Is a Physics Masters Degree Useless? Considering the Next Step

[radical negative]

I'm planning on working towards a physics masters degree. I figured afterwards I would have the option of either working towards a Ph.D. or entering the workforce, and didn't feel it was necessary to decide early.
I was getting academic advise from one of my professors today, and he said something that surprised me. He said a physics masters degree was useless, implying that I should get a Ph.D. I'm wondering what posters here think. I figured I would need a Ph.D. to go into academics and do research, but I'm not sure if that's what I want to do. Is a physics masters degree useless outside of academics? what about industry?

 

[Charles Link]

I'm planning on working towards a physics masters degree. I figured afterwards I would have the option of either working towards a Ph.D. or entering the workforce, and didn't feel it was necessary to decide early.
I was getting academic advise from one of my professors today, and he said something that surprised me. He said a physics masters degree was useless, implying that I should get a Ph.D. I'm wondering what posters here think. I figured I would need a Ph.D. to go into academics and do research, but I'm not sure if that's what I want to do. Is a physics masters degree useless outside of academics? what about industry?

With an M.S. Physics degree, I think you would be much better prepared for work in the industry than with simply a B.S. Physics. Meanwhile, with a Ph.D., so much of the effort towards getting a Ph.D. can be so specialized that the extra education often doesn't mean a whole lot. Someone with a M.S. degree can often perform just as well as a Ph.D. person at the types of applied physics problems that need to get solved in an industrial setting.

 

[CrysPhys]

To OP:

Are you in the US? I'm a PhD physicist. I worked for 20+ yrs in industrial R&D. There are always exceptions, of course, but in my experience, an MS in physics is not of much use in industry. With a physics degree, if you want a position as a lead scientist or engineer, you need a PhD. A BS in physics will qualify you for a support role (lab technician, research assistant, research associate ... whatever title HR cooks up). An MS in physics will still land you a support role. Exacerbating all this, in many US universities, the MS is a consolation prize for candidates who wash out of the PhD program. In my grad school, you automatically got an MS after completing one yr of grad courses. If you passed the qual, you went on for your PhD; if you flunked the qual twice, you left with an MS.

How many yrs is the MS program you're considering, and does it require a thesis? The research experience gained in completing a thesis is paramount.

Note: the situation is different in other fields such as EE, ME, CS, and CE. An MS is advantageous in landing you a lead design role.

 

[Vanadium 50]

CrysPhys pretty much has it - there are jobs that require a BS and jobs that require a PhD. While I wouldn't say an MS is useless, from the point of view of new opportunities it opens, it's a clear third place between the three degrees.

 

[Charles Link]

@radical negative Regardless of the degree level that you have or plan on having, I think it is important to be competitive and strive for excellence. If you do graduate studies at the university, it pays to try to learn as much as you possibly can. I can see where the advisor might be coming from=if he sees that you are willing to settle for simply being in the lower part of the middle of a group of graduate students, he's going to want to push you to try harder.

 

[CrysPhys]

@radical negative Regardless of the degree level that you have or plan on having, I think it is important to be competitive and strive for excellence. If you do graduate studies at the university, it pays to try to learn as much as you possibly can. I can see where the advisor might be coming from=if he sees that you are willing to settle for simply being in the lower part of the middle of a group of graduate students, he's going to want to push you to try harder.

Not sure where you're reading all that from. The question is, "Is a terminal MS in physics worthwhile for career advancement?" The answer is, "Except for outliers, no." If you want to get an MS in physics for your own personal satisfaction, then OK.

 

[marcusl]

I disagree. I've worked in three different industries and seen great uniformity in how degrees are treated. A masters is considered equivalent to 2 years of on the job experience, a PhD equals 4 years. An MS enters at a higher level than a BS. Promotions have a requirement for years of relevant experience at the companies I've worked, so the masters definitely counts there, too. While PhD's might have more potential to rise to the highest technical positions a company has (Tech Fellow, e.g.), it is not a requirement and I've seen numerous non-PhD's holding those positions where I've worked, and have met them at other companies.

 

[Choppy]

"Useless" is one of those flag words for me. It tends to get thrown around, often by younger people who've grown up with nothing but first world problems. The word is often misapplied in situations where the phrase "less than optimal" is really more appropriate.

