Questions about postgrad study

I have a few questions about postgrad study :smile:

1. Are postgrad degrees only for people who want to get into academia?
2. Can taught Masters degrees be used to get on a PhD programme?
3. What's the typical route to a PhD and how long does each step take?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

hobnob

Original post by Persie

I have a few questions about postgrad study :smile:

1. Are postgrad degrees only for people who want to get into academia?

No, but for some subjects, doing a masters degree or a PhD won't translate into higher earnings, so there'll little point of doing them if you're not aiming for a career in academia - unless you want to do it as an expensive hobby of sorts. :dontknow:

2. Can taught Masters degrees be used to get on a PhD programme?

Generally yes.

3. What's the typical route to a PhD and how long does each step take?

What do you mean by 'typical route'? :confused:

And which subject area are we talking about here?

Reply 2

tigermoth99

Original post by Persie

I have a few questions about postgrad study :smile:

1. Are postgrad degrees only for people who want to get into academia?

No. Some people study for enjoyment, others to enhance their skills for specialist jobs.

2. Can taught Masters degrees be used to get on a PhD programme?

Yes

3. What's the typical route to a PhD and how long does each step take?

BA/BSc->MA/MSc->PhD

I should point out that it does also depend on the subject. In the Sciences, it's easier to go straight from a BSc to a PhD. In the Arts and Humanities, an MA is pretty much an essential requirement (though there are exceptions to the rule)

Reply 3

Persie

Thanks for answering my questions :smile:

I'm a History student (to-be) btw.
Would a Masters/PhD be suitable for someone who wanted to work as a history writer/biographer but not an academic?
As for typical route, would I need to do a Masters degree to get on a PhD programme? And how long would each degree take to complete?

Reply 4

im so academic

Original post by tigermoth99

And I presume if you do the 4-year science course, you can just transfer to do the PhD, right?

Reply 5

evantej

Original post by im so academic

And I presume if you do the 4-year science course, you can just transfer to do the PhD, right?

Universities demand slightly higher entry requirements for BSc students transferring to a PhD than MSci students. But moving onto a PhD is not just about graduating with a particular classification; you need to fit the project. There may not be funding attached to your area of study, and some universities do not take on self-funded students for all programmes.

Reply 6

hobnob

Original post by Persie

Thanks for answering my questions :smile:

For history, you probably would.
A taught masters degree will normally take one year, research masters can take two years. A PhD will probably take around four years (give or take one or two terms, depending on how smoothly things are going).

Reply 7

Persie

Is a research degree a better foundation for a PhD than a taught degree?

Reply 8

evantej

Original post by Persie

Is a research degree a better foundation for a PhD than a taught degree?

In theory, yes. But most research programmes at masters level have large elements of taught units, and all taught programmes have large elements of research so it makes next to no difference; the former might have slightly larger dissertations, but it varies from university to university. From my experience, I think most people who tend to choose a research masters are those who prefer the independence or have slightly more obscure research interests than most people.

Reply 9

Persie

Do you think a Masters/PhD is worth pursuing if I don't want to go into academia?
I just want to write books about history :tongue:

Reply 10

hobnob

Original post by Persie

Do you think a Masters/PhD is worth pursuing if I don't want to go into academia?
I just want to write books about history :tongue:

Well, in monetary terms, almost certainly not, and depending on what kind of 'books about history' you have in mind, you won't necessarily be any better equipped for that after doing a masters degree either. Basically you'd be crossing over into expensive hobby territory, so any 'worth' you gain from it will have to be derived from the fact that you get to spend another year doing something you're good at and interested in. :dontknow:

Reply 11

Persie

Thanks for your help. It pretty much confirmed what I thought but I wanted to make sure :wink:

Reply 12

giella

There are specialist courses out there for writing which might be more suitable for you if writing is what you want. The Lifewriting MA at UEA is excellent and there is also an MA at Sussex in Writing History which would probably be suitable as well. Popular history however [ie. not just biography] is generally written by esteemed members of the academic community who've earned their place on Waterstones bookshelves through their academic pedigree with PhDs and years of experience under their belts [or as one of my more embittered professors once said, sometimes by just being photogenic enough to earn their place on a dust jacket!].
Biography writing is extremely underpaid however. Advances are the most pitiful in the publishing industry. There was a news item last year or maybe year before about how biographers are a vital yet dying breed in the industry. Not really a career to set your mind to. The academic route offers a more stable income through attachment to an academic department, with publication being more part of the job description rather than their main source of income. It's worth thinking about.

Reply 13

Jez RR

Original post by giella

The Lifewriting MA at UEA is excellent

Did you do it? I'm taking the autobiography module in it at the moment.

Reply 14

firedoor

Original post by Persie

Do you think a Masters/PhD is worth pursuing if I don't want to go into academia?
I just want to write books about history :tongue:

Stopping after the MA level in history is a bit pointless, esp if you want to write books about history. Most good, credible history books are written by people with PhDs or years of journalistic experience in a particular area, aside from the odd popular history sort of thing. And anyway, if you're going to write a history book about something, you might as well work towards a PhD while you do it, right?

Generally though, imo, a History MA/PhD would not be worth pursuing unless you have academic interests (I was also a history student).

Reply 15

hobnob

Original post by firedoor

And anyway, if you're going to write a history book about something, you might as well work towards a PhD while you do it, right?

Three to four years of doing a PhD (not to mention thousands of pounds in fees unless she's one of the lucky few to get funding) just because she's hoping to write a book on a vaguely related topic in a few years' time - which, let's be realistic here, may never actually happen? Are you serious? :confused:

Reply 16

firedoor

I know what an academic is, thanks.

It may never actually happen, no, but it's probably not worth it to entirely write off the possibility of postgrad work, unless OP is already completely sure that an academic career is not for him/her.

But anyway, I'll defer to you for this one. And Persie, good luck with your history stuff, it's a great subject.

Reply 17

Nurlan

Does anybody know difference between MA and MSc degrees?

Reply 18

hobnob

Original post by firedoor

I know what an academic is, thanks.
Sorry, I didn't mean to patronise you, I just wanted to point out that they're not writing those books because they've got PhDs, they're writing them because they're academics (and in order to become academics in the first place, they obviously need to have done PhDs). Correlation doesn't imply causation etc.

It may never actually happen, no, but it's probably not worth it to entirely write off the possibility of postgrad work, unless OP is already completely sure that an academic career is not for him/her.

My point was that you seemed to be encouraging the OP to do a postgraduate degree by suggesting that this would make her ultimate goal of writing history books easier to achieve. That's misleading. Most history PhDs probably never go on to write any books, and most of those who do won't be writing them because they did PhDs. So I really don't think this is a very good motivation for doing a postgraduate course. Maybe a one-year course, but not a PhD. You need more than just a pipe-dream of becoming the next Orlando Figes afterwards to spur you on, otherwise it could easily become a pretty soul-destroying experience. :erm:

Reply 19

steepest descent

In Science, many people do a PhD and do not end up in academia... A PhD is essential as soon as you want to do research, so it also works in industry. A PhD is also not only about research, but learning a lot of different skills, usually useful for your job or more generally in life.