Professional Science Master's Degree?
September 9, 2011 6:02 PM Subscribe
I am looking for a way to advance my career in science without a doctoral degree and am wondering if the Professional Science Master's degree is a good option.
Background: I have my B.S. in biology (with high honors) and currently work in science education research at a nonprofit. I love the work, but being in such an academically oriented field doesn’t give me a lot of upward mobility with just a B.S. So I’m considering either graduate school or going into a job/field that doesn’t limit me as much based on my degree. I’ve considered a Master of Science Journalism, but job prospects look weak in that field. Recently I heard about the Professional Science Master’s degrees, and it seems like graduates are getting really good job opportunities.
When I was finishing up undergrad, I realized that even though I was primed and on-track for a PhD in ecology and evolutionary biology, I didn’t want to be an academic. Looking for tenure, publishing research but not being a part of its impact, spending long hours in the lab or field -- all not really my thing. What is my thing is reading, writing, and thinking about science. Analyzing data, turning it into recommendations or policy, or communicating it to the public are things I find much more engaging and a better match for my talents.
The job I found after college turned out to be quite a good fit for me -- I get to conduct research (without any lab or field work), analyze it, write it up, and learn a lot about education policy and best practices along the way. However, I do the same work as the post-docs there, but will never catch up to them in terms of pay due to my lower degree. There are also some management problems with the organization that make it frustrating to work there, and the job security is not high due to recent decreases in federal funding for education research. I also have broad interests and don’t necessarily feel the need to stay in the exact same field. So I’m looking for the next step.
The professional science master’s programs are apparently turning out well-paid, in-demand graduates. It has been tagged the MBA for scientists. I would be looking at PSM degrees in environmental science. I like that I could further my science credentials (so I can stay in research and analysis) but also gain some very necessary and desirable skills for bumping up to the management level at an environmental nonprofit, for example.
Two concerns: 1) Would it be too “corporate” for me? While I’m not against working for a for-profit company at some point, I am generally more interested in the missions and goals of non-profits. It may be that the environmental science programs take this into account (more than say, the biotech focused ones). 2) Many of the schools that offer the programs (certainly not all, but the bulk, I’d say) are not top-tier/stellar rep/everyone’s heard of them type schools. I realize this only matters so much, but I do worry if some employers look at the name of the school more (especially if they haven’t heard of the PSM program).
Anyone have a PSM degree? Does it sound like the best next step?
Background: I have my B.S. in biology (with high honors) and currently work in science education research at a nonprofit. I love the work, but being in such an academically oriented field doesn’t give me a lot of upward mobility with just a B.S. So I’m considering either graduate school or going into a job/field that doesn’t limit me as much based on my degree. I’ve considered a Master of Science Journalism, but job prospects look weak in that field. Recently I heard about the Professional Science Master’s degrees, and it seems like graduates are getting really good job opportunities.
When I was finishing up undergrad, I realized that even though I was primed and on-track for a PhD in ecology and evolutionary biology, I didn’t want to be an academic. Looking for tenure, publishing research but not being a part of its impact, spending long hours in the lab or field -- all not really my thing. What is my thing is reading, writing, and thinking about science. Analyzing data, turning it into recommendations or policy, or communicating it to the public are things I find much more engaging and a better match for my talents.
The job I found after college turned out to be quite a good fit for me -- I get to conduct research (without any lab or field work), analyze it, write it up, and learn a lot about education policy and best practices along the way. However, I do the same work as the post-docs there, but will never catch up to them in terms of pay due to my lower degree. There are also some management problems with the organization that make it frustrating to work there, and the job security is not high due to recent decreases in federal funding for education research. I also have broad interests and don’t necessarily feel the need to stay in the exact same field. So I’m looking for the next step.
The professional science master’s programs are apparently turning out well-paid, in-demand graduates. It has been tagged the MBA for scientists. I would be looking at PSM degrees in environmental science. I like that I could further my science credentials (so I can stay in research and analysis) but also gain some very necessary and desirable skills for bumping up to the management level at an environmental nonprofit, for example.
Two concerns: 1) Would it be too “corporate” for me? While I’m not against working for a for-profit company at some point, I am generally more interested in the missions and goals of non-profits. It may be that the environmental science programs take this into account (more than say, the biotech focused ones). 2) Many of the schools that offer the programs (certainly not all, but the bulk, I’d say) are not top-tier/stellar rep/everyone’s heard of them type schools. I realize this only matters so much, but I do worry if some employers look at the name of the school more (especially if they haven’t heard of the PSM program).
