Difference between Master's and PhD

[oboeguy]

Originally posted by: WhiteKnight

Originally posted by: kaymin

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
The difference between a Master's and a PhD is like the difference between high school and college, or college and grad school. As you progress a lot more is expected of you. At least for me, the work/competence required to get the PhD was MUCH higher than that required to get a Master's.

The part about college and grad school is pure BS. I go to Columbia for my masters in comp sci, it's barely harder than my undergrad classes i took in Stony Brook, my state university. In fact, i'm taking Analysis to Algorithms, which i took in stony brook and it was actually harder there. I agree that PhD is a whole 'nother level though. But masters? Come on.

Well, that may be more indicative of your school than the degree itself. My master's classes are much harder than my undergrad classes were, at the same school. (Johns Hopkins)

Yeah, I wasn't too impressed by the Columbia CS MS students when I took a class with some of them. The class had some pretty good content in it if you paid attention.

 

[iotone]

Originally posted by: oboeguy
Ph.D. == Pile Higher and Deeper

<--- Ph.D student about 3 years more than initially expected

you forgot the link!!

Piled Higher and Deeper

I'll be finishing my master's degree next quarter, note that some schools allow you to do a comprehensive exam (which is what I will be doing)...

as far as I know, PhD's do require significant amount more time than a Master's, anywhere from 1-5 years more... I had a friend who was doing her PhD in math, it took her quite a while (she said something about someone solving the problem she was working on before she did, so she had to start over... dunno how true that is?)

if you really like research and are into the possibility of solving some of today's problems with your research, then go for a PhD. if you wanted to get more in depth in your field of study, a Master's is good.

just my .02

 

[LOLyourFace]

Yes I have my Pimpin Hoz Degree.

PEE ACH DEE MY AEI ESS ESS.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: dullard
Masters: 1-2 years. ~30 credits, about 22-30 of those will be classes. The rest is thesis that in many majors is optional. If you do research and write a thesis, you can expect it to be maybe 100 pages long (varies quite a bit).

PhD: 4-8 years. ~90 credits, about 45 of those will be classes. The rest is a glorified thesis called a dissertation. Dissertations tend to be ~250 pages long (varies quite a bit).

Once you have a masters, you pretty much have all the classwork done, just another year of classwork is needed. The rest of your time is spent doing more thorough research.

A PhD tends to average about $10k more per year than a masters (varies from field to field). But you lose the salary from 3-6 years when you could have been working. For me, I lost ~$80,000 for taking 2 more years to get my PhD (I was paid well as a student, just not as much as I would have if I worked). That $80k with interest will eventually be made back with my extra $10k a year salary, but it'll take quite a long time for me to do so.

What do you do? Did you have to pay for the years spent working on your PhD? I heard most of the time, a PhD is like a job, you get paid to do research.

 

[DingDingDao]

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: Albis
it's harder to go into the industry with a PhD. most PhD students want to do research and end up with professor positions.

I heard when PhD sutdents graduate, they can easily find jobs in the industry that pay 1 million dollars.

Uh...yeah. A PhD in professional basketball, maybe...

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: Winchester
^ that is total BS. The highest paid professor is $110k in the US. Compare that to the stupid college football coaches who gripe about their million dollar contracts.

You are just a hater.

 

[DingDingDao]

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: Winchester
^ that is total BS. The highest paid professor is $110k in the US. Compare that to the stupid college football coaches who gripe about their million dollar contracts.

You are just a hater.

What kind of PhD are you talking about? You need to clarify your statement, because I can't think of a single field where a PhD will earn you 1 mil straight from school. Real-world experience is always necessary, especially if a corporation is going to pay you seven figures.

And if you're talking about grants, yes, those can be over 1 million, but that's not salary. That's money to cover every expense you'll have for the next year (lab space, materials, salaries for you and the people under you, such as post-docs and students, etc. etc.), not to mention the fact that the university you work for will more likely than not take at least 30% of it straight off the top.

 

[WhiteKnight]

Originally posted by: Winchester
^ that is total BS. The highest paid professor is $110k in the US. Compare that to the stupid college football coaches who gripe about their million dollar contracts.

