[Irrelevance]

With all the postgrad stuff I noticed there's essentially two types - a research and a taught Masters. Aside from one being taught and one being research based, are there any other major differences? Such as between an MPhil, MRes and MA/MSc?

[P.h.o.e.n.i.x.y]

Sorry, but aside from that, I wanted to know what's the difference between the undergraduate 4-year MSc/MA and the Undergraduate 3 year BSc then post grad MSc for a few years.

[evantej]

(Original post by Irrelevance)
With all the postgrad stuff I noticed there's essentially two types - a research and a taught Masters. Aside from one being taught and one being research based, are there any other major differences? Such as between an MPhil, MRes and MA/MSc?

The difference between taught and research masters is ambivalent. Pretty much all taught masters programmes have a dissertation, which can stretch from between 10,000-25,000 words. Some research masters also have taught elements too, though the focus is more around the dissertation itself so the modules either directly relate to it (i.e. you might have to produce a 5,000 word extract for submission) or they all contribute to knowledge that will be useful for it.

It is hard to generalise about masters degrees. More often than specific titles refer to specific types of degree (e.g. MSc refers to sciences masters), but you always have exceptions: Edinburgh's arts programmes come under MSc. Likewise, MPhil usually refers to a two-year postgraduate qualification which is, basically, half-way between a masters degree and a PhD. You are taught for two years and the dissertation you produce is larger than on a one year programme. But there are universities which use MPhil to refer to one-year taught masters.

I would not think twice about all this. I would only consider what you can afford and which you want to do, in terms of which units you want to take, which academics you want to work with, and what forms of assessment you feel comfortable with. I applied for seven masters degrees and eventually went with the one which had a dedicated unit on Dostoevsky (and the lecturer attached to it), one which I knew was almost entirely essay based, and one which was in a city I had never lived before.

(Original post by 3uNic3)
Sorry, but aside from that, I wanted to know what's the difference between the undergraduate 4-year MSc/MA and the Undergraduate 3 year BSc then post grad MSc for a few years.

Four-year masters programmes are only offered in the sciences. It is hard to say what the differences are if you compared both routes, except the obvious financial benefits of doing a four year programme rather than funding a standalone masters programme.

[Irrelevance]

(Original post by 3uNic3)
Sorry, but aside from that, I wanted to know what's the difference between the undergraduate 4-year MSc/MA and the Undergraduate 3 year BSc then post grad MSc for a few years.

Some consider the entire course content to be too much to fit into three years so they give you a honorary Masters title and space it across four years where the fourth Masters year is usually a lot less work than a typical MSc. For example, MPharm.

(Original post by evantej)
The difference between taught and research masters is ambivalent. Pretty much all taught masters programmes have a dissertation, which can stretch from between 10,000-25,000 words. Some research masters also have taught elements too, though the focus is more around the dissertation itself so the modules either directly relate to it (i.e. you might have to produce a 5,000 word extract for submission) or they all contribute to knowledge that will be useful for it.

It is hard to generalise about masters degrees. More often than specific titles refer to specific types of degree (e.g. MSc refers to sciences masters), but you always have exceptions: Edinburgh's arts programmes come under MSc. Likewise, MPhil usually refers to a two-year postgraduate qualification which is, basically, half-way between a masters degree and a PhD. You are taught for two years and the dissertation you produce is larger than on a one year programme. But there are universities which use MPhil to refer to one-year taught masters.

I would not think twice about all this. I would only consider what you can afford and which you want to do, in terms of which units you want to take, which academics you want to work with, and what forms of assessment you feel comfortable with. I applied for seven masters degrees and eventually went with the one which had a dedicated unit on Dostoevsky (and the lecturer attached to it), one which I knew was almost entirely essay based, and one which was in a city I had never lived before.

Great, thanks for the information. Curious as I applied for and been accepted for a one year MPhil whereas I've been rejected for a few other MSc courses so just wanted to know if I was missing something.

[P.h.o.e.n.i.x.y]

(Original post by evantej)
Four-year masters programmes are only offered in the sciences. It is hard to say what the differences are if you compared both routes, except the obvious financial benefits of doing a four year programme rather than funding a standalone masters programme.

What about job wise? Does employers look for standalone MSci or 4-year MSc more or it doesn't matter? And applying for post grad? If I have a MSci(4-year from undergrad), it means I have masters degree right? So, if I want to further study, I don't have to go for another standalone masters, I can go for a PhD?

