This is definitely not true all the way around at most institutions. One is NOT awarded a Masters Degree for failing comprehensive exams. At most places, one is awarded a masters degree after passing comprehensives. A person who holds an MPH degree is not a Ph.D student in Public Heath who failed comprehensives. At most institutions, failing comprehensives gets you failed out period.
Oops my fault, I wasn't clear enough
🙁. In terms of a specific program, the equivilent masters, the work that is put in for the PhD is obviously more. Yes, having a masters will never be bad, however a masters from the same program is equivilent to the first 2 years of coursework taken as a PhD minus the 1-3 additional years of research. I agree, an MPH does not equal a person who failed their qualifying exam for a doctorate in public health, but there are other programs that do provide a masters upon failing their oral qualifying exam the second time, usually via the route of a masters by written exam.
Other programs void this requirement based on your grades in core curriculum. But if you failed the QE, then it is likely ones grades weren't that good anyway to justify voiding the written exam requirement to "test out". This will vary among schools, and vary among programs, so here at the University of California, this is how it works for the programs that I have been exposed to, which is reflected in the info provided on the wikipedia:
"In these programs, a student who does not pass "comps" or "prelims" on the second try will generally be allowed to earn a terminal master's degree but not permitted to become a candidate for a doctoral degree."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_examination
To imply that a Ph.D "looks" better than a masters is an error too. Graduate degrees are not weighted in terms of medical school admissions. Not completing either degree is a negative but one or the other is fine. If one is not interested in graduate study one should not enter graduate study.
I agree that completing neither degree is the most negative thing for this topic. In terms of weight, I cannot say, and there's probably no way to quantify it, but I can only quote our PhD adcoms where they state they are more impressed by those who have PhDs. Clearly a personal bias. However, obviously if one had a 4.0 as a masters student, and a 3.0 as a PhD student, they should favor the masters student. In the end, given the same graduate program, a PhD route is more rigorous than a masters. In that sense, just like doing well in any other "rigorous" program or coursework, it is looked well upon. Now to just get a masters or PhD just to "look better", I whole heartedly agree that there are WAY better ways to make ones application look good, and in LESS TIME
😀 .
Graduate study is a very poor means of attempting to make yourself competitive for medical school. If you are interested in becoming medical scientist, then MD/Ph.D programs are for you and you come out with both degrees. If you are interested in research without the being a physician, then the MS or Ph.D (or both) is the degree for you.
I agree, with the addition of SMPs as well. Although the MSTP route is ideal, the competition is too much for my blood, and most others. Especially as a CA resident
😉.
DreamLover said:
Just be careful how you word that...I have my MS and I was never on a PhD track...and my degree isn't one of those 1yr medical school entrance programs...it was a full 2 yr program with a thesis requirement etc...all the bells and whistles...so don't down all MS holders
No offense intended, as I stated, I was just reiterating what our faculty and stated, and it was directed from a PhD student's perspective. Many of my PhD classmates, some being MSTPs, and VSTPs, receiving a masters would be less than what they intended it to get. However, I have plenty of friends who are doing the masters only route, so this was certainly not directed at all masters students including yourself. Like I said, from a PhD's point of view, this is the case.
