The Student Room Group

Phd? or no Phd?

okay straight to the point,

I am aiming to graduate with a 1st class from Anglia ruskin university in Mechanical engineering (BEng ) in a couple of months time. Since I am on target for a 1st, I am being encouraged to pursue a research phd programme (company supported) ie, the topic of research is provided by a company in the car crash test industry.

I actually like working in this industry and in fact my dissertation was on the stiffness analysis of car bonnets,,

but, Is it a good idea to go for a phd without msc? any advise, word of wisdom, any opinions regarding this matter may be very helpful.....so common lads,, help out a man in deep dilemma...

Scroll to see replies

The people are encouraging you are, I assume, academics who know you/your work? If so, then they know your abilities, and they know how hard a PhD is, so if they say that you can do it, they're probably right.
Reply 2
Avatar for Klix88
Klix88
17
Original post by kevin12rick
okay straight to the point,

I am aiming to graduate with a 1st class from Anglia ruskin university in Mechanical engineering (BEng ) in a couple of months time. Since I am on target for a 1st, I am being encouraged to pursue a research phd programme (company supported) ie, the topic of research is provided by a company in the car crash test industry.

I actually like working in this industry and in fact my dissertation was on the stiffness analysis of car bonnets,,

but, Is it a good idea to go for a phd without msc? any advise, word of wisdom, any opinions regarding this matter may be very helpful.....so common lads,, help out a man in deep dilemma...


Going straight from undergrad to PhD without a Masters, is pretty much standard in STEM fields. Less so in the Humanities.

Check that your uni has the proper support services/research skills training available and that your supervisors are ready to give the appropriate guidance on getting up to speed. But if the uni has its ducks in a row and you have commercial sponsorship for a topic which interests you - happy days!
Original post by Klix88
Going straight from undergrad to PhD without a Masters, is pretty much standard in STEM fields. Less so in the Humanities.

Check that your uni has the proper support services/research skills training available and that your supervisors are ready to give the appropriate guidance on getting up to speed. But if the uni has its ducks in a row and you have commercial sponsorship for a topic which interests you - happy days!


It's only 'standard' because many if not most science undergraduate courses are integrated masters.
If you can't handle it you can always leave with a master's, but indeed going for a master's first would enable to see if you are actually up for it, in terms of your ability and interests.
Reply 5
Avatar for Klix88
Klix88
17
Original post by Little Toy Gun
It's only 'standard' because many if not most science undergraduate courses are integrated masters.


The 1+3 integrated PhDs are much less common than the straight-to-PhD route.
Original post by Klix88
The 1+3 integrated PhDs are much less common than the straight-to-PhD route.


Integrated masters are undergraduate masters which take four years to complete, ending with a master's degree.
Reply 7
Avatar for Klix88
Klix88
17
Original post by Little Toy Gun
If you can't handle it you can always leave with a master's, but indeed going for a master's first would enable to see if you are actually up for it, in terms of your ability and interests.


You can't leave a PhD early with a Masters. You can exit with an MPhil (a higher qualification than a Masters) at the point of Transfer, if you and the uni consider this more appropriate than continuing to the full PhD. That would generally be after a year to eighteen months, so probably a little longer than a Masters.
Original post by Klix88
You can't leave a PhD early with a Masters. You can exit with an MPhil (a higher qualification than a Masters) at the point of Transfer, if you and the uni consider this more appropriate than continuing to the full PhD. That would generally be after a year to eighteen months, so probably a little longer than a Masters.


That's exactly what I meant. Didn't say it'd take the same amount of time. And yes, this does mean you can leave a PhD early with a master's, unless you're suggesting it's possible to earn a PhD after 18 months.
Reply 9
Avatar for Klix88
Klix88
17
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Integrated masters are undergraduate masters which take four years to complete, ending with a master's degree.


There are four year undergrad Masters degrees. The 1+3 is the Doctoral Training Centre model where the first year is the Masters and the following three years are the PhD.
Reply 10
Avatar for Klix88
Klix88
17
Original post by Little Toy Gun
That's exactly what I meant. Didn't say it'd take the same amount of time. And yes, this does mean you can leave a PhD early with a master's, unless you're suggesting it's possible to earn a PhD after 18 months.


An MPhil isn't the equivalent of a Masters (MSc or MA) - it's a higher level qualification. Nobody refers to an MPhil as "a Masters". I think you may be confusing the terminology.
Original post by Klix88
There are four year undergrad Masters degrees. The 1+3 is the Doctoral Training Centre model where the first year is the Masters and the following three years are the PhD.


And that's exactly what I said, so what's your point? I pointed out the fact that many undergrads go straight into a doctorates because there are many undergrad masters in the sciences, and then you said master's+PhD courses are not common, which is a totally irrelevant point.

Then after I've explained to you what an integrated master is you're repeating what I've said to me?
Original post by Klix88
An MPhil isn't the equivalent of a Masters (MSc or MA) - it's a higher level qualification. Nobody refers to an MPhil as "a Masters". I think you may be confusing the terminology.


An MPhil is the same level as an MSc or an MA, and it heavily depends on the university. It is the same level according to the government, it is the same level according to universities, and it is the same level as understood by employers.