While I certainly would agree that one should be aiming for a PhD if one has a desire to go into academia, or lead some kind of research, a master's degree is far from "useless."

In some cases an MSc in physics can be a professional or semi-professional degree. For example, an accredited MSc in medical physics can get you into a residency and lead to a career as a medical physicist. There's ongoing debate as to whether a PhD is optimal for people who end up doing primarily clinical work in the field, but I would argue that in medical physics the MSc is very far from "useless."

A lot can depend on the specifics of what you learn during your MSc as well. If you pick up advanced coursework or develop skills in a marketable area that could greatly improve your employment options over graduating with BSc.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I wonder to myself if the different replies regarding the value of a MS in physics may come from whether

(1) The degree was earned in the US or outside of the US (for example, with a few exceptions, all students intending to pursue a PhD program in a Canadian university in whatever program, including physics, are required to complete a masters degree first).

and

(2) For those students in the US, whether the masters program in physics is a terminal program focused on applied or industrial work.

[Aside: Choppy beat me to it in posting a response! ]

 

[Mister T]

Just look through the ads in the back of Physics Today magazine. A Ph.D. is required for almost every one. You can teach at a community college with a M.S. as that is the minimum required degree there. Otherwise the odds are very much stacked against you.

 

[radical negative]

Thanks for the replies. Yes I'm in the U.S. My professor also called an MS a consolidation prize. It's looking more and more like I committed myself to a Ph.D. when I switched my major to physics.

 

[symbolipoint]

The consolation-prize idea about the Masters' degree seems bad. Could a PhD student who could not finish the degree but was granted Masters degree, later be allowed to enter a PhD program again and the "masters" degree not count against him? Would the person who completed a "terminal Master's degree" in the subject (Physics?) also have his Master's degree count against him if he wants to apply for a PhD program? What is or where is the real sense here?

 

[Charles Link]

The consolation-prize idea about the Masters' degree seems bad. Could a PhD student who could not finish the degree but was granted Masters degree, later be allowed to enter a PhD program again and the "masters" degree not count against him? Would the person who completed a "terminal Master's degree" in the subject (Physics?) also have his Master's degree count against him if he wants to apply for a PhD program? What is or where is the real sense here?

I think this input by @symbolipoint is a good one. I think what would often be the case is if a person receives a M.S. Physics degree and is successful with landing good employment in industry, they would not want to return to the low pay that a university graduate student typically receives as a professor's research assistant. On the bright side, good applied research jobs that are sometimes available to people with a M.S. Physics degree can also be extremely educational.

 

[CrysPhys]

Thanks for the replies. Yes I'm in the U.S. My professor also called an MS a consolidation prize. It's looking more and more like I committed myself to a Ph.D. when I switched my major to physics.

Not necessarily. If you don't want a supporting role in industry with a BS, and if you don't want to spend ~5-7 yrs pursuing a PhD in physics (particularly if you're not sold on it), check what would be involved in getting an MS in a field such as EE or CS. You didn't mention what your interests are and what other coursework you pursued. Many physics students (undergrad and grad) have a secondary concentration (doesn't have to be an official minor) in a field such as EE, math, CS, or materials. Do you? That would reduce the amount of remedial coursework for an MS in another field. This is just an option for you to consider; only you can decide whether it's the right one.

 

[mpresic]

My experience is much like MarcusL. A MS generally enters a professional career with at least a year maybe two improved salary. Unless the higher salary is useless, the MS is not useless. I actually graduated with one students who earned two masters degrees, one in physics and one in engineering, and another student who earned a PhD in physics during the 1980's,. Both were hired by the same semiconductor firm at the same location at the same time. The student with two Masters degrees beat out student with the doctoral degree in starting salary.

When I entered the job market 30 years ago, a Masters degree could not teach, even in any community college. It is a little better now. However, in contradiction to your earlier question: A MS is, as you put it in your question, "more useless" in academia than it is in industry.

I would take your advisor's comment as a compliment. (S)he thinks your capable if doctoral level work

Here is the point though. It is necessary to decide early.
When you enter the graduate program, the clock is running on your passing the qualifying exams (usually within the first two years). You (almost certainly) will not have the luxury of completing the Masters before considering whether you want to pursue the PhD. The qualifying exams are tough. No two ways about it. The probability of a pass diminishes quickly for students who do not have a strong sense of purpose and direction.

