Bsc v masters on ucas

[monkey42]

Does anyone know whether it matters which you apply for in the sciences, since most uni have both options and I presume transition to bsc to masters requires a 2.1 in 2nd year regardless what you put down for ucas? Is 3 v 4 year course binding?
Ds2 is about to put his in application but there is just far too much choice!

If doing application from start do the longest course you can. If you do 3 year only then funding stops and you have to apply for post grad loan at higher rate. If you apply for the 4yr combined then you get funding through the whole thing at lower rate.

That is a really important point! Is it possible to drop down from masters to bsc do you know, given they all run the same course, if you’ve has enough by 3 years?
thanks

Yes you can drop from integrated masters to BSc. Agree about picking the four year course to give you the extra year of funding in case it's needed.

Be careful about committing to the Masters year though. Integrated Masters do not include a substantial dissertation element compared to that requires for a full Masters - full Masters are 50% more than the integrated and usually regarded as a much better preparation for PhD if that's an option.

Having an integrated Masters also means you can't get the Masters loan.

Crikey this sounds complicated, but am I right in thinking the best thing to apply for at this point is the integrated masters but to take a hard look at the further down the line? It seems odd so many courses now offer the masters but cynical old me assumes that’s driven by students wanting it and unis wanting the cash,
courses which were all 3 years back in my prehistoric era. (Nat sci, single sciences etc) now seem to all offer a choice

Ds applied for integrated masters then changed his mind so did 3 year BSc. On finishing he decided he did want to do a masters so has niw just started. He has stayed at the same uni and has had a reduction in fees for doing so.To do a research masters you had to have a 2:1 or first. He did need to reapply for finance but it was not complicated.

but cynical old me assumes that’s driven by students wanting it and unis wanting the cash,

I hate to say it, but yeah.

DS started on BEng and moved to MEng during the first term of year 3. He found that some jobs wanted an MEng. Funding wise it was better for him doing the MEng rather than a separate masters. The MEng would have required one grade higher at A level. It’s worth looking at the grade requirement of degree with and without master’s year.

There is a good deal of movement in both directions whilst on the course. The uni is happy for good students to transfer onto M(STEM) and as @mushroom3 says, for some this is an alternate pathway.

Almost anyone doing an M(STEM) can transfer to a BSc programme. The exception is students who study abroad for credit in Year 3. Students are required to be in residence for the whole of their final year. My university is strict about this.

They’ve been there a long time. I did Cambridge NatSci as a four year masters more than 20 years ago. Certainly wasn’t seen as a disadvantage when applying for a PhD.

Thank you for all replies so far, I think the take home is to apply for the msci and then review as the course goes along whether to continue with that or switch to bsc

The only remaining question is whether to add imperial to the mix, having been firmly going for non London until a couple of weeks ago. There are rumours that lectures remain on line for chemistry, any inside info gratefully received!? Many thanks to all

Not sure for sciences, but for engineering, I believe that the IMechE, for example, require MEng as the fastest route to progress onto Chartered Engineer status.

When DD was choosing Chemistry last year, she chose mainly MSc and her 5th/insurance choice was a BSc which has a lower typical offer condition. However, when we were looking into it, the offer conditions for MSc and BSc were mostly identical for chemistry except for a few universities, Birmingham being one of them.

Within courses it's usually pretty flexible up to the course limit. If you don't perform well enough in your second year modules you'll be dropped from integrated masters to bachelors. If you pick options that rely on a placement (e.g. study abroad year or placement year) and you don't get a placement you just go onto the next year and get moved to that course. Likewise if you don't apply for the placement course, you can still apply for placements if you change your mind and move onto that course if you get one.

Especially in hands on practical degrees a lot of students requested to be bumped up to integrated masters that missed out in first couple of years due to covid. Most were able to do so that had the grades (eventually they capped out the course though so those that applied for the switch latest didn't get on), and had no issues getting the student finance for it. This included some that wouldn't have had the grades to get into the course from the start, as they just needed the uni module grades and A levels weren't considered. This may not be the same at every uni.

The Bristol engineering talk on their open day said for them at least it was very fluid and you didn't have to commit at the beginning either way - you could change through the process.

I think there's maybe a significant difference between science and engineering, and some of the comments on this thread re the latter may not be so applicable for the OPs DS.
For engineers, the normal route now towards becoming a professional chartered engineer is the integrated MEng.

