and methods of inquiry are used in different disciplines. Certain types of data are best gathered through qualitative, rather than quantitative means and it would be a mistake to label such means as fluff research. I did a quantitative analysis for my dissertation because I knew that most (well done) qualitative research is far more difficult, due to the sheer amount of data that can be gathered through qualitative means. When I surveyed dissertations at a large research university, the smallest ones (about 100 pages) were all experimental studies in the sciences. The largest ones (over 800 pages) were qualitative studies in the social sciences. Now, size does not necessarily equate to "technical skill", but the methods were just as involed and rigorous.

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!

Good point. Ultimately, it is what we can and cannot do that determines where we can and cannot go.

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.

You example would make my point that there is no difference between the MA and MS degrees per se, but there is a difference between disciplines and between universities. Your estimation of the difficulty of a particular program seems to be the level of the math requirement. Would you rate computer science masters as more exacting and difficult than economics, due to the advanced math and programming language requirements? Your method of rating difficulty is certainly valid. Some would argue that certain graduate programs in religion that require mastery of Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Coptic might be just as difficult as those requiring mastery of higher mathematics.

I have never worked for a unviersity that offers an MS in sociology; mine have always offered an MA requiring statistics and research methods.

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.

However, a discipline's mathematical component is not necessarily the most difficult part.

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?

You are absolutely right here. The level of inconsistency among discplines and degrees at U.S. institutions of higher education make such a metric extremely difficult--if not impossible. The bottom line is that there is no consistent definition of "master of science" and "master of arts" that holds true across disciplines and universities. This is why we cannot say that one is "higher" "more rigorous" "more difficult" "more prestigious", etc. than the other.

I appreciate your thoughful approach, Orson.

 

This is the most common situation. In the "hard sciences," many programs offer a BA or BS, the latter usually having a more extensive math/science component. More often than not, the graduate program will offer only one degree. When it does offer more than one, the deciding factor will often be the terminating activity (e.g. research thesis versus applied project or extra course work).

The U.S. Department of Education's description of various masters degree titles demonstrates that there is not a unified definition for many of them, thus making direct comparison between and among degrees a very dodgy business:

--Master of Architecture (M.Arch) (usually a 2-3 year professional degree);
--Master of Arts (M.A.) (usually, but not always, awarded for research studies in a wide variety of subjects);
--Master of Arts in Teaching (M.A.T.) (generally a one-year professional degree);
--Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) (nearly always a 2 year professional degree in management);
--Master of Education (M.Ed.) (awarded for both professional and research studies in education subjects);
--Master of Fine Arts (M.F.A.) (a 2-3 year professional degree in studio, applied, or performing arts that is often considered a terminal degree);
--Master of Library Science (M.L.S.) (a 2-year professional degree);
--Master of Music (M.M.) (a 2-3 year degree in music that is usually professional (performance) but may sometimes be a research award);
--Master of Public Health (M.P.H.) (usually a 2-year professional degree);
--Master of Science (M.S.) (awarded for both research and professional studies in a wide variety of subjects);
--Master of Science in Nursing (M.S.N.) (usually a professional degree but also awarded for research);
--Master of Social Work (M.S.W.) (usually a 2-year professional degree);
--Master of Theology (Th.M.) (generally a research degree but may also be professional).

The Master of Divinity (M.Div.) is classified as a first professional degree, rather than a masters (along with the J.D., M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M. etc.)

 

Actually, your contribution demonstrates just how muddy the situation is and why we cannot reliably say that either the MA or MS is the "higher" degree.

 

Yet another development that muddies the dichotomy that begins this thread are the proliferation of interdiciplinary degrees, especially since the 1970s.

A recent statistic for total US higher ed institutions stated that there are now 4,200 - up from 3,200 in 1970. With all those new places to study, there had been a corresponding proliferation of blended masters created in order to find competitive niches (not necessarily in just the new ones, obviously).