 

[CrysPhys]

The consolation-prize idea about the Masters' degree seems bad. Could a PhD student who could not finish the degree but was granted Masters degree, later be allowed to enter a PhD program again and the "masters" degree not count against him? Would the person who completed a "terminal Master's degree" in the subject (Physics?) also have his Master's degree count against him if he wants to apply for a PhD program? What is or where is the real sense here?

I think this input by @symbolipoint is a good one. I think what would often be the case is if a person receives a M.S. Physics degree and is successful with landing good employment in industry, they would not want to return to the low pay that a university graduate student typically receives as a professor's research assistant. On the bright side, good applied research jobs that are sometimes available to people with a M.S. Physics degree can also be extremely educational.

Well, that's the rosy side. But I think people who pursue a PhD in physics are primarily motivated by a passion for research, rather than financial gain.

On the gloomy side: washing out of a PhD program is traumatic, depressing, and demoralizing. I don't have any statistics on how many students who wash out of a PhD physics program reapply for a PhD physics program at another university. Of the ones whom I've personally known, none did ... although some chose a PhD program in an easier field.

 

[mpresic]

Well, that's the rosy side. But I think people who pursue a PhD in physics are primarily motivated by a passion for research, rather than financial gain.

On the gloomy side: washing out of a PhD program is traumatic, depressing, and demoralizing. I don't have any statistics on how many students who wash out of a PhD physics program reapply for a PhD physics program at another university. Of the ones whom I've personally known, none did ... although some chose a PhD program in an easier field.

It is not quite that bad, Crystal. I passed the quals and became a PhD candidate at one university (so I do not think this is "washing out") but I decided to enter the work force in the 1980's. I later entered the graduate physics program in another university with a much stronger physics program, many years later. I had to take the GRE's, get letters of recommendation, pass the qualifiers and the coursework, and the research. It is very difficult, but it can be done.

 

[CrysPhys]

It is not quite that bad, Crystal. I passed the quals and became a PhD candidate at one university (so I do not think this is "washing out") but I decided to enter the work force in the 1980's. I later entered the graduate physics program in another university with a much stronger physics program, many years later. I had to take the GRE's, get letters of recommendation, pass the qualifiers and the coursework, and the research. It is very difficult, but it can be done.

By "washing out", I was referring to my earlier comment about universities that hand out an MS as a consolation prize for grad students who do not pass the qual. That was not your case: you passed, but chose to leave to get a job in industry instead; different scenario. Leaving voluntarily does not generate the psychological trauma that getting kicked out does.

 

[mpresic]

Thank you CrysPhys, And I am sorry that your experiences (which I admit is more common) with other researchers that left their programs early for involuntary reasons, did not have the same (good) experiences I did when I returned to grad study. I am happy they had success in other fields however.

Returning to the main point of the OP. Decisions have to be made early.

 

[elkement]

I have understood that this is a thread about the US now, but just to add my European perspective - as I saw this discussion coming up often, and it took me a while to understand the differences and this 'consolation prize' argument ...

In some cases an MSc in physics can be a professional or semi-professional degree.

(1) The degree was earned in the US or outside of the US (for example, with a few exceptions, all students intending to pursue a PhD program in a Canadian university in whatever program, including physics, are required to complete a masters degree first).

I agree. Here (in Austria) a MSc in any STEM field incl. physics is considered a professional degree. You can start an engineering consultancy (sort of 'Professional Engineer') based on any STEM degree, professional experience, and some additional non-STEM exams.

We actually had more of a discussion about the 'usefulness' of a BSc for a while as there had been no BSc degrees until rather recently. The MSc (5 years) was your first degree, and a BSc was sometimes considered an incomplete education by employers, competing with our traditional 'technical high schools'.

 

[Vanadium 50]

A masters is considered equivalent to 2 years of on the job experience

So if it takes 2 years to get, it hasn't actually saved you any time. The marginal value is relatively small.

Could a PhD student who could not finish the degree but was granted Masters degree, later be allowed to enter a PhD program again and the "masters" degree not count against him?

