To do another Master's, already holding a PhD
If a STEM PhD holder applies for a Master's in another STEM major, would this be an advantage or disadvantage in the eye of the admission committee?
phd masters application
New contributor
add a comment |
If a STEM PhD holder applies for a Master's in another STEM major, would this be an advantage or disadvantage in the eye of the admission committee?
phd masters application
New contributor
1
Can you be more specific? Applying to a MEd or speech path masters is going to be very different than llp
– Azor Ahai
13 hours ago
add a comment |
If a STEM PhD holder applies for a Master's in another STEM major, would this be an advantage or disadvantage in the eye of the admission committee?
phd masters application
New contributor
If a STEM PhD holder applies for a Master's in another STEM major, would this be an advantage or disadvantage in the eye of the admission committee?
phd masters application
phd masters application
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 23 hours ago
feynman
1594
1594
New contributor
New contributor
1
Can you be more specific? Applying to a MEd or speech path masters is going to be very different than llp
– Azor Ahai
13 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Can you be more specific? Applying to a MEd or speech path masters is going to be very different than llp
– Azor Ahai
13 hours ago
1
1
Can you be more specific? Applying to a MEd or speech path masters is going to be very different than llp
– Azor Ahai
13 hours ago
Can you be more specific? Applying to a MEd or speech path masters is going to be very different than llp
– Azor Ahai
13 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman!
Sorry, but you walked into that joke. Actually, such an application would occur so infrequently that it might result in a few chuckles. But I don't think it would have a lot of effect. But certainly not a big advantage.
In fact, people, including myself, will wonder why a person would bother. After all, the applicant can study and learn effectively and evidenced by the doctorate, so what is the need of a formal program. It might be a disadvantage in some places where the available slots are limited and people would feel they should be given to someone who needs the training more.
On the other hand, if a lab needs particular skills that you have, they might be interested, just for that.
Thus, it is impossible to say in general as local needs/beliefs will dominate such a situation.
4
I have seen a number of people with multiple Masters on their CV. - The advantage can be getting additional knowledge in a related subject quickly. A Masters takes 1 (UK) to 2 (rest of Europe) years, while a PhD takes at least 3 (UK, 4 years limit) to potentially 6+ years. - In addition, it can be easier for people to do a part time Masters than a part time PhD to extend their knowledge. It also avoids the repetition of the introduction from an undergraduate degree.
– DetlevCM
17 hours ago
@DetlevCM Perhaps the most prominent example I recall is Michael Griffin, the former head of NASA.
– user71659
14 hours ago
1
@DetlevCM You're comparing a master vs a PhD or undergrad while Buffy is asking why someone who has shown the ability to learn information on their own would need any formal program at all to pick up new information. You can find the books, papers and exercises without troubles online so giving a limited spot to someone who doesn't really need it, instead of someone who has yet to learn all those essential skills might be considered bad use of resources by some (and yes, there are certainly some immaterial advantages to studying in a formal program that you won't get from self-study, I agree)
– Voo
13 hours ago
3
Major cases: to be a licensed engineer you must have a degree in engineering. So if you get all your degrees in a non-engineering field and then decide you need engineering licensure, you have to take a Master's. This also applies to some science fields like geology, you need a degree in the field.
– user71659
6 hours ago
add a comment |
If you ever want to leave academia, it could be seen as a disadvantage. It suggests you are a "perpetual student" rather than someone who actually wants to do some (real-world) work.
The main point of a PhD is not that you learned some (random) snippet of new information while doing it, but that you demonstrated you can learn new stuff on your own with minimal supervision.
That is what you should expect to be doing for the rest of your working life, either inside or outside academia, but expecting to keep getting more "awards" for doing that is rather like a kid in school expecting to get another gold star for every good piece of homework they turn in - most people grow out of it.