Anyone have a PSM degree? Does it sound like the best next step?
Talk to prospective employers about this. They are your best informants -- not the Council of Graduate Schools, whose interest is in promoting graduate school programs.
posted by Wordwoman at 6:34 PM on September 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Wordwoman at 6:34 PM on September 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
A lot of schools are adding "Professional" masters programs as a source of revenue. They tend to be quite expensive, and rarely offer any tuition coverage. Approach these programs with caution.
posted by rockindata at 6:43 PM on September 9, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by rockindata at 6:43 PM on September 9, 2011 [4 favorites]
It has been tagged the MBA for scientists.
The MBA for scientists is an MBA.
I am generally more interested in the missions and goals of non-profits.
Since you're primarily concerned about career advancement, I think you are going to find that staying in the non-profit industry itself will stifle your career advancement if you are trying to "work your way up from the bottom."
Many of the schools that offer the programs (certainly not all, but the bulk, I’d say) are not top-tier/stellar rep/everyone’s heard of them type schools. I realize this only matters so much, but I do worry if some employers look at the name of the school more (especially if they haven’t heard of the PSM program).
Your instinct is correct here. These schools want money, which is why they created these programs. Let's start at step 1: do you know anyone at your non-profit or anyone at a non-profit you want to work at that has a PSM? My guess is no.
It sounds like what you want to do is a lot like management consulting, but in the non-profit field. Would you consider leaving the non-profit world for more work experience in the corporate world, say in management consulting in the environmental sciences field (this sounds like something Booz Allen Hamilton would do), then getting an MBA, then looping back around to a non-profit at the professional tier you want to be at? A PSM sounds like a good way to saddle yourself with debt with a degree that no one has ever heard of.
posted by deanc at 7:28 PM on September 9, 2011
The MBA for scientists is an MBA.
I am generally more interested in the missions and goals of non-profits.
Since you're primarily concerned about career advancement, I think you are going to find that staying in the non-profit industry itself will stifle your career advancement if you are trying to "work your way up from the bottom."
Many of the schools that offer the programs (certainly not all, but the bulk, I’d say) are not top-tier/stellar rep/everyone’s heard of them type schools. I realize this only matters so much, but I do worry if some employers look at the name of the school more (especially if they haven’t heard of the PSM program).
Your instinct is correct here. These schools want money, which is why they created these programs. Let's start at step 1: do you know anyone at your non-profit or anyone at a non-profit you want to work at that has a PSM? My guess is no.
It sounds like what you want to do is a lot like management consulting, but in the non-profit field. Would you consider leaving the non-profit world for more work experience in the corporate world, say in management consulting in the environmental sciences field (this sounds like something Booz Allen Hamilton would do), then getting an MBA, then looping back around to a non-profit at the professional tier you want to be at? A PSM sounds like a good way to saddle yourself with debt with a degree that no one has ever heard of.
posted by deanc at 7:28 PM on September 9, 2011
I echo deanc's caution. I have many colleagues who do the jobs that the PSM is supposed to prepare one for. I have never met anyone with such a degree. The most common degrees I see in regulators are an MS, followed by BScs and a small minority of PhDs. The sweet spot for entering the workforce appears to be a Masters, but an MSc not an MBA. The MSc gives the technical credibility an MBA or a BSc can't.
posted by bonehead at 8:23 PM on September 9, 2011
posted by bonehead at 8:23 PM on September 9, 2011
Folks, most professional science masters programs are MScs or MSes. (As far as I know, there's no "PSM" degree out there; it's just a branding thing to separate intentional masters programs with slightly more business focus from terminal master's awarded from folks dropping out of PhD programs. Mine's through Johns Hopkins - conducted either on-site, online, or a mix. And yes, it's a revenue generator for the school, but on the other hand, I'm getting a graduate degree in an hour a night over 3 years from the comfort of my own home, and I'm willing to pay for that convenience. Especially when I'm taking courses with folks who work at FDA, or headed tech transfer for NIH, or are currently working in private industry. So at least some of these programs are putting together some high-caliber stuff.