On the other hand, if you're aiming high in the sciences, whether in industry or academia, then you're likely to want to go on to do a PhD. I'm way out of date, back in my day integrated masters simply weren't a thing, if you'd got a good BSc you went straight on to a 3 year PhD. Seems like that may not be the case any more

You don't, you would struggle to get onto a competitive PhD programme with an integrated masters now in my field.

Now if you want a PhD you're looking at either a masters by research or lab experience (e.g. a year plus working in a lab as a technician). Honestly I recommend the latter if you can get a position, you get paid a decent wage instead of paying for the masters course. Easier to get a self funded MRes though!

Might be uni specific but in the russel group unis with big competition funded doctoral training programmes this is how it is now. Supervisors pick one person to put forward to interview, there will be more supervisors than there are funded places. Funding is allocated based on how the student scores at that funding interview. You can't convince supervisors to take a chance on you, you won't get through the funding interview and the person they pick is their one shot at getting a student that year.

I personally wouldn't do an integrated masters. Although it depends on where you want to take your education. If the integrated will get you the career you want then yes. If you want to progress academically, usually no.

An hons degree then a masters is basically considered to be better. Either way you're a master but one does have a bit more clout.

Theres some really excellent ones out there where the final year contains a company or abroad placement (if you can get one) rather than a project at the university. I've known lots continue in the company afterwards, having been offered a permanent position.

My knowledge of some lab sciences is consistent with that of @WhatPostDoc .

However the main difference between the integrated Masters and the independent Masters is the thesis. In most STEM fields at my place those on the integrated MSc must do a substantial independent project. Whilst it it short of a thesis, it is also recognised that in certain fields —- the classic example is Maths —- an MSc thesis is not expected to contain original work; it is more of an extended project or literature review. In these fields students do go successfully from the integrated MSc to doctoral study, particularly if they have done a Final Year Project.

@ErrolTheDragon you can still go from a first-class undergraduate degree to a PhD, my goddaughter did exactly that relatively recently (within the last 5 years) in a science subject. But I think it is becoming less common.

DD2 has gone down the more traditional route of an undergraduate degree and then a change of university for a one-year Masters. My best friend's son has done an Integrated Masters and I'm sorry but there was simply no comparison between their workloads or the level of their 'thesis', if that is the correct term. That said, his Integrated Masters got him exactly what he wanted – a good job in the field, no need to do more study if he doesn't want to. DD2 knew that she would ultimately need a PhD to progress in her field so her Masters was chosen with that in mind.

So I guess a lot depends on whether the Masters is your end point, or a necessary step along the way to further qualifications.

There is a huge gulf between integrated masters and masters by research - and the fees are the same (the funding is admittedly the problem).

In my experience integrated masters is a higher level of project than BSc in terms of more time per week allocated during term time. There will be maybe 20 weeks of lab work, for just over half the week. You're still an undergraduate and must be supervised, all work inside core hours etc. Longer dissertation but not by much.

MRes is like a years full time job. It is 52 weeks of full time lab work, equivalent to what a PhD student would do in first year. They're trusted to do more, be more independent, have access to more consumables and reagents. The thesis is also more of a mini-PhD thesis with chapters etc. Easily more than double the experience. It is a practise run for first year PhD and your progression report. If you want an academic career there is no comparison. Thats why working as a technician etc is also better. Full time lab work for over a year, writing reports, contributing to papers.

DS is about to start his final year of a four year integrated masters course in a science subject.

He hopes to do a PhD and is just starting applications.

The advice from his university was that continuing to a fourth year would be the best route to an academic career, but based on the comments in this thread, he is now in a relatively weak position compared to candidates from research masters / MSc courses.

@Ironoaks I think it depends on the field.
What is it?

OP thank you for bringing this to our attention.

My son has just started studying for a five year integrated masters in computer science at Edinburgh University. At this early stage, he is unsure of his future intention towards further study.

His integrated masters is tuition fee free though (he's Scottish), so I guess choosing the integrated masters is a no brainer?

@poetryandwine
The MSci is in physics (via natural sciences).
He would like to do a PhD in biological physics, or at least in soft condensed matter.
He has reached out to a potential supervisor for his Part III (4th year) project who has implied that a PhD in that group might be possible.

Seems sensible - the 5 years is presumably because it's the Scottish system, and afaik it's always possible to decide not to do the last year of an integrated masters if they prefer when the time comes. I don't think it's particularly common/necessary for comp sci grads to do PhDs so the considerations are likely to be different vs sciences - and also not the same as engineers where integrated MEng is generally advisable.