1
Very opinion based and narrow minded answer. See the other answer for a bigger horizon
– Hakaishin
2 hours ago
add a comment |
In terms of competency, I can't imagine why it would be seen as a disadvantage. If anything - it shows that you are capable of successfully completing an academic program.
The only scenario I could imagine where this may be an issue is if the Master's program is affiliated with some scholarship program, where the scholarship terms & conditions require that the applicant does not hold an advanced degree. If you're applying for a non-scholarship program then I can't imagine why they would reject your application - you are willing to pay good money and are likely to successfully graduate.
Another issue might be if you're applying to a STEM program that's very far from your PhD degree (say, from theoretical physics to zoology). If your bachelor's degree does not fit the prerequisites for the program you may have an issue, and the PhD won't help (but probably won't hurt).
Good luck!
1
"Huh so the guy finished their PhD and then instead of working in their chosen field and applying their knowledge they decided to instead enroll in a different field, mhmm I wonder why". That's the first thought that would go through my mind if I saw that CV on the stack of job applications. So there's certainly some possible downside to it.
– Voo
13 hours ago
At the very least it would make me want to interview this person and ask them why, not outright reject them.
– Spark
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Not a direct answer to your question, but a personal experience. I got a PhD in EE and am now one semester away from finishing my masters in CS. Three years after my PhD, I changed careers from EE research to a data science. My EE PhD provided me background in linear algebra, partial differential equations and numerical computations. The primary motivation for me going into CS was to develop intuition in certain areas which I wasn't exposed to, but became important in my new career: combinatorics, statistics, probabilistic modeling, optimization, operating/distributed systems, and computer networks to name a few. Following a masters curriculum guided me on what areas are (roughly) considered important and also brought a (forced) discipline to my studies.
If an application of MS followed by a PhD crossed my desk, I'd laud your discipline, but also probe you why you went that route. You need to have a good answer for that.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
feynman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122106%2fto-do-another-masters-already-holding-a-phd%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman!
Sorry, but you walked into that joke. Actually, such an application would occur so infrequently that it might result in a few chuckles. But I don't think it would have a lot of effect. But certainly not a big advantage.
In fact, people, including myself, will wonder why a person would bother. After all, the applicant can study and learn effectively and evidenced by the doctorate, so what is the need of a formal program. It might be a disadvantage in some places where the available slots are limited and people would feel they should be given to someone who needs the training more.
On the other hand, if a lab needs particular skills that you have, they might be interested, just for that.
Thus, it is impossible to say in general as local needs/beliefs will dominate such a situation.
4
I have seen a number of people with multiple Masters on their CV. - The advantage can be getting additional knowledge in a related subject quickly. A Masters takes 1 (UK) to 2 (rest of Europe) years, while a PhD takes at least 3 (UK, 4 years limit) to potentially 6+ years. - In addition, it can be easier for people to do a part time Masters than a part time PhD to extend their knowledge. It also avoids the repetition of the introduction from an undergraduate degree.
– DetlevCM
17 hours ago
@DetlevCM Perhaps the most prominent example I recall is Michael Griffin, the former head of NASA.
– user71659
14 hours ago
1
@DetlevCM You're comparing a master vs a PhD or undergrad while Buffy is asking why someone who has shown the ability to learn information on their own would need any formal program at all to pick up new information. You can find the books, papers and exercises without troubles online so giving a limited spot to someone who doesn't really need it, instead of someone who has yet to learn all those essential skills might be considered bad use of resources by some (and yes, there are certainly some immaterial advantages to studying in a formal program that you won't get from self-study, I agree)
– Voo
13 hours ago
3
Major cases: to be a licensed engineer you must have a degree in engineering. So if you get all your degrees in a non-engineering field and then decide you need engineering licensure, you have to take a Master's. This also applies to some science fields like geology, you need a degree in the field.
– user71659
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman!
Sorry, but you walked into that joke. Actually, such an application would occur so infrequently that it might result in a few chuckles. But I don't think it would have a lot of effect. But certainly not a big advantage.
