I always thought PhD as being the main post grad research path if you wanted to get funded and that Msc was the way to get yourself ready for a PhD. I recently became aware that not all master courses are taught and some are research based, so I am wondering whether it's normal to do a research Msc (as opposed to a taught one) and if so, are there any advantages to this over just going for a PhD?
-
7I think the notion of research MSc might differ from one country to another, in particular between US (where an MSc is not mandatory to get a PhD) and Europe (where often a MSc is required to enrol for a PhD), so it would be good if you could be more specific in your question about the country/system you're referring to.– user102Commented Sep 30, 2012 at 14:38
-
possible duplicate of What are the advantages and disadvantages to completing a Masters program before applying to a Ph. D program?– 410 goneCommented Sep 30, 2012 at 15:13
-
See also What factors affect how long it would take to get a phd, either going via, or without, a masters? and Physics masters and PhD degrees in England/UK– 410 goneCommented Sep 30, 2012 at 15:14
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
Advantages of doing a research-based Masters (e.g an MRes) before the PhD:
- learn research skills
- explore your subject
- refine your research question
- get a big chunk of your literature review done in a structured setting
- work out if taking a PhD is really for you - whether you've got the aptitude and the interest