I would not quit work and go back to school for just a master's, but for something I can do while also working, I find it worthwhile. That said, I'm in a biotechnology program; I can't speak to whether there's a good environmental science equivalent.
posted by deludingmyself at 8:42 PM on September 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
I would not quit work and go back to school for just a master's, but for something I can do while also working, I find it worthwhile. That said, I'm in a biotechnology program; I can't speak to whether there's a good environmental science equivalent.
posted by deludingmyself at 8:42 PM on September 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thanks for all your input so far! A few responses:
The question you should be asking is: What's the right job for you?
I suppose I should have been clearer about this. I don’t have one single job in mind that would be the absolute “best” for me. However, some specific directions of interest for me are 1) staying in science education, either at a museum, doing environmental outreach, writing curriculum, or researching effectiveness (I have a lot of experience here); 2) science writing, for a magazine, for an organization, or doing anything involving communicating science to the public or more specific stakeholders (I have less experience here but a lot of potential as I am a good writer with a science background but no direct journalism or communications experience. I’ve read this post, by the way.); 3) working as a “scientist” (master’s level) or “analyst” for an environmental nonprofit, drawing on my ecology and evolutionary knowledge and research skills to synthesize data and make recommendations (this is something I’d definitely need more than a B.S. for).
They tend to be quite expensive, and rarely offer any tuition coverage.
I am aware of this, but the fact that most pure science research PhD programs give you tuition coverage and/or TA/RA positions is more the exception than the norm when it comes to grad school in general. The prospect of quitting work for 5-7 years to work on a PhD seems like a lot more salary lost, even if basic cost of living/tuition is covered, for only incrementally better job and salary opportunities than a master’s could provide. I would also heavily search out scholarship opportunities to lower costs for the master’s.
I am certainly considering traditional environmental science master’s programs as well (many of which I would also have to pay tuition for). I am considering the PSM idea because of the interdisciplinary nature and the fact that most organizations need more than just academic skill. By the way, this is not all about the money either -- I would really like to advance my science knowledge (I just don’t want to spend 7 years of my life focusing on one specific research question!)
I have never met anyone with such a degree.
I am not surprised by this, as the degree is only about 10 years old, so I’m not sure if this means it’s not valuable.
Talk to prospective employers about this.
In my experience most employers don't accept unsolicited resumes, inquiries about jobs, or advice seeking. Is there a different way to go about this? "Networking" is a little tough for me as most of my contacts are academics from my college (who haven't been much help in non-academic career planning) and my current co-workers (where things are tense because of budget cuts). Is there another way around this that I'm missing?
posted by RedMapleWhiteOak at 12:53 PM on September 10, 2011
The question you should be asking is: What's the right job for you?
I suppose I should have been clearer about this. I don’t have one single job in mind that would be the absolute “best” for me. However, some specific directions of interest for me are 1) staying in science education, either at a museum, doing environmental outreach, writing curriculum, or researching effectiveness (I have a lot of experience here); 2) science writing, for a magazine, for an organization, or doing anything involving communicating science to the public or more specific stakeholders (I have less experience here but a lot of potential as I am a good writer with a science background but no direct journalism or communications experience. I’ve read this post, by the way.); 3) working as a “scientist” (master’s level) or “analyst” for an environmental nonprofit, drawing on my ecology and evolutionary knowledge and research skills to synthesize data and make recommendations (this is something I’d definitely need more than a B.S. for).
They tend to be quite expensive, and rarely offer any tuition coverage.
I am aware of this, but the fact that most pure science research PhD programs give you tuition coverage and/or TA/RA positions is more the exception than the norm when it comes to grad school in general. The prospect of quitting work for 5-7 years to work on a PhD seems like a lot more salary lost, even if basic cost of living/tuition is covered, for only incrementally better job and salary opportunities than a master’s could provide. I would also heavily search out scholarship opportunities to lower costs for the master’s.
I am certainly considering traditional environmental science master’s programs as well (many of which I would also have to pay tuition for). I am considering the PSM idea because of the interdisciplinary nature and the fact that most organizations need more than just academic skill. By the way, this is not all about the money either -- I would really like to advance my science knowledge (I just don’t want to spend 7 years of my life focusing on one specific research question!)
I have never met anyone with such a degree.
I am not surprised by this, as the degree is only about 10 years old, so I’m not sure if this means it’s not valuable.
Talk to prospective employers about this.
In my experience most employers don't accept unsolicited resumes, inquiries about jobs, or advice seeking. Is there a different way to go about this? "Networking" is a little tough for me as most of my contacts are academics from my college (who haven't been much help in non-academic career planning) and my current co-workers (where things are tense because of budget cuts). Is there another way around this that I'm missing?
posted by RedMapleWhiteOak at 12:53 PM on September 10, 2011
I am considering the PSM idea because of the interdisciplinary nature and the fact that most organizations need more than just academic skill.