In fact, people, including myself, will wonder why a person would bother. After all, the applicant can study and learn effectively and evidenced by the doctorate, so what is the need of a formal program. It might be a disadvantage in some places where the available slots are limited and people would feel they should be given to someone who needs the training more.
On the other hand, if a lab needs particular skills that you have, they might be interested, just for that.
Thus, it is impossible to say in general as local needs/beliefs will dominate such a situation.
4
I have seen a number of people with multiple Masters on their CV. - The advantage can be getting additional knowledge in a related subject quickly. A Masters takes 1 (UK) to 2 (rest of Europe) years, while a PhD takes at least 3 (UK, 4 years limit) to potentially 6+ years. - In addition, it can be easier for people to do a part time Masters than a part time PhD to extend their knowledge. It also avoids the repetition of the introduction from an undergraduate degree.
– DetlevCM
17 hours ago
@DetlevCM Perhaps the most prominent example I recall is Michael Griffin, the former head of NASA.
– user71659
14 hours ago
1
@DetlevCM You're comparing a master vs a PhD or undergrad while Buffy is asking why someone who has shown the ability to learn information on their own would need any formal program at all to pick up new information. You can find the books, papers and exercises without troubles online so giving a limited spot to someone who doesn't really need it, instead of someone who has yet to learn all those essential skills might be considered bad use of resources by some (and yes, there are certainly some immaterial advantages to studying in a formal program that you won't get from self-study, I agree)
– Voo
13 hours ago
3
Major cases: to be a licensed engineer you must have a degree in engineering. So if you get all your degrees in a non-engineering field and then decide you need engineering licensure, you have to take a Master's. This also applies to some science fields like geology, you need a degree in the field.
– user71659
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman!
Sorry, but you walked into that joke. Actually, such an application would occur so infrequently that it might result in a few chuckles. But I don't think it would have a lot of effect. But certainly not a big advantage.
In fact, people, including myself, will wonder why a person would bother. After all, the applicant can study and learn effectively and evidenced by the doctorate, so what is the need of a formal program. It might be a disadvantage in some places where the available slots are limited and people would feel they should be given to someone who needs the training more.
On the other hand, if a lab needs particular skills that you have, they might be interested, just for that.
Thus, it is impossible to say in general as local needs/beliefs will dominate such a situation.
Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman!
Sorry, but you walked into that joke. Actually, such an application would occur so infrequently that it might result in a few chuckles. But I don't think it would have a lot of effect. But certainly not a big advantage.
In fact, people, including myself, will wonder why a person would bother. After all, the applicant can study and learn effectively and evidenced by the doctorate, so what is the need of a formal program. It might be a disadvantage in some places where the available slots are limited and people would feel they should be given to someone who needs the training more.
On the other hand, if a lab needs particular skills that you have, they might be interested, just for that.
Thus, it is impossible to say in general as local needs/beliefs will dominate such a situation.
answered 23 hours ago
Buffy
36.2k7114188
36.2k7114188
4
I have seen a number of people with multiple Masters on their CV. - The advantage can be getting additional knowledge in a related subject quickly. A Masters takes 1 (UK) to 2 (rest of Europe) years, while a PhD takes at least 3 (UK, 4 years limit) to potentially 6+ years. - In addition, it can be easier for people to do a part time Masters than a part time PhD to extend their knowledge. It also avoids the repetition of the introduction from an undergraduate degree.
– DetlevCM
17 hours ago
@DetlevCM Perhaps the most prominent example I recall is Michael Griffin, the former head of NASA.
