Masters /PhD - have things changed?

[Greatauntdymphna]

When I went to uni - 30+ years ago - one of my friends stayed to do a PhD and I knew 2 other people who moved to my uni to do a PhD. None of them had done a masters.
I also knew one person who moved to my uni to do a masters (who then didn't do a PhD).
When I talk to DC it seems that they are under the impression that it's hard to get to do a PhD without a masters first.
Is that now the case? (Was it always the case and I just knew some people who did things unusually?)
Or do my children have the wrong end of the stick?

It might depend on whether you already have a masters in the subject? I am looking into doing a phd and have a masters but in another subject, and was told I need to do the masters programme first.

It's hugely dependent on subject OP. Some phd funding includes a masters.

Good question, it always used to be that ppl could do a PhD straight after a 3 year degree as long as they had a 2.i .

The people I knew at uni were all scientists.
The DC who is thinking of this route is doing history.

Some of the funding bodies include a masters year - the Doctoral Training Programmes do either a 1+3 (3years PhD +1 yr masters) 0.5+ 3 (3 years phd plus 6months of a pgcert - if they already have a masters but not the necessary research methods modules) or just standard 3. Im funded by NINE DTP and I already had an Mres so they're just funding my 3 year PhD.

I've known people in psychology go straight into a PhD without a masters. And unis are always (usually) happy to let a self funder go straight to PhD.

Greatauntdymphna I would say that a masters would be the way your DC would need to go.

DS4 is doing a DPhil at Oxford having gone direct from his three year Bachelor's degree, but it's a science.

For history it would be usual to do a masters, yes. It has been for quite some time now. It's very, very difficult to get PhD funding without a masters, too.

I think this is something of an Arts/Sciences split.

It would be very unusual for a PhD candidate not to have a Masters in the social sciences.

Btw, and it's none of my business so please don't feel you have to get into it, but do you know why your DC wants to do a PhD in history? I'm quite jaded but I would suggest that at the moment, it's not the most fun time to be getting into that unless someone has a really pressing reason to want to do it.

I completed my (science) PhD 30 years ago. We had to enrol on a masters programme initially (MPhil) and then submit a transfer thesis after the first year to be able to register for a PhD. As most of us only had funding for 3 years, it was very important to make a successful transfer submission.

@SarahAndQuack

Btw, and it's none of my business so please don't feel you have to get into it, but do you know why your DC wants to do a PhD in history? I'm quite jaded but I would suggest that at the moment, it's not the most fun time to be getting into that unless someone has a really pressing reason to want to do it.

Just because they're absolutely passionate about it and want to be an academic (at the moment. Currently a first year so plenty of time to decide they'd rather take another path!)

That ... was what was worrying me!

I totally get that a PhD is an excellent experience, and you can do loads of good things with it, and therefore it is probably very worthwhile. But please encourage your DC to talk to lots and lots of jaded academics as early on as possible. And to think very carefully about when this might become a sunk costs fallacy. I'm a historian/lit academic who is currently giving up in despair. I'm not saying this to boast, but I have absolutely excellent credentials and I simply cannot get a job. It is so brutal at the moment. I've been interviewed by people who tell me I am really excellent, I'm a great teacher, etc. etc., but jobs in academia are just horribly exploitative at the moment.

I also think the PhD process is very brutal. I have former students who're current or recent PhD candidates, and their mental health is an absolute state. I've seen people who were brilliant, first class Oxbridge degrees, distinctions at MA level, become absolutely wrecked with imposter syndrome and worry, because that is the culture at the moment.

I'm so sorry that sounds so negative, but ... better to know than not.

Absolutely.
Thank you.
I appreciate that things are difficult for academics right now and I'm sure their views might change anyway. (Only other career option currently is QI elf though and I'm not sure there are many vacancies there either!)
At the moment the supervisors are all so lovely and enthusiastic that they are definitely not giving the "our life is hard" vibe.
But there's time for that to change!
We will have to see how things pan out.

And I'm sorry that it's proving so hard to find work @sarahandquack

I’m an academic in an allied field. Outside of the sciences it would be very unusual to go straight into a PhD. And to add to the discouragement of doing a PhD to pursue an academic career. Something like 30 in 100 social science and arts PhDs lead to a (precarious, annual contract, poorly paid) university teaching job, while only a handful get a permanent post. By all means do a PhD (ideally funded), but with an open mind to pursue a professional career in history, wherever it takes you.

www.hepi.ac.uk/2020/02/17/the-employment-of-phd-graduates-in-the-uk-what-do-we-know/

I am not sure why PPs are saying ‘outside of the sciences’ you need a Masters, unless referring to the fact that the majority of physical sciences UGs who are thinking about a PhD, at least at my university and others I know, opt for a 4 yr degree to begin with. Eg, MChem instead of BScChem. The former is the MSc without the thesis.

