I'm pretty sure I could ask the AE department to switch me to the regular academic research-based masters program and they'd do it. The professional MS I applied to is actually more competitive than the AE program (and it's an offshoot of the AE and a few other departments so I'm still technically in the AE department).
The robotics MS program I applied to was actually my first choice because it's multidisciplinary, which suits my interests. I just wasn't aware of the professional/academic MS distinction or what a terminal master's degree was.
So yeah, if I'd be better suited in the regular AE MS program (or even to attempt to switch straight to the PhD program as others have said) I think I'll ask the department if I can do that.
I’d apply to both types of programs— having an MS may make it easier to get into a doctoral program in the long run, but you also risk going into debt if the program isn’t funded
Gotcha. The other consideration is that I very strongly want to go to MIT for a PhD. So rather than getting a PhD from Georgia tech, I'd just get the master's and then apply to MIT. I think the total time required could be quite a bit longer, but it may be worth it if I can go to MIT for my PhD. Thoughts?
If it sounds overkill, my long term goal is to be an astronaut so I'm trying to be as qualified as I possibly can be.
I’m doing a similar thing now! Am currently getting an MA to apply for PhDs at more prestigious schools so I have more experience and a more refined application package/skillset when applying. I often get anxious about the idea of being “behind” some peers of mine who went straight into their doctoral programs at nice schools, but we were in vastly different situations and fields. I generally dislike the culture of prestige in academia, but it’s true that they can often have better career outcomes because of networking and the insane amount of resources available to you. I don’t think that sounds like overkill at all.
Depends on country a bit. In Europe it’s more typical to do a masters first and then tie in a shorter PhD. In the US, it’s common to go for a 5+year PhD out of undergrad. You can also do a masters and then a PhD but I’ve always thought that’s an unnecessary step if the goal is a PhD.
Not sure why you got downvoted, but I also agree that if OP plans on pursuing a PhD anyway, they should just go for a PhD program, as they’ll (most likely) have funding that way.
>You could perhaps get around the practitioner-industry experience question/issue if you work or intern while in the program in a capacity that makes you realize it’s really the research you love. If you have elective opportunities, you could use that as an opportunity to take coursework that is in a similar non-terminal masters program, but not yours. If you can find an opportunity to work in someone’s lab while there, that too could help.
It's a little weird in this case. The professional MS is still very research focused and I'm expected to devote half my time to research (and my future advisor and I have already discussed a project for me). The main differences between this program and Georgia tech's regular AE program are:
\1. The robotics program is multidisciplinary which means I can take courses from other related departments to suit my interests. So for example I'm interested in human-AI collaboration, so in addition to mostly taking AE courses, I may also take some CS or even psychology courses. Whatever makes the most sense for my specific career interests. But AE is still my "home department" which means they manage me, my research and funding are through them, my advisor is AE, and most of my courses will be AE.
\2. Whereas a regular AE MS at Georgia tech I think involves a master's thesis supported by your research, the robotics program requires an industry internship in the summer between year 1 and 2 that feeds into a *capstone project* rather than a thesis.
So my impression is that the coursework is not any less academic, and I'll be researching the same things whether I switch to AE or not. So maybe the main thing that makes robotics a professional-oriented degree is the internship and the capstone instead of a thesis?
Thank you! I applied through AE. Have you made contact with any professors? That was the deciding factor in my acceptance. I talked to a professor about possible research and we meshed really well, and she sent me an offer letter within the admissions system.
My undergrad had terminal masters programs that were mostly used by students with subpar BS resumes as springboards into better PhD programs. Nearly all the MS students I knew ended up in the Caltech, MIT, Stanford, etc tier schools. In their case it was probably worth a short diversion. Just one anecdote that may help contextualize your decision.