While I agree that the original statement is BS, so is the statement that the highest paid prof in the US gets ~$110k. There are several professors at my school that make well in excess of that. The highest paid prof in my dept. pulls in a little over $400k.

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: WhiteKnight

Originally posted by: Winchester
^ that is total BS. The highest paid professor is $110k in the US. Compare that to the stupid college football coaches who gripe about their million dollar contracts.

While I agree that the original statement is BS, so is the statement that the highest paid prof in the US gets ~$110k. There are several professors at my school that make well in excess of that. The highest paid prof in my dept. pulls in a little over $400k.

Yea, I know! They make one million dollars.

 

[Rumpltzer]

Originally posted by: Winchester
^ that is total BS. The highest paid professor is $110k in the US. Compare that to the stupid college football coaches who gripe about their million dollar contracts.

For engineering professors at a research university, the salary isn't where they get all their money. Money comes in the form of bonus pay for bringing in research funds.

That is, say a professor wins a research contract with some government agency (DARPA, ONR, NSF, whatever) and it's worth $1 million over the next four years. The professor and research group never actually sees $1 million. The university (or department) takes a cut... a HUGE cut. They call it "overhead". The professor will also typically get an incentive bonus for bringing in a contract. I'd guess it's something like 2-5% (and I'm totally guessing).

Then there's consulting pay (huge money for very little work) and using your grad students' work to start your own company.

All this said, I wouldn't be a professor. I love research, and I'd prefer the more pure research that can be done in a univeristy environment, but being a professor is too much work.

 

[CanOWorms]

PhDs usually also take qualifying exams whereas MS students don't.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
What do you do? Did you have to pay for the years spent working on your PhD? I heard most of the time, a PhD is like a job, you get paid to do research.

I'm a research engineer for a small company (the same company that paid for my PhD research). I don't like the text, but this describes what I'm working on.

In engineering, almost everyone in grad school gets paid to do research. Free classes, free health insurance, and a small monthly stipend. The stipend typically ranges between $1000 and $2000 a month; also it is social security and medicare tax free. So yes it is like a job.

I treated my PhD like a job. I came in and worked 9-5 doing research (interrupted by the occasional class). I had goals, deadlines, supervisors, etc. Putting myself into that mindset let me get my PhD 4 years from the day that I got my BS.

Other people I know tend to treat their PhD like school. Come and go as they are required, but nothing else. They are still here after 6, 7, 8 years.

 

[GimpyOne]

Originally posted by: Rumpltzer

Originally posted by: Winchester
^ that is total BS. The highest paid professor is $110k in the US. Compare that to the stupid college football coaches who gripe about their million dollar contracts.

For engineering professors at a research university, the salary isn't where they get all their money. Money comes in the form of bonus pay for bringing in research funds.

That is, say a professor wins a research contract with some government agency (DARPA, ONR, NSF, whatever) and it's worth $1 million over the next four years. The professor and research group never actually sees $1 million. The university (or department) takes a cut... a HUGE cut. They call it "overhead". The professor will also typically get an incentive bonus for bringing in a contract. I'd guess it's something like 2-5% (and I'm totally guessing).

Then there's consulting pay (huge money for very little work) and using your grad students' work to start your own company.

All this said, I wouldn't be a professor. I love research, and I'd prefer the more pure research that can be done in a univeristy environment, but being a professor is too much work.

To add to this. Overhead at most universities runs in the neighborhood of 40-50% of the contract total amount.(and a lot of that money gets dumped right into bills for running buildings full of equipment 24/7) 2-5% of that is then indeed given back to most professors as an "incentive" to bring in more contracts for the university. Additionally, professors are only paid for 9 months of the year by the university. They then make up for the rest of that by including $20-30K per year into each grant that gets dumped into their paycheck. So while most professors may only see 80-150K per yer from the university, many can easily be making in the 200-400K per year range becuase of the extra in each grant.

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Masters: You learn how proteins are produced.

PhD: You find out the mechanism specific E. Coli cell line uses to produce a specific cell membrane protein while growing a proline deficient media.

 

[HokieESM]

The difference between master's and PhD is a pretty simple one: one is essentially the pre-requisite for the other. Very few people (at least in engineering) complete a PhD without having a masters... if so, they're required to take the classes that a typical MS student would have taken.