It's not the MS that will be held against him, it will be that he entered the program and didn't succeed.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Is a physics masters degree useless outside of academics? what about industry?

We offer a terminal MS degree (in Physics) with a few different specializations, and call it a 'professional masters' degree. It is true that the European and US educational models are very different when it comes to a MS degree, we try to offer a European version- a 2-year program that concentrates on specific topics of value to industry.

We have basically 2 types of MS students: those already with a BS whose employers think would benefit from some additional specialized education, and students who are basically doing a 'gap year' to build their CV for application to a PhD program. Either way, as long as the student has a long-term plan, the student will gain very useful experience.

Ideally, the already-employed student will come out of our program with the improved skills needed to advance within the company (or seek better employment elsewhere), and the 'gap year' student will have a completed research project to discuss and an accepted publication to add to their resume.

In the US, getting a MS in physics because you don't know what you want to do is a bad idea.

 

[Charles Link]

The coursework that is often a part of the first couple of years of graduate school in the Physics curriculum can be extremely valuable for future use in employment in the industry. It covers a lot of the more advanced topics in detail that are introduced very quickly in the undergraduate curriculum. Learning this material and achieving the M.S. level puts the student that much ahead of someone at the B.S. level. The M.S. level is a milestone in itself, and upon achieving it, the graduate student can still ask themselves, is 4-5 more years of study for the Ph.D. and being a research assistant what they are looking for, or might a transition to industrial employment be more in their interest? In applying to graduate school, the goal should be the Ph.D. degree, but it is still time well spent if that complete goal is not achieved.

 

[CrysPhys]

I normally shy away from sports metaphors. But here is one that is en pointe. In the Olympics, there are many sports (e.g., ice hockey) in which the competitors first run through a gamut of qualifying rounds. The top four finishers then play in the medal round. No. 1 and No. 2 play in the gold medal game; No. 3 and No. 4 play in the bronze medal game. The winner of the gold medal game is awarded the gold medal, the loser of the gold medal game is awarded the silver medal, and the winner of the bronze medal game is awarded the bronze medal. Guess which medalist is the least happy?

 

[mpresic]

Quoting Vanadium

So if it takes 2 years to get, it hasn't actually saved you any time. The marginal value is relatively small.

That is one way to look at it. Another way is: So if it takes 2 years to get, it hasn't actually cost you any time. The marginal expenditure is relatively small.

It may be different now, but about 30 years ago, I talked to my supervisor. He told me although I had my master's in physics, work would pay for me to take graduate level courses in physics, math, EE or AE. He told me they liked to see all their entry level (BS/BA) come up to master's level. When I suggested going for a doctorate, he told me the organization is less enthusiastic about that. He said, we have plenty of projects to give you, that rely on the graduate coursework. We are less interested in the research you can do for the University on the way to your doctorate than the work you can do for us with your expertise in the graduate coursework.

I mentioned in an earlier post, that practicalities require one to commit to the intense study that the doctoral qualifying exams require, or to decide to enter the workforce directly with the Masters. I know in the 1980's, I went to graduate school with engineers who regarded the doctoral qualifying exam as a path to keep open the doors to many possibilities that close, if it is not passed. These same engineers also felt that passing the exam and going for the doctorate was going to cost them money in the long run. They felt they would be forgoing 5-7 years of income, or some increased income later after the 5-7 years. (I have to admit though every engineer I know that passed the exam went on for the doctorate.)

 

[ChrisVer]

How do you join a PhD without a Masters' degree?
What kind of proofs will you provide to the group you apply for in order to be chosen against others who spent 1 full year finishing their master thesis (and so being academically more trained)?

 

[CrysPhys]

How do you join a PhD without a Masters' degree?
What kind of proofs will you provide to the group you apply for in order to be chosen against others who spent 1 full year finishing their master thesis (and so being academically more trained)?

Again, we are talking about the US system. Typically one gets a BS in physics and applies directly for a PhD program. In many universities, one picks up an MS in the initial part of the PhD program upon completion of X credits of graduate courses; no thesis required; no specific MS competency exam required. Different from the European system. So the strength of your application to a PhD program is based upon your accomplishments as an undergrad. Hence, in the US, except for specialized programs such as a MS in medical physics and other outliers (including MS programs sponsored by employers), a terminal MS in physics per se has diluted value (and can raise suspicions on a resume that the MS was a consolation prize; i.e., the candidate entered a PhD program, but failed to complete it ... either by not passing the qual or by not completing the thesis).

