Should you do a masters first?

Some people ask if they should start with a masters instead of jumping straight into a full five-year PhD program. Unless a masters is a key degree for professional positions that interest you (as it can be in public health, for instance), I discourage it. In many STEM fields, masters programs are primarily moneymakers for the university. Some faculty I know consider them vaguely unethical and fight hard to keep masters programs from forming in their discipline. Masters students usually do not receive substantive mentoring or have many opportunities to take on significant research projects, given the brevity of the program and their effective competition with PhD students for research experiences.

The only situation in which I would recommend a masters is if you are quite set on a PhD and your undergraduate grades (or recent work experience, if you graduated more than a decade ago) cast doubt on your preparedness for the PhD. You would then use the masters program to demonstrate your capacity for outstanding performance in the subject matter and obtain strong letters of recommendation. Since masters programs usually cost money, this effectively increases the cost of a PhD. And it really requires you to knock your grades out of the park. A good idea is to talk to professors in your field, if you can: they will usually indicate when a masters might be useful.

If you’re not sure you want to jump into a PhD and your CV is good, rather than doing a masters, consider joining a research group as a research/staff scientist. These positions will not always be advertised. Reach out to potential faculty advisors to see if they have any opportunities for full or part-time work, and let them know you’re thinking seriously about doing a PhD and want to gain additional experience first. Many will be excited to take on someone with clear plans to grow.