Phd? or no Phd?

Klix must be really good if she's been appointed to academic staff without getting a doctorate, don't you think?

Having lots of titles and letters after your name isn't everything, you know.

okay straight to the point,

I am aiming to graduate with a 1st class from Anglia ruskin university in Mechanical engineering (BEng ) in a couple of months time. Since I am on target for a 1st, I am being encouraged to pursue a research phd programme (company supported) ie, the topic of research is provided by a company in the car crash test industry.

I actually like working in this industry and in fact my dissertation was on the stiffness analysis of car bonnets,,

but, Is it a good idea to go for a phd without msc? any advise, word of wisdom, any opinions regarding this matter may be very helpful.....so common lads,, help out a man in deep dilemma...

In engineering it's not uncommon for go straight from BEng to PhD. This is because not a lot of engineering students actually want to do PhDs, especially the more able students who may be being courted by industry for jobs upon graduation (a bit like yourself, it seems, although your company does seem quite happy to support you for a PhD). So, entry requirements to PhDs may have to be relaxed somewhat.

To answer your question, a lot of masters degrees aren't that useful for PhDs anyway. I have done the MEng year (in mechanical also) and a lot of the content probably wasn't that relevant to a PhD. And it's the same with an MSc - it would depend very heavily on what the MSc was about and what it covered. So, basically, for a lot of people, there is absolutely no point in doing the MEng year or a separate MSc.

Now, it sounds like you have the backing of a company to perform a PhD in an area that you are interested in and want to work in. Given this, I would say, for for it, as long as you recognise the commitment required.

Going straight from undergrad to PhD without a Masters, is pretty much standard in STEM fields. Less so in the Humanities.

Check that your uni has the proper support services/research skills training available and that your supervisors are ready to give the appropriate guidance on getting up to speed. But if the uni has its ducks in a row and you have commercial sponsorship for a topic which interests you - happy days!

Klix must be really good if she's been appointed to academic staff without getting a doctorate, don't you think?

Having lots of titles and letters after your name isn't everything, you know.

Both of them are right and wrong. LTG said that not doing an MSc is 'standard' in STEM because most do an integrated Master's course (and then graduate with an MSci - equivalent of MSc + BSc) and then Klix started talking about the 1+3 route, which is entirely different. She also said that MPhil's aren't research degrees, which they are (as they are entirely thesis based - there is no taught content). However, she was right when she said an MPhil is a higher qualification that a standard Master's. It is still within the Master's range but is considered a senior Master's as it is the most advanced degree prior to a PhD. In this way, although it is still a Master's degree, an employer would consider someone with an MPhil as senior to somebody with an MSc.

You can learn more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Philosophy

Now, let's get back on topic:

Kevin, if you wish to do a PhD and you enjoyed your final year research project, then go for it! You must realise, however, that this is a 3-4 year commitment and leaving early will essentially cause you to leave with nothing (you'll receive an MPhil, but this is nothing on a PhD). If you enjoy the subject itself and want to work in that area, you're pretty much guaranteed to have to do a PhD at some point and the lack of a Master's won't really hinder you in any way, so I'd say take this opportunity while you can, as PhDs in subject areas that you really enjoy don't come around too often.

Good luck!

As I've said, an MPhil is usually a research master but in reality it is what the university calls it.

This MPhil at Cambridge, for example, is a research-based taught master's with a heavy taught component. However, the exact same course with the exact same content, assessments, and requirements, is called an MEd (Master of Education) if done part-time.

The association of the MPhil being a senior master's is not nearly as profound in the UK as it is in many parts of the world, as an MPhil in the UK is, like what I've proven, not necessarily a research master. There's also the fact that departments may not offer an MPhil at all, and thus holding a non-MPhil does not give the applicant a disadvantage.

That is, I guess, for example you'd like to argue that Oxford would rather reject all its own graduates to accept people with an MPhil somewhere because the Department of Education offers only MScs.

Also, MSc by research is a thing.

She didn't even say which rank - considering the fact that she's not that clear about the titles, perhaps she's not clear what exactly is an academic staff either. Regardless, an academic staff can just be an instructor, even perhaps only a part-time one. Not that difficult to be one at all.