What's the difference between a MSc and MSci?

My impression is that you do a BSc at a certain uni, and apply for postgrad at another uni then you'll get a MSc.

You'll get a MSci if you've applied for four years at the very beginning.

Is this true? Which one is more recognised in terms of career prospects?

:tsr2:

Reply 1

Psyk

Yes that's basically correct. An MSc is more highly considered by employers, possibly because they are specialised where as your final year of an MSci course is general like the other 3 years, just more advanced material. Doing an MSci doesn't mean you can't go ahead and do an MSc as well, so if you fancy an extra year at uni (which your loans will cover) you might as well do a 4 year course.

Reply 2

WoWZa

Only some Unis do MSci programmes, and you generally have to perform well in the BSc modules to go on to complete the MSci.

Reply 3

Psyk

I'm doing an MEng course (4 year course like an MSci) and you don't have to do exceptionally well to stay on the 4 year course. You have to get at least a 2:2 in your first 3 years.

Reply 4

WoWZa

Also, an MSci is still the equivalent of a BSc and an MSc.

Reply 5

ChemistBoy

Psyk

Only if the MSc gives you specific skills that a particular employer is looking for. In most areas of scientific employment employers do not regard the undergraduate and postgraduate masters as any different. Outside those areas most generic jobs do not require postgraduate qualifcations anyway.

Doing an MSci doesn't mean you can't go ahead and do an MSc as well, so if you fancy an extra year at uni (which your loans will cover) you might as well do a 4 year course.

Unless you need it to either to a) get a particular job, b) get a PhD position then doing an MSc after and MSci (MChem/MPhys, etc.) is a complete waste of time and money.

Reply 6

Psyk

ChemistBoy

Unless you need it to either to a) get a particular job, b) get a PhD position then doing an MSc after and MSci (MChem/MPhys, etc.) is a complete waste of time and money.

Yeah but presumably that's not all that different from doing an MSc after a BSc. I don't really see the point in doing a specialist qualification unless you actually want to specialise your career in that area.

Reply 7

ChemistBoy

Psyk

Yes, excepting that certain universities require a masters level qualifcation for entry into their PhD programmes.

Reply 8

ChemistBoy

Original post by adam17

Can you complete an MSci and then go straight onto a PhD?

Absolutely, many people do.

Reply 9

natninja

Original post by Psyk

I'm pretty sure that my course is MSci rather than MSc and you specialise in two related areas so it's pretty specific (for example, CMP with atmospheric physics would not be allowed whereas plasma physics with high energy physics would)

I retract my case... even that seems broad now...

http://www.paperin.org/education/msci/MSci_degree_explanation

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 10

King Hotpie

Original post by ChemistBoy

Absolutely, many people do.

^This is completely true, just thought I'd add that at the physics talk at Manchester university, they spoke of MSci being the course for the people who planned to do a PhD straight afterwards. Of course, you won't be at any disadvantage doing a Bachelors then an MSc (or I can't imagine you would be), but it's generally considered simpler and easier, particularly in terms of funding, to apply for the 4 year course if that's what you plan to do.

EDIT: I wonder if OP finds this useful 6 years on :laugh:

Hopefully I've managed to help the guy who resurrected this thread!

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 11

Psyk

Original post by natninja

Wow that was an old post you quoted :tongue:

I guess it depends on the course.

Reply 12

Ash5678

Isn't and MSci less credits though (9 months) compared to a 12 or 24 month MSc?

Reply 13

natninja

Original post by Psyk

Wow that was an old post you quoted :tongue:

I guess it depends on the course.

The thread appeared on 'latest discussions'...

Probably... looking up, your uni is pretty lenient with a 2:2... mine has the same requirements (2:1 by the end of second year so 2:1 projected) as it would for MSc students (minimum 2:1 required).... and you'd choose the same units just it would be MSci in Physics rather than say an MSc in Quantum information, Laser Processing and Condensed matter...

Reply 14

King Hotpie

I'm by no means an expert, but from my limited knowledge, I'd say an MSc would be the best in terms of going straight into the job market afterwards, whilst an MSci would serve as a better stepping stone if you intend to follow the subject further eg a PhD

Reply 15

ChemistBoy

Original post by Ash5678

Isn't and MSci less credits though (9 months) compared to a 12 or 24 month MSc?

No-one cares about credits.

Reply 16

ChemistBoy

Original post by King Hotpie

I think you are overstating the value of an MSc. We are generally talking about subjects that produce a lot of PhDs so the MSc is really that special.