– user71659
14 hours ago
1
@DetlevCM You're comparing a master vs a PhD or undergrad while Buffy is asking why someone who has shown the ability to learn information on their own would need any formal program at all to pick up new information. You can find the books, papers and exercises without troubles online so giving a limited spot to someone who doesn't really need it, instead of someone who has yet to learn all those essential skills might be considered bad use of resources by some (and yes, there are certainly some immaterial advantages to studying in a formal program that you won't get from self-study, I agree)
– Voo
13 hours ago
3
Major cases: to be a licensed engineer you must have a degree in engineering. So if you get all your degrees in a non-engineering field and then decide you need engineering licensure, you have to take a Master's. This also applies to some science fields like geology, you need a degree in the field.
– user71659
6 hours ago
add a comment |
4
I have seen a number of people with multiple Masters on their CV. - The advantage can be getting additional knowledge in a related subject quickly. A Masters takes 1 (UK) to 2 (rest of Europe) years, while a PhD takes at least 3 (UK, 4 years limit) to potentially 6+ years. - In addition, it can be easier for people to do a part time Masters than a part time PhD to extend their knowledge. It also avoids the repetition of the introduction from an undergraduate degree.
– DetlevCM
17 hours ago
@DetlevCM Perhaps the most prominent example I recall is Michael Griffin, the former head of NASA.
– user71659
14 hours ago
1
@DetlevCM You're comparing a master vs a PhD or undergrad while Buffy is asking why someone who has shown the ability to learn information on their own would need any formal program at all to pick up new information. You can find the books, papers and exercises without troubles online so giving a limited spot to someone who doesn't really need it, instead of someone who has yet to learn all those essential skills might be considered bad use of resources by some (and yes, there are certainly some immaterial advantages to studying in a formal program that you won't get from self-study, I agree)
– Voo
13 hours ago
3
Major cases: to be a licensed engineer you must have a degree in engineering. So if you get all your degrees in a non-engineering field and then decide you need engineering licensure, you have to take a Master's. This also applies to some science fields like geology, you need a degree in the field.
– user71659
6 hours ago
4
4
I have seen a number of people with multiple Masters on their CV. - The advantage can be getting additional knowledge in a related subject quickly. A Masters takes 1 (UK) to 2 (rest of Europe) years, while a PhD takes at least 3 (UK, 4 years limit) to potentially 6+ years. - In addition, it can be easier for people to do a part time Masters than a part time PhD to extend their knowledge. It also avoids the repetition of the introduction from an undergraduate degree.
– DetlevCM
17 hours ago
I have seen a number of people with multiple Masters on their CV. - The advantage can be getting additional knowledge in a related subject quickly. A Masters takes 1 (UK) to 2 (rest of Europe) years, while a PhD takes at least 3 (UK, 4 years limit) to potentially 6+ years. - In addition, it can be easier for people to do a part time Masters than a part time PhD to extend their knowledge. It also avoids the repetition of the introduction from an undergraduate degree.
– DetlevCM
17 hours ago
@DetlevCM Perhaps the most prominent example I recall is Michael Griffin, the former head of NASA.
– user71659
14 hours ago
@DetlevCM Perhaps the most prominent example I recall is Michael Griffin, the former head of NASA.
– user71659
14 hours ago
1
1
@DetlevCM You're comparing a master vs a PhD or undergrad while Buffy is asking why someone who has shown the ability to learn information on their own would need any formal program at all to pick up new information. You can find the books, papers and exercises without troubles online so giving a limited spot to someone who doesn't really need it, instead of someone who has yet to learn all those essential skills might be considered bad use of resources by some (and yes, there are certainly some immaterial advantages to studying in a formal program that you won't get from self-study, I agree)
– Voo
13 hours ago
@DetlevCM You're comparing a master vs a PhD or undergrad while Buffy is asking why someone who has shown the ability to learn information on their own would need any formal program at all to pick up new information. You can find the books, papers and exercises without troubles online so giving a limited spot to someone who doesn't really need it, instead of someone who has yet to learn all those essential skills might be considered bad use of resources by some (and yes, there are certainly some immaterial advantages to studying in a formal program that you won't get from self-study, I agree)
– Voo
13 hours ago
3
3
Major cases: to be a licensed engineer you must have a degree in engineering. So if you get all your degrees in a non-engineering field and then decide you need engineering licensure, you have to take a Master's. This also applies to some science fields like geology, you need a degree in the field.