Tony, it's ture that I've appealed to quant study to make my case that the MS is more prestigious than the MA. I believe the vox populi has spoken on my behalf (although actual polling data would be fun to throw in the mix, instead of just anectdotal). Most people are innumerate. Perhaps only 20% of all college grads are really comfortable with numbers.

In your reply to me, Tony, you mention a few interesting specifics I ought to reply to, like this:

'Some would argue that certain graduate programs in religion that require mastery of Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Coptic might be just as difficult as those requiring mastery of higher mathematics."
Definitely true. Languages tax memory, perception, and motor skills in ways math simply doesn't. But skill at higher math tends to depend more on visual imagination than people can ever believe. (The movie "A Beautiful Mind" nicely taps into this truth in ways "Proof" never does - an inferior film.)

Successful graduate education depends upon a close-mathcing of skill sets, or else the selection of a program with limited demands for the weakest one(s). We've all heard about the PhD who just speaked though his or her foreign language or math or stats requirement, sometimes after a few intimidating failures.

Tony write: "Would you rate computer science masters as more exacting and difficult than economics, due to the advanced math and programming language requirements?" No.

Comp sci in the 60s and 70s often? sometimes? required exotic maths. But to my knowledge, the premium skill is algorithm following and creation. This means a logical and systematic flow of data handling. Now, we've all met some people who are simply too scattered in their attention patterns to magine success at this! Of course, maths use algorithms, but applied to numeric or generalized symbols - words are often tougher for most people to plug into formulas.

I'm sure the old school comp sic folks could complain that advanced specialization has "dumbed down" the field. But the fact remains that skills like programing in different number bases and transforming from one base system to another is skill wasted in an age when silicon memory is cheap and number crunching power ubitquitous. T'was not always thus.

As a kid I learned to use a slide rule - just as it was made obsolete only two years later! I wonder what they're doing with the abacus in China?

I agree with Tony: this makes it impossible to generalize about degrees - one must examine the curiccula and compare directly. Yet, given different sylabi and correspondingly different work loads, even this may not be enough to know.

I think we can generally agree that the MA (or BA) is less course restrictive than the MS (or BS). There's no absolute, but that's generally true. As to which is harder and easier? Whether true or false, can we agree that the popular (US/North American) perception is that latter is?

Please help me to restate or refine these proferred conclusions for this thread topic.

 

Orson,

You make some excellent points regarding the knowledge and skills required to master higher math. Certainly, anyone with an advanced degree in math or science deserves respect for notable academic achievement. However, as you correctly point out there are skills that require different processing that are better handled by disciplines other than mathematics. Many of those with great knowledge or skills lack the ability to transfer knowledge and skills to others. Many of those with advanced "back end" technical knowledge and skills lack "front end" design knowledge and skills. Is math harder than other disciplines? For many people, the answer is, most definitely, yes.

ORSON: "I think we can generally agree that the MA (or BA) is less course restrictive than the MS (or BS). There's no absolute, but that's generally true. As to which is harder and easier? Whether true or false, can we agree that the popular (US/North American) perception is that latter is?"

TONY: I really do not think that I can agree with this, as my 18 years of experience working in higher education institutions does not bear this out. As long as we have so many disciplines offering both the M.A. and M.S. degrees, without a consistent standard as to the requirements for those degrees, it is not possible to effectively differentitate between the two (except, perhaps, in some very limited disciplines).

I also cannot subscribe to your last sentence about popular perception, as I am aware of no research (and I have looked) that tests the public perception of the master of arts versus the master of science degree. The professors, department chairs and administrators to which I have posed the question have seen little or no difference between masters degree titles. Unless you are aware of some research that I am not, how can we gauge popular perception? If you are aware of such research, please let me know, as I am interested in this topic and have yet to find it in my journal database searches.

Sounds like a nice thesis or dissertation topic for someone...

 

Excelsior does pretty much the same thing with its BA and BS as Charter Oak.