The other posters have covered the basics. I did my MS in a 21 months or so (two years minus a summer)--but I did a research-based masters (some are course-based). My PhD (with which, I graduate next Friday--woohoo!) took 3.5 years. MOST masters students finish somewhere betweeen one and two years, a PhD is a BIG variable. It highly depends on YOUR motivation, but it also depends on the school, your advisor, your research project, and (sad to say) luck. My advisor's last four PhD students took 7, 4.5, 5, and 6 years. I didn't want to do that, so I nearly killed myself. Usually 60 hours a week or so (which is feasible with a theoretical project such as mine). Some of the longer PhDs treat it as school--and because they aren't willing to put in the time, it takes them forever.

Another KEY difference is that with a PhD, you are presumed to know EVERYTHING within a very narrow scope--you are essentially an expert in the field. A MS says you know more than a BS, but not necessarily everything in that field. Picture a pyramid (that's the breadth of knowledge) and then an inverted pyramid (that's the amount of knowledge you have in the specific area). Which is why professors almost always have PhDs--you wouldn't want a person NOT aware of the other work in the field doing research.

 

[Babbles]

Reading this just kills my motivation to study for the GRE.

 

[bolido2000]

Originally posted by: HokieESM
The difference between master's and PhD is a pretty simple one: one is essentially the pre-requisite for the other. Very few people (at least in engineering) complete a PhD without having a masters... if so, they're required to take the classes that a typical MS student would have taken.

The other posters have covered the basics. I did my MS in a 21 months or so (two years minus a summer)--but I did a research-based masters (some are course-based). My PhD (with which, I graduate next Friday--woohoo!) took 3.5 years. MOST masters students finish somewhere betweeen one and two years, a PhD is a BIG variable. It highly depends on YOUR motivation, but it also depends on the school, your advisor, your research project, and (sad to say) luck. My advisor's last four PhD students took 7, 4.5, 5, and 6 years. I didn't want to do that, so I nearly killed myself. Usually 60 hours a week or so (which is feasible with a theoretical project such as mine). Some of the longer PhDs treat it as school--and because they aren't willing to put in the time, it takes them forever.

Another KEY difference is that with a PhD, you are presumed to know EVERYTHING within a very narrow scope--you are essentially an expert in the field. A MS says you know more than a BS, but not necessarily everything in that field. Picture a pyramid (that's the breadth of knowledge) and then an inverted pyramid (that's the amount of knowledge you have in the specific area). Which is why professors almost always have PhDs--you wouldn't want a person NOT aware of the other work in the field doing research.

That is not entirely true. I know several people that are doing their Phd right after finishing their BS. All you need are strong recommendations, especially if your professor with who you did research in your undergrad is friends with the one you will be reporting in your Phd. Heck, my CS professor at UCLA got her Phd from MIT and she didn't have a BS or MS.
Anyways, MS is easier than undergrad. My BS GPA was 3.1 and my MS GPA is like 3.7 and I was able to finish everything in 12 months

EDIT: I'm MSEE

 

[TuxDave]

In terms of EE:

M.S. will let you get a design job much easier than a B.S.
Ph'D will let you get a research job much easier than a M.S.

In my personal experience, Ph'D students are waaay smarter than M.S. student who are waaay smarter than a B.S. student.

 

[HokieESM]

Originally posted by: bolido2000


That is not entirely true. I know several people that are doing their Phd right after finishing their BS. All you need are strong recommendations, especially if your professor with who you did research in your undergrad is friends with the one you will be reporting in your Phd. Heck, my CS professor at UCLA got her Phd from MIT and she didn't have a BS or MS.
Anyways, MS is easier than undergrad. My BS GPA was 3.1 and my MS GPA is like 3.7 and I was able to finish everything in 12 months

Of course its not entirely true--I noted the exception. There is one in my department right now. But he is still required to take all the coursework required of a masters, which is common (I looked into it).