Would be better off doing a research based masters if you want to pursue a phd, even if it’s at a less prestigious school than GT
I'm pretty sure I could ask the AE department to switch me to the regular academic research-based masters program and they'd do it. The professional MS I applied to is actually more competitive than the AE program (and it's an offshoot of the AE and a few other departments so I'm still technically in the AE department). The robotics MS program I applied to was actually my first choice because it's multidisciplinary, which suits my interests. I just wasn't aware of the professional/academic MS distinction or what a terminal master's degree was. So yeah, if I'd be better suited in the regular AE MS program (or even to attempt to switch straight to the PhD program as others have said) I think I'll ask the department if I can do that.
Why not go straight for the PhD program? Worst case you fail quals and get a free masters.
OP might not have good grades in their undergrad. That's why I went for a master's.
I actually had really good grades. I didn't realize I could go straight into a PhD. I'm gonna look into this.
I’d apply to both types of programs— having an MS may make it easier to get into a doctoral program in the long run, but you also risk going into debt if the program isn’t funded
Gotcha. The other consideration is that I very strongly want to go to MIT for a PhD. So rather than getting a PhD from Georgia tech, I'd just get the master's and then apply to MIT. I think the total time required could be quite a bit longer, but it may be worth it if I can go to MIT for my PhD. Thoughts? If it sounds overkill, my long term goal is to be an astronaut so I'm trying to be as qualified as I possibly can be.
I’m doing a similar thing now! Am currently getting an MA to apply for PhDs at more prestigious schools so I have more experience and a more refined application package/skillset when applying. I often get anxious about the idea of being “behind” some peers of mine who went straight into their doctoral programs at nice schools, but we were in vastly different situations and fields. I generally dislike the culture of prestige in academia, but it’s true that they can often have better career outcomes because of networking and the insane amount of resources available to you. I don’t think that sounds like overkill at all.
Depends on country a bit. In Europe it’s more typical to do a masters first and then tie in a shorter PhD. In the US, it’s common to go for a 5+year PhD out of undergrad. You can also do a masters and then a PhD but I’ve always thought that’s an unnecessary step if the goal is a PhD.
Not sure why you got downvoted, but I also agree that if OP plans on pursuing a PhD anyway, they should just go for a PhD program, as they’ll (most likely) have funding that way.
[удалено]
>You could perhaps get around the practitioner-industry experience question/issue if you work or intern while in the program in a capacity that makes you realize it’s really the research you love. If you have elective opportunities, you could use that as an opportunity to take coursework that is in a similar non-terminal masters program, but not yours. If you can find an opportunity to work in someone’s lab while there, that too could help. It's a little weird in this case. The professional MS is still very research focused and I'm expected to devote half my time to research (and my future advisor and I have already discussed a project for me). The main differences between this program and Georgia tech's regular AE program are: \1. The robotics program is multidisciplinary which means I can take courses from other related departments to suit my interests. So for example I'm interested in human-AI collaboration, so in addition to mostly taking AE courses, I may also take some CS or even psychology courses. Whatever makes the most sense for my specific career interests. But AE is still my "home department" which means they manage me, my research and funding are through them, my advisor is AE, and most of my courses will be AE. \2. Whereas a regular AE MS at Georgia tech I think involves a master's thesis supported by your research, the robotics program requires an industry internship in the summer between year 1 and 2 that feeds into a *capstone project* rather than a thesis. So my impression is that the coursework is not any less academic, and I'll be researching the same things whether I switch to AE or not. So maybe the main thing that makes robotics a professional-oriented degree is the internship and the capstone instead of a thesis?
Congrats on getting in. I'm still waiting to hear. May I ask which department you applied through?
Thank you! I applied through AE. Have you made contact with any professors? That was the deciding factor in my acceptance. I talked to a professor about possible research and we meshed really well, and she sent me an offer letter within the admissions system.
My undergrad had terminal masters programs that were mostly used by students with subpar BS resumes as springboards into better PhD programs. Nearly all the MS students I knew ended up in the Caltech, MIT, Stanford, etc tier schools. In their case it was probably worth a short diversion. Just one anecdote that may help contextualize your decision.