– user71659
6 hours ago
Major cases: to be a licensed engineer you must have a degree in engineering. So if you get all your degrees in a non-engineering field and then decide you need engineering licensure, you have to take a Master's. This also applies to some science fields like geology, you need a degree in the field.
– user71659
6 hours ago
add a comment |
If you ever want to leave academia, it could be seen as a disadvantage. It suggests you are a "perpetual student" rather than someone who actually wants to do some (real-world) work.
The main point of a PhD is not that you learned some (random) snippet of new information while doing it, but that you demonstrated you can learn new stuff on your own with minimal supervision.
That is what you should expect to be doing for the rest of your working life, either inside or outside academia, but expecting to keep getting more "awards" for doing that is rather like a kid in school expecting to get another gold star for every good piece of homework they turn in - most people grow out of it.
1
Very opinion based and narrow minded answer. See the other answer for a bigger horizon
– Hakaishin
2 hours ago
add a comment |
If you ever want to leave academia, it could be seen as a disadvantage. It suggests you are a "perpetual student" rather than someone who actually wants to do some (real-world) work.
The main point of a PhD is not that you learned some (random) snippet of new information while doing it, but that you demonstrated you can learn new stuff on your own with minimal supervision.
That is what you should expect to be doing for the rest of your working life, either inside or outside academia, but expecting to keep getting more "awards" for doing that is rather like a kid in school expecting to get another gold star for every good piece of homework they turn in - most people grow out of it.
1
Very opinion based and narrow minded answer. See the other answer for a bigger horizon
– Hakaishin
2 hours ago
add a comment |
If you ever want to leave academia, it could be seen as a disadvantage. It suggests you are a "perpetual student" rather than someone who actually wants to do some (real-world) work.
The main point of a PhD is not that you learned some (random) snippet of new information while doing it, but that you demonstrated you can learn new stuff on your own with minimal supervision.
That is what you should expect to be doing for the rest of your working life, either inside or outside academia, but expecting to keep getting more "awards" for doing that is rather like a kid in school expecting to get another gold star for every good piece of homework they turn in - most people grow out of it.
If you ever want to leave academia, it could be seen as a disadvantage. It suggests you are a "perpetual student" rather than someone who actually wants to do some (real-world) work.
The main point of a PhD is not that you learned some (random) snippet of new information while doing it, but that you demonstrated you can learn new stuff on your own with minimal supervision.
That is what you should expect to be doing for the rest of your working life, either inside or outside academia, but expecting to keep getting more "awards" for doing that is rather like a kid in school expecting to get another gold star for every good piece of homework they turn in - most people grow out of it.
answered 19 hours ago
alephzero
1,984813
1,984813
1
Very opinion based and narrow minded answer. See the other answer for a bigger horizon
– Hakaishin
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Very opinion based and narrow minded answer. See the other answer for a bigger horizon
– Hakaishin
2 hours ago
1
1
Very opinion based and narrow minded answer. See the other answer for a bigger horizon
– Hakaishin
2 hours ago
Very opinion based and narrow minded answer. See the other answer for a bigger horizon
– Hakaishin
2 hours ago
add a comment |
In terms of competency, I can't imagine why it would be seen as a disadvantage. If anything - it shows that you are capable of successfully completing an academic program.
The only scenario I could imagine where this may be an issue is if the Master's program is affiliated with some scholarship program, where the scholarship terms & conditions require that the applicant does not hold an advanced degree. If you're applying for a non-scholarship program then I can't imagine why they would reject your application - you are willing to pay good money and are likely to successfully graduate.
