ottotheboar

Correct one of ours did a one year Masters.
In Virginia there is a wide variation in what classes are offered in high school.
The acceptance of what credits are accepted seems to vary from some colleges accepting most and others none.

morpeth

I agree with your points except number 1, for many jobs in business world now some sort of Master's is helpful, in fact often a requirement. Some master's better than none. A big issue I see for the OP is self funding a Master's which I think is poor investment-staying in the UK through loans he can defer that cost quite a while ( interestingly US student loans can be used at some UK and European universities to some degree).

I worked for a large corporation and frankly for the life of me I didn't grasp the fascination for the "top" schools for an MBA , but certainly an advantage for recruiters as it makes the hiring decision better supported, but perhaps just the industries I worked in.

What I find interesting is the sheer number of MBA programs in the USA, taught often by academics with limited business experience.

fbf2006

Let me start by saying that I'm not saying you're wrong or that any one system is better that the other. What I've been constantly told, specific to Nigerians who went to university in the US vs. the UK (not Europe, but specifically UK) is that the US ones tend to have more leadership potential, are more forward and confident. So your quote above surprises me. I'm Nigerian, that's why I bring that up. Also the people I've known who were students in the US and then studied abroad for 6 months or a year in the UK felt that it was more theoretical in the UK. They felt like they only had to study like twice a year during exams, and didn't have to attend class regularly.


I do agree that Europeans do seem to have broader vocabulary or life experience.

PetrifiedExPat

Maybe subject/area specific as well..

carcajou

To clarify: a "one year" and "two year" program are not based on time limits but number of credits required at the minimum level of full-time study.

For instance, it is common in US universities on the semester system to deem that 12 credits per semester is "full time." Based on that, your typical US university has a four-year graduation timeframe. It is very, very common for students to do more than 12 credits in a semester, and to also enter with AP credits and so on that cut the four years down (I actually did mine in two). There is nothing that says "students must study for four years," but since that's the standard, that is how it is spoken about in US vernacular.

If you want to do more than 18 credits, you often need to have the university's permission.

In graduate school, that is chopped down to 9 credits as being considered "full-time study," and US programs will typically have a requirement in the mid-30s range for credits - making it two years of full-time study. Again: There is nothing saying "students must study for two years" and it is common to take more than 9 credits and also to enter with prior recognition (credits from other courses, in or outside the university, that the program gives credit for). All of this can bring down the graduation time.

There are some "one year" programs available but you have to be careful with these as the fewer credit load means they aren't considered "full Masters" and if you want to go on into a PhD that can cause you problems. That can also be where a lot of Brits who did a one-year program in the UK can run into equivalency issues in the US.

HOWEVER I would not expect to be reducing your graduation time any unless you are a full-time student and not planning on working.

Many people misunderstand what a PhD is. It isn't the "next level of success" up from a Master's degree or any sort of professional preparation. A PhD is scientist training. You are expected to use your PhD to become a researcher in your field who publishes. It isn't meant to help you become a business executive. So most get the MBA and stop there, and don't do the extra 5-7 years to become a PhD.

carcajou

One more note - DO NOT go into a PhD program thinking "well if my career plans don't work out, I can always go teach at a university as a back-up instead."

Getting a job in academia is EXTREMELY difficult - think, 2 or 3 interviews per every 100 applications sent out, and that's if you are a polished candidate with good referees.

Questions of "match" have to be sorted - the general public is often unaware of this - at major research universities (ie, all the big state public schools, plus the Ivies) professors are assessed first and foremost on (1) how many publications they are churning out and (2) how much grant money they are winning. If they are awful, awful classroom teachers - they will be given tenure and become celebrated members of faculty if #1 and #2 are good. The flip side: If they are awesome teachers but #1 and #2 aren't there or are mediocre, they will be denied tenure (academic-speak for "fired" - that is not a career-ender but hard to come back from professionally. Most people who are going to be denied tenure, know it is coming and desperately try to get a job at another university and start over before it happens).

At small liberal-arts colleges - think (generically) private universities - and lower-profile state schools - the teaching part is much more important and would be #1 or #2, with advising students and service up there as well, and a much less emphasis on publication and research grants. In fact if you are publishing too much that could be seen as a negative.

So a newly-minted PhD who wants to primarily teach, needs to be sure they are applying at the right venues for that, and ones who want to do research and publish, need to make sure they are applying at the right venues for that. Even with right profile of venue if you are a solid candidate you are still looking at a 1:100 or 2:100 interview-to-application rate.

PetrifiedExPat

In terms of basic 'pure' science, or life sciences, most of this does not apply. As a footnote, a PhD is the only level 4 degree available, above level 3 MD even. It is an increase in attainment, of course it is. Someone waiving a dime a dozen masters around is not on the same level as a PhD.

