Are holders of Master's degrees in the biochemical sciences really "failed PhDs"?

Question

I've heard that statement or things to its effect more than once in circles like scientific blogger communities and even some of my professor, and would like to know what people out there really think.

I'm an undergraduate biochemistry student, certain that I want to pursue further graduate education, but not certain just how. Up until recently, I was under the impression that one would have to have a Master's degree in order to get into a PhD program, but have now learned that this isn't the case, since it's possible to head into a PhD program while only holding a BS (at least in some cases, right?).

I'm interested in the fields of molecular biology and genetic engineering. My main career aspiration is to work in the research of vectors for gene therapy. Would it make sense to pursue a Master's degree? Are there any disadvantages to continuing into a PhD program while skipping the Master's stage altogether?

Any insight into this is greatly appreciated, thank you!

Answer 1

This is an interesting issue in all fields of biology PhD. research.

Many biology related PhD. programs are switching format so that a student may enter with a B.S., skip the M.S. and go straight to a PhD. Within these programs, M.S. are awarded only in certain circumstances. When one say that a holder of a Master's degree is a failed PhD, what they are implying is that the student, at some point while trying to get their PhD., has decided to leave the program. The student, however, has achieved enough, to be awarded a Master's degree.

This typically occurs in situations where the student no longer is happy with their lab or research, their advisor is not happy with their progress, or there are issues with the graduate program (i.e.- fullfilling certain requirements; failing coursework; etc.).

There are no disadvantages to skipping a Masters degree and going strainght for the PhD (other than the additional time required).

As for whether you should pursue a M.S. or PhD. has more to deal with what you like to do in the future. If you would like to become a professor and/or run your own lab (in either academia or industry) you will need a PhD and perhaps additional experience (post-doc of about 2-4 years). If on the other hand, you think you could be happy executing projects within a lab with minimal responsibilty when it comes to getting funding or managing the lab, a M.S. should suffice.

You seem to have a pretty good idea of what type of research that you would like to do. I suggest that you read articles and find out which labs you think are the best. Get in contact with the primary investigator, let them know about your enthusiasm for their work, let them know what you would like to research (specifically - i.e. 'I am interested in investigating the mechanism of how different vectors transfect cell type X'), and ask them if they are taking students in the academic year that you would like to start grad school. You can also ask about the students that have graduated from the lab- how many had graduated with M.S. and how many graduated with PhDs? The benifit of this is two fold- you gain information about the lab you would like to join and your potential advisor keeps an eye out for your application.

Hope this helps. Good look applying.

Answer 2

I have also been going through this same dilemma. As of 2 weeks ago, I was a PhD student in microbiology, which is something I was very comfortable doing and had always wanted to do since I was pretty much in high school. Unfortunately, things (such as life!) change. I switched to Master's because I wasn't happy in my current area of research and wanted to switch to something else. Because I didn't want to hurt my advisor's chance for tenure, I agreed to finish in his lab with a Master's before going somewhere else for my PhD.

I went straight into a PhD program from a very small liberal arts college, and although I was worried I wouldn't be prepared, it wasn't a problem, so don't let that factor into your decision. At least in microbiology and molecular biology, it's becoming more and more common for people to skip a Master's altogether and go straight for PhD. It depends on what your ultimate career goals are...if you want to run your own lab, you'll have to get a PhD. If you want to be a research technician in someone else's lab, then a Master's would be sufficient.

I think my point (I'm slowly getting there) is if you know you need a PhD to achieve your career goals, then there is no professional reason to do a Master's first. Of course, there are other things to consider...family situations, finances, etc. but there are tons of reasons one would do a Master's first and none of them have anything to do with failure.

I will say that I've heard this same type of attitude (the whole "a Master's is a consolation prize" thing), mainly because many PhD students who don't pass their preliminary exam (and therefore don't advance to candidacy) are awarded a Master's degree for their efforts thus far. However, someone who starts out in a Master's program or switches well before their preliminary exam (like myself) isn't looked down upon quite so much.

I hope this helps some! You would have opportunities no matter which path you took, just look to your ultimate goal!

Answer 3

As a fellow undergrad biochemistry student, I would definately go for the masters. Many labs, at least where I live, have openings for people with masters, but usually only one or two with a PhD work in each lab so they don't come open often. If you are interested in lab work like I am (DNA and genetic research) I would get the masters and find a job.

Answer 4

Are holders of Master's degrees in the biochemical sciences really "failed PhDs"? Personally, I don't think so. Usually, those who seek a graduate degree in the basic sciences apply for doctorate programs, while those interested applied sciences go for master's degrees.

In a doctorate program, the first two years is very similar to undergraduate. You split your time between coursework and being a teaching assistant (TA). The department awards you free tuition and a small stipend to live on. Your work as a TA provides for the stipend. At the end of two years, you must submit a thesis to continue in the doctorate program. This will be the research project who will be working on to receive your doctorate. It is a little more complicated than just submitting a thesis. You also have to defend your thesis as well, to demonstrate your understanding of the research. Some schools call it the "A" exam or "Step 1." Regardless of the name, you have to pass this hurdle if you want to continue your doctorate. A panel of three professors, one of whom is your faculty advisor, will judge your thesis. Most candidates pass this stage and continue their work. But, for those who fail, this is the end of the line for them. They are not award a Master's degree as well. In addition, during your first two years of coursework, you must maintain a B grade average in order to receive the free tuition and stipend.

There are some situations in which a doctorate candidate will decide to just earn a Master's degree and graduate. After passing the "A" exam or "Step 1," some doctorate candidates decide to end their graduate studies. Usually, it is for financial reasons. The stipend allows you to pay the rent and put food on the table barely. An average workday for a doctorate candidate is 10-14 hrs/day. And, though many graduate schools say a candidate can complete the program in 4 years, in my experience it is closer to 5 years. The private sector offers significantly higher salaries and shorter work days. When a graduate student marries and starts to have a family, money and time is very important. For myself, I had high aspirations to earn a doctorate in organic chemistry. My goal was to become a college professor in chemistry. But, after working two years in graduate school, I changed my mine. Not only did I have to finish my doctorate degree, I also had to complete a one year postdoct to even be able to apply for a tenure professorship. I wasn't alone. At Merck, the company I finally decided to work for, many of my co-workers also decided to end their graduate work with just a Master's degree. These are smart people and not "failed Ph.D. candidates."

You have to think about what you want out of a degree. If you see yourself working in a private sector then Ph.D earns almost as much as a Master's degree. If you have aspiration for being a college professor then you will need to complete your Ph.D and postdoctorate. And trust me, overtime you will re-evaluate your situation and goals again and again.

Answer 5

never attempting is WORSE! as a results of fact in case you think of approximately it, you should truthfully attempt some thing new and fail at it nicely suited away, yet failing is what facilitates you learn! Failing facilitates you paintings out the thank you to nicely suited the blunders! as a results of fact if we never failed faster or later in our lives, for sure each thing we've completed is in simple terms too situation-free for us! and there is incredibly no longer something exciting approximately some thing being way too situation-free for us! think of of this as a video interest. in case you fail at a definite point distinctive cases, this is okay, as a results of fact as you paintings out further and extra the thank you to edit what you're doing incorrect, you would be able to in basic terms beat that time! yet once you never attempt to overcome that time, then once you invite a chum over to play a similar interest and you're hopelessly failing to pass that time, you would be embarrassed! in case you never attempt, you will never comprehend. yet once you fail, a minimum of you will choose some potential to overcome your previous errors! base line: in case you do no longer attempt, you will fail quickly. yet once you attempt and fail, you will finally discover ways to get sturdy at it in case you preserve at it.