Is Funding for a Masters that Hard?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the availability of funding for master's programs in physics and engineering, questioning the common belief that such funding is rare. Participants analyze statistics from recent publications and share personal experiences regarding funding opportunities for master's students, particularly those not intending to pursue a PhD.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant cites a publication claiming that 75% of physics/astro master's students receive funding, suggesting that funding may be more common than perceived.
  • Another participant challenges the initial claim by presenting a mathematical argument regarding the number of master's degrees awarded in PhD departments versus terminal master's programs, suggesting that the funding statistics may not be applicable.
  • A further response questions the validity of the sample size and response rate from the survey referenced, indicating potential discrepancies in the reported data.
  • Another participant references a specific plot from the publication to support their argument, indicating a focus on the data presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of funding statistics for master's programs, with no consensus reached on whether funding is indeed more likely than not for master's students in physics or engineering.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the data, including sample size and response rates, which may affect the reliability of the conclusions drawn from the statistics.

SLACer
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
While browsing through one of the AIP's relatively recent publications (written in 2012 concerning the classes of 2009/2010) I found some information I thought was out of line with the common conception that masters-only students are rarely if ever funded. According to the publication (see page 5), a full 75% of physics/astro masters are funded by some means and 62% of engineering masters likewise. These numbers cannot only be for interim masters en route to the PhD, though surely some are, as there are about 200 terminal masters awarded each year (according to the second link I put below).

So this begs the question: is getting funding for a masters in physics or engineering actually more likely than not for a physics bachelor? From all of your own experiences, have many people you know (perhaps yourself) been admitted to a research physics or engineering masters with funding without the intention of receiving a PhD? Or are these numbers hiding something? I naturally assume that course-based masters are never funded for obvious reasons. Please share.

Articles in question:
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/bach1yrlater0910.pdf
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/physgrad2008.pdf
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The number of MS's awarded in PhD departments per year is 1450, and in terminal MS programs is just over 200. 75% of 1650 is 1240, so the MS's in PhD departments are capable of saturating the awards. So I don't see that your argument works out mathematically.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
The number of MS's awarded in PhD departments per year is 1450, and in terminal MS programs is just over 200. 75% of 1650 is 1240, so the MS's in PhD departments are capable of saturating the awards. So I don't see that your argument works out mathematically.

This does not make complete sense when you see the number of the sample size (for the physics masters, N=224). Now, the response rate for this survey was 41%, but that's for both 2009/2010 combined. So, that means that the number of students entering physics grad programs those years was approximately 1280 per year ((1052/2)/0.41) and the number of masters total was about 270 per year (obviously some error here because maybe certain types of institutions could be more likely to report their grads' paths).

Also, the ratio in this survey of PhD's to masters (3.7 to 1) is not similar to the total PhD's to 1650 (approximately 1 to 1). On the other hand, neither are similar to the PhD to terminal masters ratio in the second publication (6.5 to 1).

Regardless, this indicates that what they call "masters" are composed of a large number of terminal ones (in short because of the approximate number of masters involved as well as the ratio of masters to PhD's). Of course I could have missed something, but I hope that I cleared up my argument.
 
I'm going by the plot on the third page of your first reference.
 

Similar threads

Other After an Engineering Physics BSc, can I enroll in a Physics MSc?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Programs Physics Masters at undergrad school before PhD?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Masters in Mathematical Physics at LMU TUM or Hamburg?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Programs Mathematical/Theoretical Physics MSc with High Teaching Quality
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Are there no Master's programs with funding in the States?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Programs Electrical Engineering PhD or Applied Physics PhD?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Admissions Applying to a PhD in Pure Math with an undergraduate degree in physics
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
Accelerated Master's Program VS Phd
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Do Masters students receive funding for graduate school?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Other Can I (with a math major) do a masters in theoretical physics?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K