BSc with placement vs integrated masters?

Hi,
The traditional route into research tends to be bachelors, (masters - not all of the time) then PhD. Integrated masters are great for industry (and for staying on an undergrad loan) but they have less credits (120) then a stand alone masters degree, as they are still classed as an undergrad degree even for the 4th year. This means they tend to not hold up the same when applying for research degrees or positions later, thats not to say its not possible but a lot of researchers still very much favour the traditional route.
Another note on integrated is biomed integrated tend to stay in the same lab for two years (at least in my uni), one of my mates managed to change due to problems in 3rd year lab but had a lot of difficulty. Whereas you are able to get a new lab doing a separate masters which gives you experience in a new lab with new techniques. Personally I wouldn't go for integrated as doing separately gives you two separate degrees and bigger range of experience (and extra contacts)

I thought it was the other way around! That MSci was the way into research and MSc was for industry

So a new lab gets you more experience. But since you've moved to a new place, then wouldn't it be difficult to get a reference?

Thanks for your reply!

I don't think there's a difference between MSci and MSc, is there? As a scientific researcher I can tell you that 99% of the PhDs I know (> 50) have MSci and not MRes. I think you are taking the difference between MSci and MRes too literally. People interviewing for PhD positions in science don't consider the difference between the two to be of much worth. So long as you have a good grade and are an attractive candidate overall then it's not going to matter whether you have an MSci or MRes.

Hi Planta!

Objectively, MSc has more credits and a more-in depth research experience. How much this matters, I don't know. It's apparently a very debated issue here

Cemoc (post above yours) thinks the opposite

I don't think I'm disagreeing with cemoc. Doing a masters in another lab of course gives you a different experience but being in the world of scientific research I can say that when it comes to being awarded a PhD position I have seen no evidence that one gives you some enormous advantage over the other because that's just one part of the application process. You then have to be interviewed and that generally holds more weight than your degree on paper.

Oh ok. So doing a separate MSc doesn't exactly give me an advantage. But what if I don't like being in the same lab? I've heard that you don't really get to do proper research in an MSci. Isn't that something that would matter a lot?

Oh ok. So doing a separate MSc doesn't exactly give me an advantage. But what if I don't like being in the same lab? I've heard that you don't really get to do proper research in an MSci. Isn't that something that would matter a lot?

I would recommend applying for the course whose content interests you the most, without getting into knots about the minor differences between all the different masters. Because ultimately, if you’re good enough for a PhD you’ll likely get one, whether you have an MSci, MSc or MRes.

I would recommend applying for the course whose content interests you the most, without getting into knots about the minor differences between all the different masters. Because ultimately, if you’re good enough for a PhD you’ll likely get one, whether you have an MSci, MSc or MRes.

There are of course pros to it but specifically in the context of getting a PhD position I don't believe it gives you much if any advantage. Perhaps things are different in biomed but in chemistry in the UK, practically all people I know of who have PhDs applied with MScis/MChem and this was never brought up as an issue. What do you mean same lab? In 4th year you typically research in a lab but you won't necessarily have been there before. Do you mean in the same uni? I mean, you do do research in an MSci but an MRes is a full year as opposed to the 6 months or so of an MSci, but again, I don't think this difference at this level of education is significant enough for it to mean that you're at a tangible disadvantage when it comes to applying for PhDs. Again, not sure if it’s different for biomed but for chemistry the only requirements I ever saw that were necessary for a PhD application were a minimum 2:1 classification and a masters. No mention made of specific masters or some being more desirable than others.

Didn't see the last post oops

For biomed, you need a minimum of 2:1 for an undergrad degree and a 'recognized' masters (I'm assuming that includes integrated too). In terms of course content KCL wins hands-down for having the most flexible structure, but Birmingham seems to have a better campus, so I'm stuck. And then we fall into the 'KCL is only a BSc rabbit hole'

I believe the general advice is to go for the course over the campus. Do you not like KCL campus as much?

It feels very...office-y. Kinda cramped. It isn't bad by any means, but it's not as open as Birmingham is. And then it's only a BSc, so filling out forms for another student visa for an MSc seems like a headache. Though I haven't ruled KCL out completely, and I'm still applying there. Who knows, they may not end up making an offer to me at all That would remove the choice from my hands at least!

In that case it seems Birmingham may be the better option overall then. Good luck with your application and I'm sure you'll get plenty of offers!