 

[symbolipoint]

How do you join a PhD without a Masters' degree?
What kind of proofs will you provide to the group you apply for in order to be chosen against others who spent 1 full year finishing their master thesis (and so being academically more trained)?

Again, we are talking about the US system. Typically one gets a BS in physics and applies directly for a PhD program. In many universities, one picks up an MS in the initial part of the PhD program upon completion of X credits of graduate courses; no thesis required; no specific MS competency exam required. Different from the European system. So the strength of your application to a PhD program is based upon your accomplishments as an undergrad. Hence, in the US, except for specialized programs such as a MS in medical physics and other outliers (including MS programs sponsored by employers), a terminal MS in physics per se has diluted value (and can raise suspicions on a resume that the MS was a consolation prize; i.e., the candidate entered a PhD program, but failed to complete it ... either by not passing the qual or by not completing the thesis).

Some departments also have a Master's program without any PhD program established there.

 

[ChrisVer]

Again I don't understand this method, a PhD should be able to supervise either a BS or a MS thesis... so it's difficult for me to see how a BS student (especially from a US institute - known to have easy BS programs) could jump to that position... but OK...

 

[symbolipoint]

Again I don't understand this method, a PhD should be able to supervise either a BS or a MS thesis... so it's difficult for me to see how a BS student (especially from a US institute - known to have easy BS programs) could jump to that position... but OK...

Not so easy. Undergraduate degree in a physical science in which student earned mostly C's, took minimal course choices, not really easy but worked hard enough just to earn the degree; on the contrary, a physical science degree for a more enlightened and self-directed student who earned mostly A's and B's, and tried at least a couple of good elective courses as well as a couple more practical course choices, took a tougher and more useful path for getting his undergraduate degree. Do you understand the difference between these two types of students? The first type described would not be ready for any advanced degree program, but the second type described could very well be ready for an advanced degree program, INCLUDING to a PhD program.

 

[ChrisVer]

The first type described would not be ready for any advanced degree program, but the second type described could very well be ready for an advanced degree program, INCLUDING to a PhD program

advanced degree program = MSc... and yes, A or Bs should be eligible for a master program, a C should be disfavored.
I am not including PhD in that... a PhD is a researcher (doing their research), teacher (teaching up-to advanced classes) and guide (he can have a small group). An A BSc-degree is not enough to give eligibility to any of those... I still don't see how a BSc (even a major) could do that job. Except for if the PhD holds for 4 years (instead of 3) and the student is made to attend advanced classes + only research their topic for the 1st year (equivalent to doing a boosted-master degree).

 

[symbolipoint]

Right. PhD program is not for just an average bachelor's degree graduate. Some undergraduate students definitely found research experience and many are sharp enough to have done a few graduate-level courses in their major field. Some undergrad. programs have a research requirement as part of the process to earn the undergrad. degree. This is how honestly some/ or many PhD students in the U.S. qualify to enter PhD programs.

 

[mpresic]

I went to grad school many years ago, but unless a lot has changed, I have to clarify some points raised in this forum. First, unless a lot has changed, the student does not enter the graduate program as a PhD candidate. The student becomes a doctoral candidate, usually after completing at least the core coursework, a qualifying exam, and (sometimes) a candidacy exam. Isn't this what term "candidacy" means?

In at least the Universities I attended, a student is not given the MS as a "consolation" prize, when (s)he fails the qualifier. The student still has to fulfill the requirements for the Master's. Many times the student's requirements includes writing and defending a Master's thesis. I know of a few cases, where acceptable coursework was sufficient without thesis, but it is not the case, that the student is awarded a Masters if (s)he fails the qualifier, and he walks out of the department, never to return.

Grad schools in the US especially selective ones are on the lookout to recruit students who express interest in their PhD program. This brings to mind a personal experience. My GPA was quite low when I first entered grad study. When I talked to faculty at a prospective university, I hid my intention to go for a doctoral degree, because I thought they would be more willing to accept me as a Master's candidate. After admission, I would have my foot in the door. I thought if I did well, I could always change my intention, with their support.

