Silly question but what are the advantages and disadvantages of a Masters??

[drivinmecrazy]

DD1 is in her final year of a joint honours English lit and Spanish degree.
She's been pretty certain until recently that she wouldn't go down the masters route as she wanted to jump straight into looking for post graduate jobs in her chosen field.
She has worked for the same company since going to uni and has progressed well. The job has suited her and helped to fund her own way through uni so has been largely self sufficient.
Recently her boss has offered her a year long contract in a managerial position for £24000 if she were to stay on and do her masters.
She's now in a spiral and completely confused.
Her mind was set on taking her chances and lunging into the world of applying for post grad positions that would offer her the experience on the long term. This would mean her moving back home and commuting (with all the costs incurred) to get the relevant experience. We've said we'd subsidise her costs during that year.
Now her current employer (on uni campus) has offered her a managerial role for £24000 if she wants to stay on to do her masters.
We're all at a loss as to what to advise her.

DD1 only has a week to decide if she wants the role and subsequently to do a masters.

She was originally against a masters because she wanted to jump straight in to getting experience.
So many of her friends are doing masters it's mind boggling!!

@RJnomore1
Exactly! That’s what I have been saying. If posters assert lots of jobs now require a masters, they should specify which types of jobs and which masters. It’s not a blanket “get a masters and you leapfrog everyone else into a job” . So we need accurate info. In some instances a masters doesn’t leapfrog anyone much. Plenty of Oxbridge grads don’t do a masters so are they not marketable? I think they are.

It’s not a blanket “get a masters and you leapfrog everyone else into a job” .

You're absolutely right, it isn't, I totally agree. But nor is it true to say that work experience and/or professional qualifications are de facto better – in some fields they are, in some fields they aren't.

I can assert that a lot of scientific research positions are likely to require a Masters, whether field or lab based. This does not necessarily mean staying in academia, it would also encompass jobs with medical charities, NGOs, in government labs and at private pharmaceutical companies. You might get a job at such places, but sooner or later you will hit a glass ceiling above which you will need further degrees if you wish to progress. I don't know if other posters consider that 'lots of jobs' or not, to me it does, but I guess opinions on that may vary.

DD2 has a first-class Masters from a university ranked above everywhere in the UK except Oxford for her particular field of study. Having looked into it closely, she has assessed that this is the minimum she needs for her chosen career.

Back to the OP and as I have already said a career in publishing is not going to require a Masters. Indeed, newspapers used to prefer people who didn't have degrees at all, they would rather train them on the job, though that has changed now as there are lots more degrees in journalism, marketing, communications etc than there used to be.

It’s definitely not an automatic leap frog - in my field you need the skills to go with it but but but - the masters teaches you more of them. Also I think finance etc may be similar from my networks.

The ideal candidate has the skills from post grad study, real life experience AND is personable/soft skills - never put all your eggs in one basket!

An aside - funded phd now prefer you to have a masters. It shows ability and some research experience. Often you get the 1+3 model too.

One thing I will say is I regret doing my masters because now I can never get funding to retrain.

I am now working in mental health and would love to do psychology or counselling but never can cos I used up my masters funding when I was young. You never know when you might need or want that chance.

@thing47
Yes. All the areas you quote are science. That’s the point I was making. Some professions have a very clear professional route though, eg solicitor, so there’s no need to do a masters as well as professional qualifications. Science is likely to have research as part of it and Masters are part of that.

As for the DD in question, the masters isn’t a bad idea and she doesn’t have a training position in publishing. We don’t know if she’s done publishing work experience but it sounds like she’s just worked for the company that’s offered to employ her now. Depending on what her degree is, I would take the offer on the table.

[quote TizerorFizz]@RJnomore1
A poster was talking about PHDs. What jobs are advertised where applicants should have a masters? I’m genuinely interested. Not STEM ones.[/quote]
Most leadership / senior roles in healthcare have level 7 qualifications as either essential or desirable criteria on the advert.

@indeedsun
I was interested in non stem. Health is often stem. Plus staff get additional masters qualifications whilst working and then compete against others with the same qualifications. If just means the NHS doesn’t want people who have a lot of experience but not got a masters. Who is actually better at a job might be a moot point.

Young staff don’t necessarily apply with the masters done straight after an undergrad degree and go straight into grade 7. That’s like saying a new teacher would apply for a deputy head role if they have a masters. They cannot do that job unless they have the experience too. So it’s important to compare apples with apples.

I’m talking about clinical leadership roles which won’t be STEM, it will be applied courses and absolutely not straight out of university. Like you say, different from what you’re talking about in your second post but I was answering the question in your first post.
Obviously there are some psychology posts which will be band 7 straight out of MSc.

I'm in finance and I always assume masters are about staying at uni for longer, or not bothering to look for a job early enough. They are not relevant in my field but if someone has done something relevant to my field I'm more likely to look favourably on them. I'd rather take someone focused on the accountancy qualification.

In publishing I expect that leaving uni earlier and actually doing a relevant job is going to have most impact for a career path which is competitive and poorly paid.

I also thought £24k was a reasonable starting salary!!!

Median starting salary for grads is reported at being £30,000. according to the High Flyers report. However this concentrates on FTSE top 100. Elsewhere it’s £21,000 to £25,000. However plenty of maths, engineering, physics, economics grads should expect more snd get it. If the masters is being paid for it’s a no brainer really.

@RJnomore1
Do any grads immediately go and do an MBA? The people I know with them, all did them as mature students and worked whilst they did them. Experience in a senior role is usually required to get on the courses. Something a grad just doesn’t have. Again it’s not really fair to say an MBA is available to a 21 year old undergrad. Or is required to obtain employment.

I’m not talking about MBAs. I would have said if I was.

The conversation is general level 7/ scqf 11/ masters level quals.

MBA is mostly prohibitively expensive tbh.

Loads of MBAs are paid for by employers. They have taken off in the last 25 years. I think they work for quite a few people. They certainly do help people progress. More than a masters to stay at uni an extra year .

Nat min wages can now give a starting salary of £20k. I know of a few accountancy apprentices (grads) who are being paid less than £9.65 ph as their employers (small local firms) take advantage of the NMW rules. A few may have a masters in something random like physics, but they are few & far between.

Tizerorfizz, I am surprised at your line, though bow to your greater experience in recruitment.

DS was clear he needed a Masters following his Econometrics and Mathematical Economics degree. Banks, consultancies, think tanks and even the public sector would expect it, as would anyone offering PhD funding.

A niche area perhaps, though in practice there are a lot of quant jobs in the City. It was very technical and it is those technical skills/knowledge employers are looking for.

I don’t see it as very different from lawyers who all seem to go off and do further law training post graduation, or accountants, or actuaries, except one is labelled a Masters, others are not. (Though actually lawyers do head off to do masters in things like shipping law to give them an edge when seeking jobs.) I assume the same applies to MFL grads who seek a masters studying translation, or someone with a psychology degree who pursues a specialist masters.

Or is it that recruiters almost always prefer work experience. If so how do people gain post UG knowledge?