The comment about equivalency issues is very poor advice.

PetrifiedExPat

Agree mostly with this. Current success rate is far worse that 1:100/1:200, at a college that matters in any case. I managed 3 preliminary stage interviews within academia before I bailed, and that was with a $1,000,000 federal grant behind my belt (most of which I have given back). Completing a PhD to teach is a waste of time.

At the highest level institutions, they will not care if your masters took 1, or 2, years. Been there, made it, got the T-shirt, and said.. no thanks.

carcajou

You completely misunderstood the context of this post.

The comment about equivalency is excellent advice. Those getting a degree outside the United States, for use in the United States, better make sure it will be accepted by whatever accrediting body governs their field, or that PhD institutions will generally accept it as evidence of a Master's or Bachelor's. International students run into these problems all the time - especially from Africa.

Additionally - I do know of, directly, top-level US institutions where a one-year vs two-year Master's is a huge deal (one-year vs two-year as in number of credits required, not how long it took someone to finish a program), and can be a make-or-break for someone's admissions. Part, but not all, of that happens when they send the file of an applicant around to the faculty and they start looking for evidence of research preparation.

How long it took someone to finish the program is irrelevant. But if it is a lesser program with weaker requirements, of course that will impact admissions.

scrubbedexpat099

I know someone who did their MLS in one year.

retzie

A thousand times, this. And let us not forget the part where even if you are one of the lucky ones to get a job, the likelihood of it being in a place you want to live is essentially nil.

Oh, and in case you think there is some kind of meritocracy in the academic job market, there is also an undercurrent of politics and favours. So prepare to lose an interview slot because your advisor collaborated with someone who pissed off the representative from your field on the hiring committee...

morpeth

Equivalency- I have been in business and academic world and have never come across an issue for degrees from a British university- Africa , Asia or Latin America may have issues- or an Australian one for that matter.

Time-Frame For Master'- This depends a lot on the subject, and sometimes the university admissions department, in particular any "residency" requirements ( minimum courses necessary at that particular institution ) to grant a degree. The idea it is 2 years in all or even most programs is not necessarily correct for all institutions. For example if one goes into many MBA programs with a B.Sc. in Business + some business experience, many core courses simply won't have to be taken at some universities. I have also known people who enrolled in one school, and took extra classes at another school and got them transferred.

Job Market- I agree it is very difficult the job market to teach at the undergraduate level, especially with the internet universities can be flooded with applications. Merit often has little bearing compared to the university wishing or having to meet accreditation standards thus having to have so many PhD's, or teacher having X amount of credits ( usually 18) at Master's level to teach at undergraduate level; personal contacts and university politics a huge factor- so the post about getting one interview out of 100 applications is quite understandable. For some disciplines, such as business, merit can often have almost no bearing on hiring : academics teaching business are often very leery of someone with actual business experience and ability as competition . On the other hand it is a bit of a numbers game, with so many online and private universities and community colleges, eventually if one is persistent one can find a position- once in the system, from within one can find more opportunities.

PhD- I had recommended considering a PhD program simply as a mechanism for the OP to get into the US possibly in a less expensive manner, and for contacts in his field. For teaching it is often a requirement to teach at a Master's level, almost a "check the box" requirement and a way for academics to help themselves- by having that requirement it restricts entry into the profession-I know in several fields brilliant teachers who universities wont hire simply because they don't have a PhD.

Reputation of School- There are some fields and large companies where this is important, 95% of jobs in my experience it is non-issue. In fact I would say there may be more employers who would shy away from a Harvard or Stanford MBA than would prefer such graduates. For sciences probably much more important. For economics or history, ideological bias of the degree granting institution can be equally important as its academic reputation.

morpeth

In any case the equivalency issue is easily solved, there are organizations that grant an evaluation of equivalency ( I think one is called WEA ?) for a few hundred dollars. I know someone who had a degree from a Latin American country and all they did was to get that evaluation ( it take a few months)and just attached it to applications. Really not a big issue coming from a British university. ( US student loans can often be used at most UK universities I know of, and by definition are supposed to be just for accredited universities).

carcajou

Are you sure? Brits coming into Australia regularly have trouble getting their university qualifications recognised as equivalent to Australian ones for their profession - often because of the 1 year vs 2 year program length I discussed in earlier posts. The only "fix" in those cases are lengthy and expensive bridging courses.

AdobePinon

For the benefit of the OP, I would add that getting a PhD and/or teaching in academia are extremely effective ways of being typecast in terms of your career plans.

A Masters is more flexible, but only if it’s a good one.