You're also making a generalization about an MS being easier than a BS. I assume you did a coursework only masters? I finished my coursework in 12 months--but then did 12 months more of research. Of course, I knew I wanted to get into a PhD program, and most top-notch ones require publications. And GPA is also nearly immaterial in the discussion--mostly because you should, at the masters level, have some peer-reviewed journal publications that should show your repuation.

As far as your professor who didn't have a BS or MS, that's impressive. But there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. There are brilliant people, and there are brilliant ass-kissers who can convince people that the sky is pink and get a PhD for it. I was just noting the usual process--as someone who is graduating with a PhD in about a week.

 

[welst10]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
In terms of EE:

M.S. will let you get a design job much easier than a B.S.
Ph'D will let you get a research job much easier than a M.S.

In my personal experience, Ph'D students are waaay smarter than M.S. student who are waaay smarter than a B.S. student.

So a PhD student is waaaaaay smarter than a BS student?

 

[HokieESM]

Originally posted by: welst10

Originally posted by: TuxDave
In terms of EE:

M.S. will let you get a design job much easier than a B.S.
Ph'D will let you get a research job much easier than a M.S.

In my personal experience, Ph'D students are waaay smarter than M.S. student who are waaay smarter than a B.S. student.

So a PhD student is waaaaaay smarter than a BS student?

LOL.

I don't know about "smarter".... more "academically knowledgable" is definitely the case. I think I've felt more and more stupid the farther I've gone. They just barely scratch the surface during a BS--all those nice pretty assumptions that make things easier--during a PhD, you really see some depth of the subject matter. And you realize that all subjects are usually that deep. It makes you have some respect for the work that your fellow researchers do.

 

[WhiteKnight]

Originally posted by: bolido2000

Originally posted by: HokieESM
The difference between master's and PhD is a pretty simple one: one is essentially the pre-requisite for the other. Very few people (at least in engineering) complete a PhD without having a masters... if so, they're required to take the classes that a typical MS student would have taken.

The other posters have covered the basics. I did my MS in a 21 months or so (two years minus a summer)--but I did a research-based masters (some are course-based). My PhD (with which, I graduate next Friday--woohoo!) took 3.5 years. MOST masters students finish somewhere betweeen one and two years, a PhD is a BIG variable. It highly depends on YOUR motivation, but it also depends on the school, your advisor, your research project, and (sad to say) luck. My advisor's last four PhD students took 7, 4.5, 5, and 6 years. I didn't want to do that, so I nearly killed myself. Usually 60 hours a week or so (which is feasible with a theoretical project such as mine). Some of the longer PhDs treat it as school--and because they aren't willing to put in the time, it takes them forever.

Another KEY difference is that with a PhD, you are presumed to know EVERYTHING within a very narrow scope--you are essentially an expert in the field. A MS says you know more than a BS, but not necessarily everything in that field. Picture a pyramid (that's the breadth of knowledge) and then an inverted pyramid (that's the amount of knowledge you have in the specific area). Which is why professors almost always have PhDs--you wouldn't want a person NOT aware of the other work in the field doing research.

That is not entirely true. I know several people that are doing their Phd right after finishing their BS. All you need are strong recommendations, especially if your professor with who you did research in your undergrad is friends with the one you will be reporting in your Phd. Heck, my CS professor at UCLA got her Phd from MIT and she didn't have a BS or MS.
Anyways, MS is easier than undergrad. My BS GPA was 3.1 and my MS GPA is like 3.7 and I was able to finish everything in 12 months

EDIT: I'm MSEE

Heh, what school did you go to? Maybe I should go there. Even doing a course based masters here with some research (not enough for a thesis, just the experience) is typically a 60-70 hour per week committment.

 

[snoopdoug1]

Originally posted by: WhiteKnight

Originally posted by: bolido2000

Originally posted by: HokieESM
The difference between master's and PhD is a pretty simple one: one is essentially the pre-requisite for the other. Very few people (at least in engineering) complete a PhD without having a masters... if so, they're required to take the classes that a typical MS student would have taken.

