2 ms·

I mean, my understanding is that in America it involves an extra couple of years of specialization on top of the (four?) years average of the PhD itself. If yo

I mean, my understanding is that in America it involves an extra couple of years of specialization on top of the (four?) years average of the PhD itself. If you mean doing postdoctoral positions prior to securing a tenure-track position, then yes, that's generally true.

misnome 13y ago
No, I meant because the impression I get is that in general undergraduate courses aren't specialised e.g. you choose whatever courses you want as long as the "credits" add up to the requirements for a major, versus doing every course in one subject. The overwhelming impression I've got talking with american students is that they had to have a couple of years doing a "masters" at the start of the PhD, which effectively caught them up to the equivalent level of a full time course in the subject. Maybe this is just Physics, I don't know.
- jofer 13y ago
  In a lot of fields a M.S. is a requirement to start a PhD. It has nothing whatsoever to do with coursework. Instead, it's a matter of research experience. (Also, at least in my field, you usually do your B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. at three different institutions.) At least in the geosciences, it's something like: B.S.: Basic coursework and a senior thesis * Senior Thesis: "Here's a well-defined problem, here's how I'd start, why don't you think about how you'd do it and go solve it" M.S.: A class or two and a Masters Thesis * Thesis: "Here's an relevant, unsolved problem. Go solve it." PhD: Research (and lots of seminars) * Dissertation: "Come up with 3 relevant, unsolved, and interesting problems. Then solve all three of them." The big difference is really in finding your own interesting problems (and often finding funding for them as well) as opposed to being handed a problem.
- cossatot 13y ago
  Depends on the school. Even in the same discipline (I'm also in the geosciences like jofer) some departments don't accept grad students as MS students except in certain circumstances, such as U. Michigan, my current employer. Most of the grad students here come in with a BS and consequently (and understandably) take a little more time and often flail a bit more at first, relative to PhD students who start with a MS. Some schools that only/mostly take PhD students on give you a MS when you've written your first paper or taken you PhD qualifying exams. I did a MS before I did my PhD, at different schools and with reasonably different projects, and am glad I did. Where I did my PhD, it was difficult to be accepted into teh PhD program without an MS. However, I wouldn't say that the MS or equivalent is necessary to reach a 'full time course' because the American BS is less specialized than an equivalent degree elsewhere in the world, based on what I've learned from the many non-Americans I've worked with. edit to answer question better: In the American system, there is a lot of unrelated coursework (which has some guidelines, it's not just a sum of credits), but there are also a fair amount of core/science courses. I just looked at my coursework list and counted 16 courses (including fieldtrips and independent studies but not labs) in geoscience, then there is the requisite math, physics, chemistry. The American system still takes the idea of a well-rounded 'liberal arts' education seriously (feel free to be skeptical and call it welfare for poets and historians, although I don't entirely share this position). I think university in many countries is a shorter process, although their high schools may be much better...
  - jofer 13y ago
    Yeah, I was being a bit careless by saying that an MS was required. Your comment is certainly more representative of the field as a whole than mine. More and more schools seem to be heading towards PhD only for graduate geoscience programs (which is a mistake, i.m.o.). A lot of professors at Wisconsin were strongly pushing for it while I was there, though an equal number were opposed. I also think there's a large benefit to doing a separate MS, preferably at a separate institution. (If nothing else, it dramatically increases your breadth of experience.) At any rate, I certainly agree with you. Having an MS makes it much easier to get into competitive PhD programs. Also, an MS is a common working degree for a large number of geoscientific jobs, so there's a strong demand for industry-focused MS graduates. For those reasons (and not because a B.S. doesn't have enough coursework, i.m.o.), separate MS and PhD degrees are very common in the geosciences

misnome 13y ago

No, I meant because the impression I get is that in general undergraduate courses aren't specialised e.g. you choose whatever courses you want as long as the "credits" add up to the requirements for a major, versus doing every course in one subject. The overwhelming impression I've got talking with american students is that they had to have a couple of years doing a "masters" at the start of the PhD, which effectively caught them up to the equivalent level of a full time course in the subject. Maybe this is just Physics, I don't know.

jofer 13y ago
In a lot of fields a M.S. is a requirement to start a PhD. It has nothing whatsoever to do with coursework. Instead, it's a matter of research experience. (Also, at least in my field, you usually do your B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. at three different institutions.) At least in the geosciences, it's something like: B.S.: Basic coursework and a senior thesis * Senior Thesis: "Here's a well-defined problem, here's how I'd start, why don't you think about how you'd do it and go solve it" M.S.: A class or two and a Masters Thesis * Thesis: "Here's an relevant, unsolved problem. Go solve it." PhD: Research (and lots of seminars) * Dissertation: "Come up with 3 relevant, unsolved, and interesting problems. Then solve all three of them." The big difference is really in finding your own interesting problems (and often finding funding for them as well) as opposed to being handed a problem.
cossatot 13y ago
Depends on the school. Even in the same discipline (I'm also in the geosciences like jofer) some departments don't accept grad students as MS students except in certain circumstances, such as U. Michigan, my current employer. Most of the grad students here come in with a BS and consequently (and understandably) take a little more time and often flail a bit more at first, relative to PhD students who start with a MS. Some schools that only/mostly take PhD students on give you a MS when you've written your first paper or taken you PhD qualifying exams. I did a MS before I did my PhD, at different schools and with reasonably different projects, and am glad I did. Where I did my PhD, it was difficult to be accepted into teh PhD program without an MS. However, I wouldn't say that the MS or equivalent is necessary to reach a 'full time course' because the American BS is less specialized than an equivalent degree elsewhere in the world, based on what I've learned from the many non-Americans I've worked with. edit to answer question better: In the American system, there is a lot of unrelated coursework (which has some guidelines, it's not just a sum of credits), but there are also a fair amount of core/science courses. I just looked at my coursework list and counted 16 courses (including fieldtrips and independent studies but not labs) in geoscience, then there is the requisite math, physics, chemistry. The American system still takes the idea of a well-rounded 'liberal arts' education seriously (feel free to be skeptical and call it welfare for poets and historians, although I don't entirely share this position). I think university in many countries is a shorter process, although their high schools may be much better...
- jofer 13y ago
  Yeah, I was being a bit careless by saying that an MS was required. Your comment is certainly more representative of the field as a whole than mine. More and more schools seem to be heading towards PhD only for graduate geoscience programs (which is a mistake, i.m.o.). A lot of professors at Wisconsin were strongly pushing for it while I was there, though an equal number were opposed. I also think there's a large benefit to doing a separate MS, preferably at a separate institution. (If nothing else, it dramatically increases your breadth of experience.) At any rate, I certainly agree with you. Having an MS makes it much easier to get into competitive PhD programs. Also, an MS is a common working degree for a large number of geoscientific jobs, so there's a strong demand for industry-focused MS graduates. For those reasons (and not because a B.S. doesn't have enough coursework, i.m.o.), separate MS and PhD degrees are very common in the geosciences