In my field funded PhDs tend to be for about 3.5 yrs stretchable to 4. If you begin directly from a 3 yr UG programme you really don’t have time to come up to speed and compile enough of a record to compete for the best postdoctoral positions

@Greatauntdymphna

And I'm sorry that it's proving so hard to find work *@sarahandquack*

Oh, you're kind - I'm fine, just I think people still don't talk about this stuff enough. It was tough when I started my PhD over a decade ago, but it has gone from tough to utterly ridiculous in the last few years. A lot of permanent academics quitting or being made redundant in history, too.

Unfortunately we don’t regulate who does what in this country. So the people who do have great jobs in universities want to supervise plenty of PhD people and ensure the university maintains an income stream. Whether anyone needs huge numbers with a PhD in History is never considered. So people just plough ahead and do what they want snd quite often have a wonderful time doing it. They haven’t had the slog of getting a job or the effort of going to work. I do think it’s important to get first class lecturers but we have significant over supply it appears.

Maybe encourage her to look at other careers and do history as a hobby? Volunteer and/or run a history society. It’s not just PhDs where there’s over supply either. Lots of gateway qualifications over supply. Look at lawyers and barristers. How many who train actually do the work they are trained to do?

I think it depends on the uni and the subject
Where I work you need a 1st and you can go straight to phd. But you wouldn’t get funding.

@TizerorFizz

Unfortunately we don’t regulate who does what in this country. So the people who do have great jobs in universities want to supervise plenty of PhD people and ensure the university maintains an income stream. Whether anyone needs huge numbers with a PhD in History is never considered. So people just plough ahead and do what they want snd quite often have a wonderful time doing it. They haven’t had the slog of getting a job or the effort of going to work. I do think it’s important to get first class lecturers but we have significant over supply it appears.

Maybe encourage her to look at other careers and do history as a hobby? Volunteer and/or run a history society. It’s not just PhDs where there’s over supply either. Lots of gateway qualifications over supply. Look at lawyers and barristers. How many who train actually do the work they are trained to do?

I don't think that's really the issue, TBH. Or fair on PhD supervisors. Everyone I know worries about the ethics of producing more PhDs.

And the problem also isn't that we need fewer History PhD students. As universities currently function, PhDs and postdocs do a huge amount of teaching (and admin) and most departments need that cheap labour to run. The problem is that there are then vanishingly few permanent jobs. You couldn't solve the problem by ensuring each university only took on the handful of brilliant PhD students it'd need to replace its 'first class lecturers'. You need the whole system to work differently.

Even in science certain PhD programmes are highly competitive with many applicants having either a masters or research experience plus one or more publication. For example these ones www.crick.ac.uk/careers-study/students/phd-students/phd-student-recruitment or www.imm.ox.ac.uk/study-with-us. It is easier to get a project-specific PhD though. In any case with regards academic careers PhDs are the very broad base of a pyramid. Loads of people do PhDs. Very few progress to be independent investigators due to attrition from lack of research funding but also career choice. Most PhD students are fully aware of the odds and open minded about future options.

Where I work ( NHS specialist Nurse) ...you can only apply to be funded for a PHD is you have a Masters

And I agree with. SarahandQuack - good research led by senior academics relies on high volumes of PhD students as does teaching of undergraduates at some universities.

When I was working in a science and engineering industry a few did PhD without Masters. However they had tons of experience working in a specialised area for a number of years (10 or so).

It is different now in Engineering industries with the Professional Qualifications. Much better to invest the time on that if you might want to work outside of academia.
Partly because most things that are needed have been discovered or are more generally known.

I don’t think it is fair to argue cheap labour is needed and then complain you cannot get employment @SarahAndQuack. Yes there needs to be a change. When I did a HNC in the dark ages, all our lecturers were full time. They didn’t all have Doctorates though. Some had professional qualifications topped up by teaching qualifications and fantastic work experience. They were brilliant and they taught the degree courses too. So many PhD students appear to want to be academics but then don’t get jobs I accept there needs to be change and the obvious answer is fewer universities. (See other long running thread). Then there’s room for PhD students as academics and others without PhDs who are still fantastic lecturers.