masters in a different subject to bachelors?

One of the main reasons that Masters degrees exist is so that people can gain experience in a relatively new area as compared to their undergraduate degree. I'm in the process of applying for a PhD in Psychology, having done it as an undergrad. Very early on in the process, I was chatting to a lecturer about the pros and cons of doing a Masters first. He basically said that if you wanted to go on to do a PhD, you might as well go straight into it. You wouldn't learn anything new on the Masters course, and it would be a waste of time and money.

As long as you have the basic prerquisites in the area you want to do the Masters in, you shouldn't have a problem.

I'm sorry, this is terrible and ill-informed advice, possibly the worst I've seen on here for a long time. I'm a first-year PhD student in the social sciences, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Master's degrees are not primarily designed to introduce you to a new subject at all.

In most cases their role is to allow you to specialise in more detail in a subject which you have already encountered (perhaps even only tangentially) at the undergraduate level, acquainting you with the more advanced debates in the field, introducing you to methodological disputes and potentially preparing you for the transition into doctoral study.

Master's degrees are absolutely crucial in paving the way from a bachelor's degree to doctoral study. There is a whole world of difference between doing a BA and a PhD - in fact, some people who do very well at undergrad go on to become very mediocre doctoral students, and vice versa.

Though this may vary by field (perhaps it's different in psychology?), in my opinion going straight from an undergraduate program into a doctorate is, in most instances I would say, far from desirable.

I'm a final year undergrad going through the process of applying for a PhD, so I'm not exactly ill-informed.

I didn't say that this was their primary purpose; simply that it is one of the main ways in which they're currently treated.

This kind of stuff is already (and should be if it isn't) a part of a lot of undergraduate degrees.

Whilst I concur that there are huge fundamental differences between doing an undergrad degree and a PhD, I would not agree that, across the board, a Masters is crucial.

For some subjects, yes you're right. If you've had little experience in conducting your own research at undergraduate level (all aspects of it), then a Masters will provide you with these skills.

However, if (like me) you're sure that you want to study for a PhD in the same area as your undergrad degree, and you've already had some of the necessary experience, then spending a year on a Masters course really is a waste of time and money.

I get the impression we may be on different wavelengths - perhaps the system may be completely different in terms of BAs and BScs and progression to postgrad study?

It may vary by field; I'm not entirely sure. I can only speak from my experiences in Psychology. And from my experiences, what I have posted previously seems to be fairly normal. It seems desirable to me, anyway! I guess it depends on your individual situation, and what you want to do after you've finished.

Hey guys i was just wondering if it is advisable to do a masters in a course that is different from your bachelors degree. For instance, applying for a masters in marketing, having done psychology at an undergrad level? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thank you! (:

so u can do a PhD without completing an MA? I never heard of that and I didn't know it was possible. All the PhD courses I am aware of require an MA. I am not saying Epoch157 that u dont know what u r talking about. I am just amazed that it is possible

I'm sorry, this is terrible and ill-informed advice, possibly the worst I've seen on here for a long time. I'm a first-year PhD student in the social sciences, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Master's degrees are not primarily designed to introduce you to a new subject at all. In most cases their role is to allow you to specialise in more detail in a subject which you have already encountered (perhaps even only tangentially) at the undergraduate level, acquainting you with the more advanced debates in the field, introducing you to methodological disputes and potentially preparing you for the transition into doctoral study. Whilst it is certainly true that many post-graduate courses have flexible entrance requirements (indeed, I myself completed a master's degree in a field that was different, albeit related, to my undergraduate discipline), it is not their primary purpose to transfer people between fields, even though this may happen sometimes.

Master's degrees are absolutely crucial in paving the way from a bachelor's degree to doctoral study. There is a whole world of difference between doing a BA and a PhD - in fact, some people who do very well at undergrad go on to become very mediocre doctoral students, and vice versa. It's certainly true that not all students, even those who seem the brightest, possess the talents that wil enable them to make a novel and interesting contribution to their field when it comes to writing a doctoral thesis.

The master's provides you with the opportunity to test your mettle, so to speak, in terms of graduate level education. It assesses your potential to engage with the material in your subject at a higher level, and also gives you an impression of what it's like to live the life of a graduate student (not always a fairytale, I assure you), to see if it's really for you. Trust me, I knew plenty of people who intended to do PhDs, but changed their minds on the basis of their experiences as master's students, as well as others like myself who only became confident that they were capable of doing a doctorate once they had completed a taught post-graduate course before hand.

Though this may vary by field (perhaps it's different in psychology?), in my opinion going straight from an undergraduate program into a doctorate is, in most instances I would say, far from desirable. In fact, it's not always even possible, since most reputable departments would only allow exceptional candidates, those types of people with starred double firsts and very clear and well-defined research goals, to do this anyway.

Please forgive the inelegance of my prose. I've been in the library all day and I'm knackered.

I'm sorry, this is terrible and ill-informed advice, possibly the worst I've seen on here for a long time. I'm a first-year PhD student in the social sciences, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Masters degrees are not crucial if you want to do a PhD, especially in sciences and engineering. I wish people would stop propagating the crap you are.

Yeah, in Science and especially Engineering most people don't have an BA but went straight to a four year course and got a Master.
(That is probably why e.g. it is hard to apply for a BA in Engineering at Oxbridge or Imperial. Their students tend to be less intelligent and the degrees less research based, thus they obviously aren't able to go straight into a PHD. )

Anyway whereas it may be possible to go straight from a BA to a PHD in some countries, your Master enables you to get a much better idea of your subject and research and by the end, whichever way you take 3+5, or 3+2+3, or 3+1+3 they won't be that a big age difference between the fresh PHDs or their equivalents, as it may look at the first glance.

That is probably why e.g. it is hard to apply for a BA in Engineering at Oxbridge or Imperial