After talking to them (still before admission), I found they were really pushing me to prepare for the qualifiers (they even gave me two previous ones from years back), to start research as quickly as possible, and become a doctoral candidate. It certainly was not because I was a good prospect (I had a low GPA). They probably encouraged all their applicants in this direction. I changed my tune fast.

Sometimes, it is a mistake to try to come over to where you think is their side of the fence. My humility was almost responsible for talking myself out of being admitted to the graduate program.

 

[CrysPhys]

Again I don't understand this method, a PhD should be able to supervise either a BS or a MS thesis... so it's difficult for me to see how a BS student (especially from a US institute - known to have easy BS programs) could jump to that position... but OK...

advanced degree program = MSc... and yes, A or Bs should be eligible for a master program, a C should be disfavored.
I am not including PhD in that... a PhD is a researcher (doing their research), teacher (teaching up-to advanced classes) and guide (he can have a small group). An A BSc-degree is not enough to give eligibility to any of those... I still don't see how a BSc (even a major) could do that job. Except for if the PhD holds for 4 years (instead of 3) and the student is made to attend advanced classes + only research their topic for the 1st year (equivalent to doing a boosted-master degree).

Let's get this terminology straight, to ensure that we are talking about the same thing. A "PhD" is someone who has completed a PhD program and has been conferred a PhD degree. A "PhD student" or "PhD candidate" is someone who is working towards a PhD degree, has not yet completed the PhD program, and has not yet been conferred a PhD degree. Just to be clear, we are discussing a "PhD student" or "PhD candidate" ... a graduate student.

Once again, in the US:

(a) As of a 2014 AIP report (https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/graduate/trendsphds-p-12.2.pdf), the average time to complete a PhD in physics in the US is 6.3 yrs (for students not having completed previous graduate study at a non-US university). This will come as a surprise to you, who considers 4 yrs to be an extended program. But the starting point is a BS, not a MS.

(b) At least one full year, and often two full years, of graduate level courses are required at the start of the PhD program.

(c) Some universities allow PhD students to join a research program their first year; other universities do not allow PhD students to join a research program until after they have passed their qualifying exams.

(d) In general, a PhD student does not supervise a BS thesis or a MS thesis, or run a group. He focusses on his own research for his dissertation. A PhD student is a researcher in training, not an experienced researcher (with exceptions, as usual). On occasion, advanced PhD students may be asked to help train new students (at various levels).

(e) It is quite common for a first-year PhD student (having just completed the BS himself) to function as a teaching assistant for lower-level undergrad physics courses. This is not necessarily a good thing; but in many universities, this is how many first-year PhD students are funded.

 

[CrysPhys]

I went to grad school many years ago, but unless a lot has changed, I have to clarify some points raised in this forum. First, unless a lot has changed, the student does not enter the graduate program as a PhD candidate. The student becomes a doctoral candidate, usually after completing at least the core coursework, a qualifying exam, and (sometimes) a candidacy exam. Isn't this what term "candidacy" means?

In at least the Universities I attended, a student is not given the MS as a "consolation" prize, when (s)he fails the qualifier. The student still has to fulfill the requirements for the Master's. Many times the student's requirements includes writing and defending a Master's thesis. I know of a few cases, where acceptable coursework was sufficient without thesis, but it is not the case, that the student is awarded a Masters if (s)he fails the qualifier, and he walks out of the department, never to return.

The key point is that in the US you can apply for a PhD program upon completion of a BS only. Yes, the PhD program has multiple phases, with multiple requirements and milestones to be met along the way (and these vary with the university, not consistent across the US). Whether a grad student enrolled in a PhD program becomes a PhD candidate only after passing a particular milestone is perhaps a semantic subtelty without significance.

In my grad school, one got a MS in physics upon completion of the first yr of grad courses (with satisfactory grades). The vast majority of the grad students did not take the quals until the fall of their second yr (a few outliers took them after their first semester); i.e., the vast majority of the grad students did not take their quals until after they had already been granted their MS. If you flunked the qual twice, you left with your MS. Colleagues from other universities told me of similar programs. I don't know whether AIP tracks MS requirements for US universities.