What it is like to go to grad school? The only degrees i’m open to at this point are MLS (masters in library science) and MS in chemistry. I assume the chem degree will involve 80 hours workweeks, classes that are insanely hard and things like that. I don’t know if the MLS would be the same.
What are your experiences with grad school?
My experience getting a MA in history was a blast. A lot of work, but I was spending time with subjects I loved and people who shared the same interests.
My MLIS experience was less fun, basically, I was putting in the time and buying a degree. Very little original thought or creativity was encouraged, and the subject isn’t all that fun to me; you’re learning a skill, not exploring a subject.
Also, I was not spending time with a bunch of people with shared interests. I was spending time with people working on different specialties, each of which attracts different personality types. The different specialities (ie. Public Librarian, School Librarian, Special Librarian, Science Librarian) tend to be cliquey with their own kinds, it’s kind of bizarre.
It helped me get a much better paying job then the history degree, however.
I’m enjoying my Grad studies in English, though it’s a helluvalot of work. I have three books to read this weekend, which makes it very hard to schedule in my procrastination 
From my experience, master’s degrees in laboratory sciences are not all that different from undergraduate degrees. Basically, you’ll just take classes with more details about your specified subject. You might also do lab work (which would get you up to the 60-70 hour/week range), but many master’s degrees don’t require research. And if they don’t, you’ll probably be in the range of 20-30 hours/week.
Before you launch into a master’s in chemistry, research the job options. You may be surprised to find that very few jobs require a master’s. They either require the PhD or a good undergrad will suffice. And, often, a master’s degree doesn’t earn you that much more money. So, in the end, the time and money it takes to get the degree might not pay off. Those two years spent in an entry level position will put you in the same place at the end. And you will have made money in the meantime, instead of spent it on tuition.
Of course, the other option is a PhD. In lab sciences like chemistry, they pay a stipend and tuition. So, you don’t have the negative money situation. And your pay should be higher in the end.
Of course, this is just my experience, from a biological science perspective. FTR, I have a PhD in microbiology. I can’t speak at all to the library sciences degree.
Hmmm. It was my understanding there are largely 4 parts to the job of getting a doctorate degree.
What is a breakdown of these 4 factions in regards to hours per week? Are you sure that a masters only requires no. 3 and no. 4?
From what I have gathered a MS in chemistry pays about 12-14k a year more than a BS. a PhD pays about 14k more than a MS.
What kinds of grades does a person need to be able to get in undergrad to handle graduate level coursework?
I’ve done a couple of master’s degrees: English & Library Science.
I’d agree with the folks who emphasize that the MLS is mostly about learning skills, rather than coming up with creative, original thought. You learn how to catalogue, how to do reference, how to design a web page. Stuff like that. With the English master’s, I was expected to do much more in the way of individual research. At my MLS school (U of I), you can opt to do a thesis or practicum, but you’re not required to do so. Most people are already working in libraries, and those who aren’t are strongly advised to do the practicum thing.
In terms of workload, both graduate school experiences were similar in that weekends become a fairy tale (too much homework), as does leisure time, home maintenance, and even (during exams etc.) basic chores around the house. If you’re married, your spouse better be able to entertain herself. You’ll wonder where the time has gone with your kids, too. That being said, I’m glad I’ve got both my degrees and think it was worthwhile to get them.
I got A’s as an undergraduate and have done basically the same in graduate school. IME, if you are working hard, always show up to class, and turn in your work, grad profs are loathe to give you lower than a B. I’m not sure things would work the same way in grad school for the sciences, though.
Science librarians have a good job market right now, but most academic institutions require that you have a master’s in your subject area, not just a bachelor’s. Public libraries, for the most part, advertise for type of librarian and wouldn’t care much what your bachelor’s was in, as long as you have your MLS.
Special libraries might appreciate your bachelor’s in chemistry more, especially if you’ve done industrial work in chemistry.
Hope this helps!
Mrs. Furthur
If you go the science route, and pursue a PhD, for heavens sake, make sure you have a good advisor(s). That doesn’t necessarily mean the most famous.