Consider that there are already "Environmental Studies" majors (generally BAs), as well as "Environmental Science" degrees (generally BSc). From first-hand experience, I can tell you that the cross-disciplinary "Studies" majors are generally more poorly prepared for regulatory work than the science folks and tend to advance less quickly. In fact, in my experience, those with specific-discipline degrees (e.g., biology, biochemistry, chemistry, geography) tend to be the senior people.
I think the reason is that the regulatory knowledge can be picked up on the job (and must be anyway as it varies tremendously by industry and jurisdiction), but for a science-based career, employers expect hires to be technically and scientifically competent from day one. The people with solid technical backgrounds tend to trump those without. This is less true if you want to head for the management track as soon as possible, but is true if you want to develop into a subject-matter expert.
posted by bonehead at 1:14 PM on September 10, 2011
Consider that there are already "Environmental Studies" majors (generally BAs), as well as "Environmental Science" degrees (generally BSc). From first-hand experience, I can tell you that the cross-disciplinary "Studies" majors are generally more poorly prepared for regulatory work than the science folks and tend to advance less quickly. In fact, in my experience, those with specific-discipline degrees (e.g., biology, biochemistry, chemistry, geography) tend to be the senior people.
I think the reason is that the regulatory knowledge can be picked up on the job (and must be anyway as it varies tremendously by industry and jurisdiction), but for a science-based career, employers expect hires to be technically and scientifically competent from day one. The people with solid technical backgrounds tend to trump those without. This is less true if you want to head for the management track as soon as possible, but is true if you want to develop into a subject-matter expert.
posted by bonehead at 1:14 PM on September 10, 2011
In my experience most employers don't accept unsolicited resumes, inquiries about jobs, or advice seeking. Is there a different way to go about this?
You could ask the current people you work with or any colleagues who work for non profits that you know of.
There are a bunch of ways around this that don't involve taking 2 years off to pay for a degree that might not even be worthwhile:
a) apply for research-based fully-funded MS programs in Environmental Engineering or Environmental Sciences
b) Get a policy/regulatory job with the government and work on an MS degree in your field, under the guidance of your employer for what will serve your career, at night
c) Find some sort of MS/MPP program at a well regarded government and policy school that has a track record of feeding their graduates into non profit and government policymaking jobs. (the expense factor comes into play, but living in DC, I see plenty of graduates of places like the Kennedy School with good jobs)
d) Go the private sector consulting route (BoozAllen/PWC/etc), and get a master's at a "school for working professionals" program, with the idea in mind of getting a Master's of the same sort your colleagues have.
"Interdisciplinary" programs tend to serve the professors more than the students. The professors have interdisciplinary interests they want to pursue that don't necessarily fit into the department they started in and want an environment to pursue those interests outside the politics of that department. They also need students to do research and teach classes (or provide tuition money). The thing is that I think the students get less out of the interdisciplinary degree than the professors do.
I guess the way you could look at it is this: an non profit org is going to have a bunch of applicants and potential employees to promote that have varying amounts of experience in industry and government, PhDs and MS's, etc. What are the odds that they're going to choose someone with a "PSM" over the other applicants with the other backgrounds?
I'll use another example, which gets at your concern about other skills a PSM will give you. The premier management consulting company in the world, McKinsey & Co., hires MBAs as well as people with hard science PhDs. They are not concerned with the fact that their hard science PhDs haven't taken classes in accounting and organizational structure. They instead spend a month teaching them all the terminology and concepts they need to know to give them a background in that and then add on the expectation that they will pick up the rest on the job rather than worrying that their PhDs don't have anything more than an academic skillset.
I understand the position you're in, not having any interest in being a PI and realizing that if you don't want to do that, then getting a PhD seems like a waste of time an opportunity costs. But I don't think that paying money to get a degree that no one asked for is the way to do it.
posted by deanc at 2:04 PM on September 10, 2011
You could ask the current people you work with or any colleagues who work for non profits that you know of.