The other posters have covered the basics. I did my MS in a 21 months or so (two years minus a summer)--but I did a research-based masters (some are course-based). My PhD (with which, I graduate next Friday--woohoo!) took 3.5 years. MOST masters students finish somewhere betweeen one and two years, a PhD is a BIG variable. It highly depends on YOUR motivation, but it also depends on the school, your advisor, your research project, and (sad to say) luck. My advisor's last four PhD students took 7, 4.5, 5, and 6 years. I didn't want to do that, so I nearly killed myself. Usually 60 hours a week or so (which is feasible with a theoretical project such as mine). Some of the longer PhDs treat it as school--and because they aren't willing to put in the time, it takes them forever.

Another KEY difference is that with a PhD, you are presumed to know EVERYTHING within a very narrow scope--you are essentially an expert in the field. A MS says you know more than a BS, but not necessarily everything in that field. Picture a pyramid (that's the breadth of knowledge) and then an inverted pyramid (that's the amount of knowledge you have in the specific area). Which is why professors almost always have PhDs--you wouldn't want a person NOT aware of the other work in the field doing research.

That is not entirely true. I know several people that are doing their Phd right after finishing their BS. All you need are strong recommendations, especially if your professor with who you did research in your undergrad is friends with the one you will be reporting in your Phd. Heck, my CS professor at UCLA got her Phd from MIT and she didn't have a BS or MS.
Anyways, MS is easier than undergrad. My BS GPA was 3.1 and my MS GPA is like 3.7 and I was able to finish everything in 12 months

EDIT: I'm MSEE

Heh, what school did you go to? Maybe I should go there. Even doing a course based masters here with some research (not enough for a thesis, just the experience) is typically a 60-70 hour per week committment.

No kidding... what school? I'm going to Wash U in St. Louis... part time masters in CS, graduate this December. 2.5 years total.

 

[bolido2000]

Originally posted by: Doug3737

Originally posted by: WhiteKnight

Originally posted by: bolido2000

Originally posted by: HokieESM
The difference between master's and PhD is a pretty simple one: one is essentially the pre-requisite for the other. Very few people (at least in engineering) complete a PhD without having a masters... if so, they're required to take the classes that a typical MS student would have taken.

The other posters have covered the basics. I did my MS in a 21 months or so (two years minus a summer)--but I did a research-based masters (some are course-based). My PhD (with which, I graduate next Friday--woohoo!) took 3.5 years. MOST masters students finish somewhere betweeen one and two years, a PhD is a BIG variable. It highly depends on YOUR motivation, but it also depends on the school, your advisor, your research project, and (sad to say) luck. My advisor's last four PhD students took 7, 4.5, 5, and 6 years. I didn't want to do that, so I nearly killed myself. Usually 60 hours a week or so (which is feasible with a theoretical project such as mine). Some of the longer PhDs treat it as school--and because they aren't willing to put in the time, it takes them forever.

Another KEY difference is that with a PhD, you are presumed to know EVERYTHING within a very narrow scope--you are essentially an expert in the field. A MS says you know more than a BS, but not necessarily everything in that field. Picture a pyramid (that's the breadth of knowledge) and then an inverted pyramid (that's the amount of knowledge you have in the specific area). Which is why professors almost always have PhDs--you wouldn't want a person NOT aware of the other work in the field doing research.

That is not entirely true. I know several people that are doing their Phd right after finishing their BS. All you need are strong recommendations, especially if your professor with who you did research in your undergrad is friends with the one you will be reporting in your Phd. Heck, my CS professor at UCLA got her Phd from MIT and she didn't have a BS or MS.
Anyways, MS is easier than undergrad. My BS GPA was 3.1 and my MS GPA is like 3.7 and I was able to finish everything in 12 months

EDIT: I'm MSEE

Heh, what school did you go to? Maybe I should go there. Even doing a course based masters here with some research (not enough for a thesis, just the experience) is typically a 60-70 hour per week committment.

No kidding... what school? I'm going to Wash U in St. Louis... part time masters in CS, graduate this December. 2.5 years total.

I'm at USC. All my friends doing MSCS at UCLA also say that grad school is easier (no research). I dunno...I know some people are having a really hard time doing MS. I had to study much more during my undergrad tho.

EDIT: When I say "easier" I don't mean is easy. I still have to spend all weekends studying and doing hw. I think the main difference is that in MS I can take 3 eng course per semester while during undergrad I was taking 4 eng courses every quarter.