I have a specific taught M.Phil in mind, which is definitely not a precursor to a PhD. In fact, strangely, doing a PhD after the course is discouraged since the M.Phil in question is more of a vocational course.

Given that the subject matter of a taught M.Phil could be considered to be 'science' what are the criteria for deciding whether a Masters course should be either an M.Phil or an M.Sc?

  • Country, university, and accreditation rules all differ across the world. At some institutions one can get either a BA or a BS in the same major, with the differences not always that clear. But, the fact that the M.Phil is aimed more as a vocational course would indicate that there is not much emphasis on theory and research. – Jon Custer Jun 27 '18 at 14:41
  • In what country? In the USA, the M. Phil is generally given to PhD students who pass all their courses, exams, and proposals, but leave before finishing a dissertation. It may be something entirely different in other countries. – iammax Jun 27 '18 at 14:53
  • I was referring to UK. It is an M.Phil at the University of Cambridge. – S.Reeves Jun 27 '18 at 15:13

M. Phil at the University of Cambridge is just what they call all of their post-graduate masters courses. There are no MSc's at Cambridge. Similarly, there are no BSc's at Cambridge. Science students get a BA like everyone else.

In general a university can use whatever title they want for their masters degrees, there are no criteria.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.