Another issue might be if you're applying to a STEM program that's very far from your PhD degree (say, from theoretical physics to zoology). If your bachelor's degree does not fit the prerequisites for the program you may have an issue, and the PhD won't help (but probably won't hurt).
Good luck!
1
"Huh so the guy finished their PhD and then instead of working in their chosen field and applying their knowledge they decided to instead enroll in a different field, mhmm I wonder why". That's the first thought that would go through my mind if I saw that CV on the stack of job applications. So there's certainly some possible downside to it.
– Voo
13 hours ago
At the very least it would make me want to interview this person and ask them why, not outright reject them.
– Spark
5 hours ago
add a comment |
In terms of competency, I can't imagine why it would be seen as a disadvantage. If anything - it shows that you are capable of successfully completing an academic program.
The only scenario I could imagine where this may be an issue is if the Master's program is affiliated with some scholarship program, where the scholarship terms & conditions require that the applicant does not hold an advanced degree. If you're applying for a non-scholarship program then I can't imagine why they would reject your application - you are willing to pay good money and are likely to successfully graduate.
Another issue might be if you're applying to a STEM program that's very far from your PhD degree (say, from theoretical physics to zoology). If your bachelor's degree does not fit the prerequisites for the program you may have an issue, and the PhD won't help (but probably won't hurt).
Good luck!
1
"Huh so the guy finished their PhD and then instead of working in their chosen field and applying their knowledge they decided to instead enroll in a different field, mhmm I wonder why". That's the first thought that would go through my mind if I saw that CV on the stack of job applications. So there's certainly some possible downside to it.
– Voo
13 hours ago
At the very least it would make me want to interview this person and ask them why, not outright reject them.
– Spark
5 hours ago
add a comment |
In terms of competency, I can't imagine why it would be seen as a disadvantage. If anything - it shows that you are capable of successfully completing an academic program.
The only scenario I could imagine where this may be an issue is if the Master's program is affiliated with some scholarship program, where the scholarship terms & conditions require that the applicant does not hold an advanced degree. If you're applying for a non-scholarship program then I can't imagine why they would reject your application - you are willing to pay good money and are likely to successfully graduate.
Another issue might be if you're applying to a STEM program that's very far from your PhD degree (say, from theoretical physics to zoology). If your bachelor's degree does not fit the prerequisites for the program you may have an issue, and the PhD won't help (but probably won't hurt).
Good luck!
In terms of competency, I can't imagine why it would be seen as a disadvantage. If anything - it shows that you are capable of successfully completing an academic program.
The only scenario I could imagine where this may be an issue is if the Master's program is affiliated with some scholarship program, where the scholarship terms & conditions require that the applicant does not hold an advanced degree. If you're applying for a non-scholarship program then I can't imagine why they would reject your application - you are willing to pay good money and are likely to successfully graduate.
Another issue might be if you're applying to a STEM program that's very far from your PhD degree (say, from theoretical physics to zoology). If your bachelor's degree does not fit the prerequisites for the program you may have an issue, and the PhD won't help (but probably won't hurt).
Good luck!
answered 20 hours ago
Spark
1,21310
1,21310
1
"Huh so the guy finished their PhD and then instead of working in their chosen field and applying their knowledge they decided to instead enroll in a different field, mhmm I wonder why". That's the first thought that would go through my mind if I saw that CV on the stack of job applications. So there's certainly some possible downside to it.
– Voo
13 hours ago
At the very least it would make me want to interview this person and ask them why, not outright reject them.
– Spark
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
"Huh so the guy finished their PhD and then instead of working in their chosen field and applying their knowledge they decided to instead enroll in a different field, mhmm I wonder why". That's the first thought that would go through my mind if I saw that CV on the stack of job applications. So there's certainly some possible downside to it.
– Voo
13 hours ago
At the very least it would make me want to interview this person and ask them why, not outright reject them.
