Do you have to do a Masters degree before you do a Phd?

I'm a 22 year old male. My profile is full of nonsense to retain anonymity.

There's hardly anything in your profile.

I know... there should be nothing there, actually. Don't even know where this person is getting 28 from... I can't see where it gives an age on my profile. But the things that ARE there are fabricated .

And everything else may well be too. Welcome to the internet

I know... there should be nothing there, actually. Don't even know where this person is getting 28 from... I can't see where it gives an age on my profile. But the things that ARE there are fabricated .

Top right. Where it says 'Age'.

Well, as I pointed out already, there are PhD students who started alongside me with masters degrees and industrial experience and I am not noticing any significant differences between us in terms of how well we are doing.

I don't know where you got the idea that the PhD is somehow intended to be a 3rd level of degree, and that it is somehow nominal to go up through each level consecutively. I've never been made aware of this by anybody I've spoken to.

I sought advice from a wide variety of academics before I decided to leave with a bachelors to begin a PhD, and they all had generally the same advice - that there's no reason why a bright pupil can't go from bachelors to PhD with ease, and that although a Masters degree can be helpful to a PhD candidate, it is not necessary nor is it a hindrance NOT to have it.

I don't regret not doing a Masters. I'm 22 and will have a PhD aged 25, which is quite a young age for it... which means I'll be reaping the benefits of the PhD for a lot longer than most of my peers. So even if the PhD WAS tougher without the experience of a Masters degree, I think the benefits associated with removing that additional year of study and getting into the job market quicker far outweigh the increased difficulties one might come across.

U must have spoken to academics in the UK as starting a PhD without a masters is only common in the UK, in the US and rest of Europe it wudnt b possible. Everywhere else a PhD is a 3rd level of the degree.

And good that you would be finishing young, but of course when one goes by direct PhD route, they dont gain the knowledge that they wud have if they had done a masters

U must have spoken to academics in the UK as starting a PhD without a masters is only common in the UK, in the US and rest of Europe it wudnt b possible. Everywhere else a PhD is a 3rd level of the degree.

And good that you would be finishing young, but of course when one goes by direct PhD route, they dont gain the knowledge that they wud have if they had done a masters

Naturally if one skips the masters step then they loose that element of knowledge

But much of the MEng year is taken up by management and project work that really doesn't help your analytical, experimental or researching abilities at all. So I can see why bright BEng students can go straight into PhDs without being disadvantaged. If I wanted to do a PhD I definitely wouldn't be doing an MEng any more after fully realising what the MEng actually entails.

Yes, I did. I was a UK undergraduate a UK university wanting to do my PhD in the UK... so it would have been pointless to ask anybody else.

They do gain the knowledge. All PhDs are created equal... and you're only as good as your last degree. Whether you did a masters between your undergraduate and your PhD or not is fairly immaterial once you have the PhD.

May be yes, but it's my opinion that this short cut isn't a good idea

Okay, but it's only a "shortcut" if you subscribe to the idea that undergraduate, postgraduate masters and then PhD is the "nominal" path... and I've heard nothing to suggest that this is the case from anybody who is knowledgeable in such matters.

If you cast aside any notions of prescribed structure in education, and only compare the difficulty of the degree with what you believe you are capable of, then you will know yourself whether or not it is wise to do a masters before a PhD. For me, I didn't think the difficulty of a PhD was so far above my level that I had to do a Masters in preparation. Clearly, my supervisor agreed, because they gave me the position above countless other applicants who DID have masters.

i think that is more so because you must have studied under the same supervisor in ur BEng..

its very common for supervisors to grant these positions to people who they know beforehand

well anyway... i think its better in the long run if u do a masters and then a phd

Okay, but it's only a "shortcut" if you subscribe to the idea that undergraduate, postgraduate masters and then PhD is the "nominal" path... and I've heard nothing to suggest that this is the case from anybody who is knowledgeable in such matters.

If you cast aside any notions of prescribed structure in education, and only compare the difficulty of the degree with what you believe you are capable of, then you will know yourself whether or not it is wise to do a masters before a PhD. For me, I didn't think the difficulty of a PhD was so far above my level that I had to do a Masters in preparation. Clearly, my supervisor agreed, because they gave me the position above countless other applicants who DID have masters.

No, I didn't. I switched universities, had never met my supervisor before my PhD interview, and in fact, the PhD is in a field I didn't formally study in my undergraduate degree.

I applied as an outsider, and beat 8 other applicants who made it to the interview stage (who were also outsiders) to get the position.



Why though? Surely it depends ENTIRELY on the student?

I think it is more a long term problem, the same as you get coming from a "low university" proceeding to a higher university for a Master. Maybe they do well in the Master, but the lack of a profound and deep foundation occurs when it comes to combine the knowledge and show a flexibility in their thoughts. Of course you can work through all of it in your freetime, but most of the students don't and only focus on what they are needing right now.
It is much easier to gain this knowledge by doing a Master, than by yourself later. A PHD can be very limited in his topic, thus maybe you don't need the subjects, but you decrease your own chance of gaining more abilities and thus compete in the long term with others, who got the possibility to gain that experience.

It is much easier to gain this knowledge by doing a Master, than by yourself later. A PHD can be very limited in his topic, thus maybe you don't need the subjects, but you decrease your own chance of gaining more abilities and thus compete in the long term with others, who got the possibility to gain that experience.

I think it is more a long term problem, the same as you get coming from a "low university" proceeding to a higher university for a Master. Maybe they do well in the Master, but the lack of a profound and deep foundation occurs when it comes to combine the knowledge and show a flexibility in their thoughts. Of course you can work through all of it in your freetime, but most of the students don't and only focus on what they are needing right now.
It is much easier to gain this knowledge by doing a Master, than by yourself later. A PHD can be very limited in his topic, thus maybe you don't need the subjects, but you decrease your own chance of gaining more abilities and thus compete in the long term with others, who got the possibility to gain that experience.