I’m currently in graduate school (Computer Science), having gotten my Master’s earlier this year but not yet having finished my dissertation proposal. It’s my impression that a person’s grad school experience can vary wildly by both the school they attend and the department they’re in; the following are subjective opinions based on my experience. If it makes any difference, I attend a well-ranked (top 25) university. Which also led me to realize that there is a major difference in undergraduate experiences. Seeing what the undergrads here go through, not only do I now realize that my undergrad classes were weak, but also that I wasn’t exposed to “doing research”. YMMV. With that said…
[ul]
[li]It’s a lot of work. I’d say 70-80 hours per week is about right. When I got here, I thought I’d be able to take 4 grad level classes and have time for research. Ooops. I had no clue as to how much more difficult the classes would be relative to undergrad. 3 classes was more than enough, and at least one class I took required between 35-45 hours a week itself. I know a woman who was reduced to tears about once a week because of the workload. Makes you question if you really like the subject matter enough to want to be an academic. (Of course, this is CS - there are opportunities in the business world that pay better than an academic’s salary, so money isn’t the issue it may be in other fields. Oh, and the woman I mention is still in the program; often, it comes down to determination and sheer force of will, which she has in spades.)[/li][li]There’s a big difference between a Master’s and a PhD. In our department, it seems that a Master’s is generally preparation for writing a dissertation. What I mean is that going through the actual process is important in and of itself. Identifying a topic, organizing, researching previous work, supporting the thesis, and actually writing 80-150 coherent pages is a step to doing the same thing with your own ideas. The content - that is, as far as furthering knowledge in the field - is not as important as a PhD, as it could simply recap someone else’s work. (Not to say that a Master’s is always derivative, just that the bar isn’t set quite as high.)[/li][li]For a lot of people, there’s an odd conception of exactly what “research” is. For instance, my mother still asks me how classes are going. When I say I don’t have to take classes any more as I’m a researcher, there’s this awkward silence before we move on to other things. I have to admit (see note above regarding undergad experience) that I didn’t fully get it when I started grad school either.[/li][li]Besides classes and research, there are “outside” commitments (e.g., teaching assistant, professional organizations, etc.) that are part and parcel of the academic life.[/li][li]As Loopydude points out, your advisor has a huge influence on what you do. A weak, non-demanding advisor may be lots of fun, but you might end up doing crappy work, with a crappy CV, and not very good job prospects. An overbearing advisor can make you miserable. A “big name” advisor may not be able to give you the attention you need, while a less well-established advisor may not have the resources to help as much. Also realize that part of a grad student’s job is to work on their advisor’s research; if they’re not doing something that interests you, find another advisor or get out while you can. As a matter of fact, in retrospect, it’s often a good idea to look at getting into a grad program as applying to a particular adivsor and not the school/department itself. (Fortunately for me, as I didn’t familiarize myself as much as I should have, my advisor kicks ass.) Try to be as familiar as possible with the research they’re doing - you’re going to eating, drinking, and breathing it for the next 3-7 years.[/li][/ul]
Sorry…just like a (future) academic to write so much. I hope at least some of it is useful and/or helpful; it was a pretty open-ended question, though, and I just wanted to be thorough.
[ul]
[li]It’s a lot of work. I’d say 70-80 hours per week is about right. When I got here, I thought I’d be able to take 4 grad level classes and have time for research. Ooops. I had no clue as to how much more difficult the classes would be relative to undergrad. 3 classes was more than enough, and at least one class I took required between 35-45 hours a week itself. I know a woman who was reduced to tears about once a week because of the workload. Makes you question if you really like the subject matter enough to want to be an academic. (Of course, this is CS - there are opportunities in the business world that pay better than an academic’s salary, so money isn’t the issue it may be in other fields. Oh, and the woman I mention is still in the program; often, it comes down to determination and sheer force of will, which she has in spades.)[/li]
In my English master’s, I found this to be true as well. I didn’t take a four-course load – most of the time it was three plus teaching, but the 80 hours/week still applied when you added in teaching. I’ve gone part time for the MLS, and even though I only take two classes, you can figure a minimum of 20-30 hours per week per graduate course you take.
[li]As Loopydude points out, your advisor has a huge influence on what you do. A weak, non-demanding advisor may be lots of fun, but you might end up doing crappy work, with a crappy CV, and not very good job prospects. An overbearing advisor can make you miserable. A “big name” advisor may not be able to give you the attention you need, while a less well-established advisor may not have the resources to help as much. Also realize that part of a grad student’s job is to work on their advisor’s research; if they’re not doing something that interests you, find another advisor or get out while you can. As a matter of fact, in retrospect, it’s often a good idea to look at getting into a grad program as applying to a particular adivsor and not the school/department itself. (Fortunately for me, as I didn’t familiarize myself as much as I should have, my advisor kicks ass.) Try to be as familiar as possible with the research they’re doing - you’re going to eating, drinking, and breathing it for the next 3-7 years.[/li][/ul]
I find this 100% accurate as well. I didn’t realize this (silly me) when I did the English master’s. I ended up doing my thesis on a topic I didn’t find terribly interesting, but my advisor did. Moreover, be extremely careful whom you put on your comprehensive exam and/or thesis committee. If you inadvertently get two people on there with a conflict history, they could use you as a means to get back at each other politically. There was at least one prof in my old department who vowed that he’d do everything he could to get in the way of proteges of Professor X – and he did. People ended up getting blocked so severely they dropped out of the program. So watch your step; politics is a huge part of academe at the graduate level, and professors are like elephants in their long memory for grudges and even inadvertent slights.