– Spark
5 hours ago
1
1
"Huh so the guy finished their PhD and then instead of working in their chosen field and applying their knowledge they decided to instead enroll in a different field, mhmm I wonder why". That's the first thought that would go through my mind if I saw that CV on the stack of job applications. So there's certainly some possible downside to it.
– Voo
13 hours ago
"Huh so the guy finished their PhD and then instead of working in their chosen field and applying their knowledge they decided to instead enroll in a different field, mhmm I wonder why". That's the first thought that would go through my mind if I saw that CV on the stack of job applications. So there's certainly some possible downside to it.
– Voo
13 hours ago
At the very least it would make me want to interview this person and ask them why, not outright reject them.
– Spark
5 hours ago
At the very least it would make me want to interview this person and ask them why, not outright reject them.
– Spark
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Not a direct answer to your question, but a personal experience. I got a PhD in EE and am now one semester away from finishing my masters in CS. Three years after my PhD, I changed careers from EE research to a data science. My EE PhD provided me background in linear algebra, partial differential equations and numerical computations. The primary motivation for me going into CS was to develop intuition in certain areas which I wasn't exposed to, but became important in my new career: combinatorics, statistics, probabilistic modeling, optimization, operating/distributed systems, and computer networks to name a few. Following a masters curriculum guided me on what areas are (roughly) considered important and also brought a (forced) discipline to my studies.
If an application of MS followed by a PhD crossed my desk, I'd laud your discipline, but also probe you why you went that route. You need to have a good answer for that.
New contributor
add a comment |
Not a direct answer to your question, but a personal experience. I got a PhD in EE and am now one semester away from finishing my masters in CS. Three years after my PhD, I changed careers from EE research to a data science. My EE PhD provided me background in linear algebra, partial differential equations and numerical computations. The primary motivation for me going into CS was to develop intuition in certain areas which I wasn't exposed to, but became important in my new career: combinatorics, statistics, probabilistic modeling, optimization, operating/distributed systems, and computer networks to name a few. Following a masters curriculum guided me on what areas are (roughly) considered important and also brought a (forced) discipline to my studies.
If an application of MS followed by a PhD crossed my desk, I'd laud your discipline, but also probe you why you went that route. You need to have a good answer for that.
New contributor
add a comment |
Not a direct answer to your question, but a personal experience. I got a PhD in EE and am now one semester away from finishing my masters in CS. Three years after my PhD, I changed careers from EE research to a data science. My EE PhD provided me background in linear algebra, partial differential equations and numerical computations. The primary motivation for me going into CS was to develop intuition in certain areas which I wasn't exposed to, but became important in my new career: combinatorics, statistics, probabilistic modeling, optimization, operating/distributed systems, and computer networks to name a few. Following a masters curriculum guided me on what areas are (roughly) considered important and also brought a (forced) discipline to my studies.
If an application of MS followed by a PhD crossed my desk, I'd laud your discipline, but also probe you why you went that route. You need to have a good answer for that.
New contributor
Not a direct answer to your question, but a personal experience. I got a PhD in EE and am now one semester away from finishing my masters in CS. Three years after my PhD, I changed careers from EE research to a data science. My EE PhD provided me background in linear algebra, partial differential equations and numerical computations. The primary motivation for me going into CS was to develop intuition in certain areas which I wasn't exposed to, but became important in my new career: combinatorics, statistics, probabilistic modeling, optimization, operating/distributed systems, and computer networks to name a few. Following a masters curriculum guided me on what areas are (roughly) considered important and also brought a (forced) discipline to my studies.
If an application of MS followed by a PhD crossed my desk, I'd laud your discipline, but also probe you why you went that route. You need to have a good answer for that.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 9 hours ago
RDK
1311
1311
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
feynman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
feynman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
feynman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
feynman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122106%2fto-do-another-masters-already-holding-a-phd%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Can you be more specific? Applying to a MEd or speech path masters is going to be very different than llp
– Azor Ahai
13 hours ago