[evantej]

(Original post by 3uNic3)
What about job wise? Does employers look for standalone MSci or 4-year MSc more or it doesn't matter? And applying for post grad? If I have a MSci(4-year from undergrad), it means I have masters degree right? So, if I want to further study, I don't have to go for another standalone masters, I can go for a PhD?

I am not a science student (any more), but what I do know about the transition to doctoral study is that there does not seem to be that much difference. You can apply for a PhD with either, but the offer will be typically higher if you have only done an undergraduate programme (e.g. if you apply with a MSci you might get away with a 2.2, but you will need a 2.1 if you did a three-year programme). Again, things will also depend upon the competitiveness of your field and university you apply to. Irrelevance's point about spreading out content into a fourth year seems very likely.

I assume it will be the same for job prospects. Most science students will not carry on to doctoral study, and I imagine most who do go onto a PhD will come straight from undergraduate study. Having a MSci might be more popular in individual sub-disciplines (e.g. engineering) though. I really do not know what the market is like for standalone masters degrees in the sciences; they always seemed to me to function like some masters degrees in the arts and humanities, opportunities to switch between discipline.

Given the current climate, I would probably go with a four-year programme just to be on the safe side, both in terms of receiving student finance and riding out the worst of the job situation.

[P.h.o.e.n.i.x.y]

(Original post by evantej)
I am not a science student (any more), but what I do know about the transition to doctoral study is that there does not seem to be that much difference. You can apply for a PhD with either, but the offer will be typically higher if you have only done an undergraduate programme (e.g. if you apply with a MSci you might get away with a 2.2, but you will need a 2.1 if you did a three-year programme). Again, things will also depend upon the competitiveness of your field and university you apply to. Irrelevance's point about spreading out content into a fourth year seems very likely.

I assume it will be the same for job prospects. Most science students will not carry on to doctoral study, and I imagine most who do go onto a PhD will come straight from undergraduate study. Having a MSci might be more popular in individual sub-disciplines (e.g. engineering) though. I really do not know what the market is like for standalone masters degrees in the sciences; they always seemed to me to function like some masters degrees in the arts and humanities, opportunities to switch between discipline.

Given the current climate, I would probably go with a four-year programme just to be on the safe side, both in terms of receiving student finance and riding out the worst of the job situation.

Ok. thanks a lot. It's helpful.

[Bubble87]

As stated by someone already, doing the 4 year MSc makes a lot of sense financially but doing a standalone one allows for you to branch out more and specialise in a specific area of interest rather than a generic MSc in your overall degree choice. If that makes sense :s lol

[Ghost6]

(Original post by Irrelevance)
With all the postgrad stuff I noticed there's essentially two types - a research and a taught Masters. Aside from one being taught and one being research based, are there any other major differences? Such as between an MPhil, MRes and MA/MSc?

MPhil is the name of some master's at Oxford and Cambridge because undergraduates automatically receive MA degrees there.

Pro tip: if you want a master's, stay away from the MRes kind of research master's, as they are often perceived as consolation prizes for PhD drop outs. Plus it just seems to be more work when you can just do what is basically another years of classes just like during your undergraduate years and some extended essay at the end and be called a "master of [your subject]".

[evantej]

(Original post by Ghost6)
MPhil is the name of some master's at Oxford and Cambridge because undergraduates automatically receive MA degrees there.

Pro tip: if you want a master's, stay away from the MRes kind of research master's, as they are often perceived as consolation prizes for PhD drop outs. Plus it just seems to be more work when you can just do what is basically another years of classes just like during your undergraduate years and some extended essay at the end and be called a "master of [your subject]".

PhD 'drop outs' typically receive a MPhil, not a MRes. I do not think I have ever seen a university use a MRes as anything other than a research preparation masters.

[shizzler]

Just to clarify, because some people seem to be using the terms arbitrarily. MSc (Master of Science) is the stand alone program, eligible for it only after completing a 3 year BSc, and it is considered postgraduate study. An MSci (Master in Science) is an extended (4 yr) BSc and is still considered undegraduate study, although it offers the same possibilities as an MSc upon completion (moving on to PhD later on...).

[Inkslick]

I did Chemistry at Surrey, but it was many years ago. Then the undergrad Masters was the same classes as the BSc I think, you just had to get higher marks.
I get the impression that undergrad masters are not really all that respected- only the postgrad masters is research training, so I think they are treated quite differently by academia. A 2:1 BSc was fine for going on to a PhD, you didn't need that undergrad master's especially.