November 14, 2007

The Hidden Cost of Four-Year Masters Programs

Posted by Eric at 8:32 am | Category: Academia, Personal, Science

Since right now it’s both fellowship-writing and graduate school application season, I figured this was as good a time as any to post about this.

For those undergrads out there considering whether to enroll in a four-year combined Baccalaureate/Masters program, a word of advice: if you’re planning to try for a Ph.D. in the sciences later, the Masters may not be worth the hidden cost: you may lose a year of eligibility for applying to graduate fellowships during your Ph.D. program.

If you’re planning to do a Masters in, say, philosophy, and then you want to do chemistry for your Ph.D., then fine, no worries, get your M.A. and be joyful. On the other hand, if you plan to go do your Ph.D. in the same field as your Masters, it’s probably not worth it.

First of all, you’ll get a Masters in most Ph.D. programs after a year or so, regardless of whether or not you pass the qualifying exams. Secondly, your Masters work is sufficiently related to your Ph.D. work such that you may not be eligible to apply for many graduate fellowships—such as the NSF, DoD, or DoE fellowships—as a second-year Ph.D. student. Since getting the fellowships is a bit of a crapshoot, the extra year of eligibility in graduate school is quite helpful.

The main reason to get that Masters in chemistry (or whatever science) would probably be if you want to take time off before graduate school and get a job, in which case the Masters might come in handy (I’m assuming), and that advantage might outweigh your possible fellowships eligibility loss later on.

In any case, the choice ultimately comes down to personal factors, of course, but this is an often-overlooked factor when people consider the four-year Masters program in college.

Follow the comments thread by the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “The Hidden Cost of Four-Year Masters Programs”

  1. cmb Says:
    November 14th, 2007 at 10:49 am

    I can give you one more advantage of the Masters, not usually worth it, but people in my department are screwy. If you’re in an underfunded department or field and are having to TA? Chances are you get paid more for doing it for having a masters degree, even one remotely related to your field. That extra bit of money is nice.

    But yeah, I’d never give up another shot at the NSF for that extra bit. Not when I could double my salary.

    Of course, I may be alone in this view in my department–terrifyingly enough I’ve talked with a large number of fellow grad students who JUST DIDN’T CARE TO APPLY FOR IT. Sigh. But the issues with departmental philosophy in my program are another story.

  2. Betsy Says:
    November 14th, 2007 at 3:42 pm

    I don’t really see much advantage to a masters degree. I didn’t get one on the way to my Ph.D., and I don’t think it would have mattered at all if I had.

    I’ve wondered if it would be useful for those who didn’t really want to go on to a Ph.D. I’ve discussed this with RAs that I work with, and NONE of them think there’s any value in a masters, even those that have them already. That’s the view from small biotech anyway; maybe it matters more in big pharma.

  3. Eric Says:
    November 14th, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    I have a feeling that there’s more hierarchy (and thus bigger pay-scale differences) in big pharma, but I don’t know much on pay scales outside of medicinal chemistry. I also feel like there would be more of an effect outside of biomedicine, where the Masters wouldn’t be viewed so much as a consolation prize for those who couldn’t cut it in the Ph.D. program.

Leave a Reply