Mrs. Furthur
As others have said, it really depends on where you go to school (so keep these things in mind to ask about when you interview). My doctoral program started with a year of classes. In all honesty, they were about on par with the classes I took my senior year of undergrad, which were undergrad/grad level. However, they were much more in depth (i.e. a full year of cell and biochem vs. one quarter). During this year I also did lab rotations to pick an advisor. Yes, that meant I was on campus more hours, but it didn’t compare to what was to come.
Once I picked an advisor, I started in on my doctoral research. I my department, you had to have at least one publication of your research to graduate. The good students had two or three. At this point, I was working at least 10 hours a day, 6 days a week (but 12-14 hours, 7 days a week wasn’t unheard of). And I was reading the literature at night.
As for teaching, many advisors will go to the ends of the earth to get their students out of it. They want you in the lab. Thus, many PhDs have little to no teaching experience. I could have gotten out of my flimsy teaching requirement by tutoring, but I fought for the chance to teach a lab instead. It was well worth it, but hardly a large part of my doctoral work.
Writing the dissertation (for lab science degrees) is now a relatively minor part of the degree process. Yes, it is the ultimate finale, but it really becomes just a compendium of your publications. Honestly, there’s not a whole lot of choice or creativity about it. It just comes down to a whole lot of tedious word processing work to put all of your papers into a cohesive format.
Now, a masters degree in that department was very different. The masters students took the same first year of classes that we did. Then they had three options: take a comprehensive exam, write a thesis (which was not new work, just a review of a specified topic) or do enough lab research to get on a paper or poster at a national meeting. And in all honesty, the masters students weren’t viewed with any higher regard than the undergrads.
Again, this is simply my experience. Chemistry will be different, though I would guess that many of the issues will remain.
The concept that always comes to my mind when someone asks me about masters vs PhDs is a quote from my school’s provost. She said that a Master’s degree means that you have fully mastered all of the current knowledge in a field. A PhD means that you are qualified to generate new knowledge for a field. Both are necessary. It’s up to you to figure out which one you’d rather be.
I am more or less new to chemistry, there are 46 hours of chemistry to the BS degree and i’ve only completed 13 hours of chem and i’m doing 6 hours right now. One of my 2 current chem classes is inorganic lecture (C430). Many of the other students in my inorganic class say inorganic is on par with C315 (an analytical chemistry lab focusing on spectroscopy) as the hardest chemistry course at the school, and these people have completed around 30-35 hours of chemistry courses on average. I find the class challenging, but not killer. The main problem is that it isn’t explained well. If I had a better textbook or spent more time with the AI i’m sure i’d do better. So if grad school is not much harder than my inorganic class then grad school may be for me.
I just do not like stress and the idea of spending 30 hours a week studying in a state of sleep deprived, terror filled, pressurized stress doesn’t appeal to me. I don’t mind studying, but classes which seem impossible to keep up with where I constantly feel threatened with failure do not strike me as appealing.
I need more lab experience before I can determine if spending 80 hours a week is something I want to do though. I love chemistry but I need more experience before I can decide if graduate school is something I am competent to handle or if I want to try it out.
Graduate in Musicology:
I stuck with the same place as I did my undergrad degree. That’s not a criticism of anything - it was only in my third undergrad year that I realised how much I could experience from talking to people who I had (until then) nothing to talk about.
At no point were either of the degrees ‘hard work’. They certainly involved nocturnal behaviour, caffeine overdoses, and mental illness (hey, I’m not joking about any of them).
Actually, they were constant work - I was obsessed about things for days, weeks at a time. It just doesn’t seem weird to me.
However, my intention is to do two further degrees - an MPhil in the UK and a PhD in the US. So I don’t really know what I’m talking about, in a larger scale…
Wow…I’ve made the worst argument for higher education ever…
Your mental state during grad school will depend on where you go to school. Where I went, the students were all fairly balanced. I don’t think anyone really felt overwhelmed by the coursework. However, the school I’m at now has quite a few professors who think that grad school classes should have you on the brink of tears constantly. The students pull through just fine, but I don’t think they are very happy.
I can’t stress how important it is to pay attention to the vibe of the students when you interview for a grad program. If you ask, “so, how do you like your classes?” and they look at their lunch, nervously glance at each other, blush slightly, then say, “they’re ok.” Run for the hills. If, on the other hand, they look you dead in the eye and say, “well, they’re classes and who likes those? But they’re totally manageable”, you’re good. In short, pay as much or more attention to what they don’t say as what they do. These students want to keep getting a free lunch or whatever, so they aren’t going to slam the program (“No free lunches for you, dissenter!”), but they’ll tell you what’s up in their own ways.
And, yeah, more lab time will let you know if that’s for you. You need to really like it or you’ll hate it very quickly. But try not to judge just from your class labs. Generally, they suck compared to the real thing. If you really think chemistry is in your future, hunt around for a good chem professor and ask to work in his/her lab for a semester or two. You’ll either get the research bug or you’ll move on to library sciences.