What you're talking about is the difference between a research master's and a taught master's, but just because something isn't called an MPhil doesn't mean it's not a research master's, and just because it's not classed as a research master's doesn't mean research masters is a higher qualification.

I think you are terribly misinformed on this matter.
Reply 13
Avatar for Klix88
Klix88
17
Original post by Little Toy Gun
you're repeating what I've said to me?

One of us is certainly confused :smile:
Original post by Klix88
One of us is certainly confused :smile:


And that's you.

I mentioned integrated masters being common, then you said it's not common but you were in fact talking about something else but not integrated masters.

And then after you've been exposed you're now acting as if you've never made a mistake or an irrelevant comment.

Let me review what have been said:

I said: People go straight into a PhD because many did an integrated master.

You said: 1+3 PhD courses are uncommon. (Irrelevant.)

I said: Integrated masters are undergrad masters.

You said: Integrated masters are undergrad masters. (Repeating what I just said and never actually responded to the point.)
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 15
Avatar for Klix88
Klix88
17
Original post by Little Toy Gun
An MPhil is the same level as an MSc or an MA,


No it isn't.


What you're talking about is the difference between a research master's and a taught master's,


No. A research Masters is an MRes, which is the same level as an MSc and an MA.

but just because something isn't called an MPhil doesn't mean it's not a research master's,


Yes it does. A rsearch Masters is an MRes. An MPhil usn't.

and just because it's not classed as a research master's doesn't mean research masters is a higher qualification.

Er...?

I think you are terribly misinformed on this matter.

Given that I'm currently academic staff in the Science faculty where I did my MPhil/PhD for over three years, I beg to differ.

I don't have any more to add.
Original post by Klix88
No it isn't.


It is. The government disagrees with you.

https://www.gov.uk/what-different-qualification-levels-mean/overview
All master's degrees are at Level 7 and there's no distinction between them.

Original post by Klix88
No. A research Masters is an MRes, which is the same level as an MSc and an MA.


No. A research master is a research master if a university says it is, regardless of the name.

This is why an MSc can be a research master if a university classes it as an MSc by research. Example: http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/courses/msc-research-engineering-science

MRes is not offered in many universities, and MPhil is usually, but not absolutely always, a research master: http://www.topuniversities.com/blog/types-masters-degrees

Cambridge, for example, offers a research-based taught master as an MPhil if it's done full-time, but as an MEd if it's done part-time. So someone if you do the exact same course full-time instead of part-time, you get a higher qualification? lol

But usually, MPhils are offered as a research master whilst MScs are offered as taught masters. Example: http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/Graduate/graduate-courses

All these different names are the same as all the different names departments can have. It can be called a faculty, a school, a department, an institution, an institute, an academy, a college, a division, but there's no universal difference. At University of Hong Kong, a faculty is higher than a department; at University of Oxford, they are of the same level but a faculty can admit its own students; at University of London, and institute can be an autonomous de facto university, in the US, an institute (eg MIT) can be an entirely independent university, but at Oxford, it can be a department under the Faculty of Law.

Similarly, an MA is a taught master's at Edinburgh, but a status given to BA graduates at Cambridge after some years; an MSc at Oxford's education department is a taught master, but at Oxford's engineering department, it's a research master; an MPhil at Peking University is a research master, but at Cambridge it can just be a taught master that is research-based.

Original post by Klix88
Given that I'm currently academic staff in the Science faculty where I did my MPhil/PhD for over three years, I beg to differ.


Given that I've sat on Oxford's Social Sciences Board with 17 heads of department, I beg to differ. Given that you didn't complete your doctorate, I can only assume you are not a dean of faculty.

In your university, perhaps an MPhil is offered as a more advanced master's degree, but in the rest of the world, it is entirely how the university calls it (just like how an MA at Oxbridge wouldn't be considered the same as an MA from UCL since the MA is a status not earned with further studies or exams), and most call a research master an MPhil. And research masters are not higher than taught masters, just like how a professional degree (eg BEd) is not higher than a non-professional one (eg BA).

Original post by Klix88
I don't have any more to add.


Well you can only say you're wrong anyway.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Little Toy Gun


Given that I've sat on Oxford's Social Sciences Board with 17 heads of department, I beg to differ.


translates as: was student rep & went to a few meetings. No big deal.
Original post by Jantaculum
translates as: was student rep & went to a few meetings. No big deal.


And someone who didn't even have a doctorate in a field she herself said must have one is? She's not even a postdoc.

Do you have proof to show that I was wrong on any point? That, indeed, doing the EXACT SAME COURSE, but full time instead of part time gives you a higher qualification? That only MRes is a research master's?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Little Toy Gun
And someone who didn't even have a doctorate in a field she herself said must have one is? She's not even a postdoc.

Do you have proof to show that I was wrong on any point? That, indeed, doing the EXACT SAME COURSE, but full time instead of part time gives you a higher qualification? That only MRes is a research master's?


Klix must be really good if she's been appointed to academic staff without getting a doctorate, don't you think?

Having lots of titles and letters after your name isn't everything, you know.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you