“Elite” programs, such as this one , are primarily Ph.D. programs.
No-one will actuall say that the MS/MA is a "consolation prize,"at least not as part of the official documentation, but that is the old view of the masters degree in programs that view the Ph.D. as the primary product.
The advent of the terminal masters degree is a product of the last 30 or so years.
Perhaps fsg can say more about this…
To make things more compicated, one can earn a proper MS/MA, then gain admission to a Ph.D. program, and then stall out…
I really don’t understand what you are confused about. cerberus said that some masters were consolation prizes for failed PhD students. I backed that up from my personal experience.
“Some masters degrees are “consolation prizes” given to failed doctoral students.” is a true statement.
That other people earn masters degrees other ways is also true. E.g., “on their way” to the PhD. (I passed on getting my 2nd masters “on my way” to my PhD, which was after passing quals. The university charged a $50 fee. Too much money for too little.)
And in addition to that, sometimes testing high enough changes the requirements for your general studies too. Where I went to college, students were required to take two semesters of a language and a foreign cultures class. But, if you took four years of a language in high school and did well on a placement exam during Freshman orientation, you had to take just one semester of a language and could skip the other two classes. Which is what I did I kind of wonder what people learned in foreign cultures, though.
I don’t know if it’s been made entirely clear in this thread - I got derailed at the “consolation prizes” bit - but students often have great leeway regarding what classes they may take.
I have a BA in political science. The political science department at my school had several “programs” within the political science program. You could do a “pre-law” program (lots of law courses), a “diplomatic” program (emphasis on, um, foreign policy), a “Europe” program (lots of classes on the EU, foreign policy and treaties) or a “theory” program (not a lot of real-world stuff, just theories). The student could choose any “program” he or she wanted - or choose not do any “program” at all and take whichever 40 hours he or she wanted to take - they all resulted in the same degree. I took the “no program” route, mostly because of the way the school scheduled classes - I’d probably still be in school had I opted for the “diplomatic” program, as certain required classes were only offered once a year, and always seem to conflict with some other required class that was also only offered once a year.
Lots of universities (most of them?) require that you take some classes that are somewhat related to your major. For example, economics, philosophy and logic were all offered with my degree - I had to choose one, and I took macro and micro.
There are also many “elective” classes, which can be as relevant as you want them to be. Foreign languages could be an elective (if you already have the required classes in Spanish, you could take German as an elective, for example). I took the easy way out and took film history.
The word “consolation prize” is unnecessarily harsh. The fact is that most graduate programs in the sciences will not admit people intending to seek a terminal Masters degree. The MS is only awarded for people who have completed the requirements for an MS but have not completed the requirements for a PhD. It’s not that the MS doesn’t require work, but because very few programs offer a terminal MS program, the MS has come to symbolize people who drop out of a PhD program.
The overwhelming majority of people who drop out of a PhD program do so voluntarily. “Failing out” is almost unheard of.
The job market for MS scientists, likewise, is skewed to reflect this fact. Most companies have BS-level positions (research associates) and PhD-level positions (scientists), but nothing in between. MS-level applicants usually end up as BS-level workers with slightly quicker promotions.
At my undergraduate Alma Mater (Villanova), everyone in Arts and Sciences had a list of “liberal arts” requirements (some specific classes, and some “Pick two of the following” type things). In addition, as an astronomy major, I had to take certain specific astronomy and physics classes, and then choose three upper-level physics classes. At the end of all that, I had to choose some number of “free electives” to bring my total number of classes up to the requirement: These could be any course at all which the school offered. Most humanities majors had a dozen or so free elective slots, but there were enough specific requirements in the astronomy major that we only had three free electives left.
Every astronomy major automatically qualified for a physics minor (actually, there was one lab required for physics minors but not for astro majors, but they wouldn’t tell you it wasn’t required until after you’d already taken it). Our math requirements were almost enough to qualify as a math minor, as well: The minor only needed three classes more than we were already taking, so I went for that as well (those three extra math classes counted as my three free electives). So I got my BS with an astronomy major and two minors. If one is particularly driven, taking extra classes during the year or in the summer, or if one stays for five years instead of four, it’s not too hard to get a double or triple major, in related subjects (say, the afore-mentioned astronomy and physics or math). At Villanova, doing so would get you two or three bachelor’s degrees. It was even possible to double or triple major in unrelated fields (I knew a fellow who was majoring in chemistry, English, and history), but that requires both staying five years and taking an overload each semester (not recommended for the faint of heart).
At my grad school, meanwhile (Montana State), only about half of the grad students come in in pursuit of a PhD., with the remainder pursuing a terminal master’s. My experience of the job market is contrary to aamco’s; there are a lot of jobs in industry for physics masters, where the difference between the master’s and the doctorate is small. Not all students who aim for the PhD. get it; the usual stumbling block is the Comprehensive Exam. A score at a certain level is required to pursue the PhD., while a lower score level is needed for the M. S. level (there’s also a “no pass” level below that). You have only two chances to take the Comps, and PhD. students who only pass at the master’s level typically switch to a master’s program (they might also drop out or go to a different school). So there are some “consolation prize” degrees as well, but it’s not the only way to get a Master’s.
At the University of Maryland, astronomy majors planning on grad school were strongly encouraged to take all the classes required of physics majors, and double majoring in astronomy and physics was probably more common than just majoring in astronomy.
You had to get 120 (IIRC) total credits to graduate with one degree. 150 credits and two majors got you two degrees, 180 and three majors got you three degrees, and so on and so forth. I graduated after five years with three BS degrees, in astronomy, physics, and math. I almost had a fourth major in computer science, but unfortunately computer science class projects and grad school visits don’t really work nicely together. That, and I’m a big slacker…
I kind of wonder what people learned in foreign cultures, though.