There are a bunch of ways around this that don't involve taking 2 years off to pay for a degree that might not even be worthwhile:
a) apply for research-based fully-funded MS programs in Environmental Engineering or Environmental Sciences
b) Get a policy/regulatory job with the government and work on an MS degree in your field, under the guidance of your employer for what will serve your career, at night
c) Find some sort of MS/MPP program at a well regarded government and policy school that has a track record of feeding their graduates into non profit and government policymaking jobs. (the expense factor comes into play, but living in DC, I see plenty of graduates of places like the Kennedy School with good jobs)
d) Go the private sector consulting route (BoozAllen/PWC/etc), and get a master's at a "school for working professionals" program, with the idea in mind of getting a Master's of the same sort your colleagues have.
"Interdisciplinary" programs tend to serve the professors more than the students. The professors have interdisciplinary interests they want to pursue that don't necessarily fit into the department they started in and want an environment to pursue those interests outside the politics of that department. They also need students to do research and teach classes (or provide tuition money). The thing is that I think the students get less out of the interdisciplinary degree than the professors do.
I guess the way you could look at it is this: an non profit org is going to have a bunch of applicants and potential employees to promote that have varying amounts of experience in industry and government, PhDs and MS's, etc. What are the odds that they're going to choose someone with a "PSM" over the other applicants with the other backgrounds?
I'll use another example, which gets at your concern about other skills a PSM will give you. The premier management consulting company in the world, McKinsey & Co., hires MBAs as well as people with hard science PhDs. They are not concerned with the fact that their hard science PhDs haven't taken classes in accounting and organizational structure. They instead spend a month teaching them all the terminology and concepts they need to know to give them a background in that and then add on the expectation that they will pick up the rest on the job rather than worrying that their PhDs don't have anything more than an academic skillset.
I understand the position you're in, not having any interest in being a PI and realizing that if you don't want to do that, then getting a PhD seems like a waste of time an opportunity costs. But I don't think that paying money to get a degree that no one asked for is the way to do it.
posted by deanc at 2:04 PM on September 10, 2011
In my experience most employers don't accept unsolicited resumes, inquiries about jobs, or advice seeking. Is there a different way to go about this?
Do some informational interviewing (Google it if you don't know what it is) and join relevant professional associations. Setting up informational interviews is indeed intimidating, but having both been both an informational interviewer and interviewee at various times in my career, I can testify that many people will indeed be willing to meet with you.
posted by Wordwoman at 3:02 PM on September 10, 2011
Do some informational interviewing (Google it if you don't know what it is) and join relevant professional associations. Setting up informational interviews is indeed intimidating, but having both been both an informational interviewer and interviewee at various times in my career, I can testify that many people will indeed be willing to meet with you.
posted by Wordwoman at 3:02 PM on September 10, 2011
Response by poster: Do some informational interviewing.
This is a great idea and I will definitely explore this. I have a limited professional network (only 3 years of experience at the same -- very small -- organization), so how open are people to "cold" asks for informational interviews? Obviously I will try to dig through my connections first, but I'm wondering how possible it is to get a response just from an email. Any tips for getting these interviews?
Apply for research-based fully-funded MS programs in Environmental Engineering or Environmental Sciences
This also sounds like a great idea, but I've had a little trouble finding such programs. Most places fund their PhD students but not their Master's students, or give priority to PhD students when it comes to TA positions, etc. Is there a good resource online that collects M.S. degrees where tuition is fully or partially covered?
posted by RedMapleWhiteOak at 4:26 PM on September 11, 2011
This is a great idea and I will definitely explore this. I have a limited professional network (only 3 years of experience at the same -- very small -- organization), so how open are people to "cold" asks for informational interviews? Obviously I will try to dig through my connections first, but I'm wondering how possible it is to get a response just from an email. Any tips for getting these interviews?
Apply for research-based fully-funded MS programs in Environmental Engineering or Environmental Sciences
This also sounds like a great idea, but I've had a little trouble finding such programs. Most places fund their PhD students but not their Master's students, or give priority to PhD students when it comes to TA positions, etc. Is there a good resource online that collects M.S. degrees where tuition is fully or partially covered?
posted by RedMapleWhiteOak at 4:26 PM on September 11, 2011
Any tips for getting these interviews?
Don't be discouraged by a low hit rate.
Keep your request short and breezy, but personable - no more than 4 or 5 sentences in an email. Don't sound too needy, or like you have seven pages of questions to ask them. Instead, if you can, read and reference something that your target interviewer or their organization has put out lately - this can be a research paper, a press release, an NGO's annual report, whatever. (Don't spend too much time on this, since again, you should expect a low hit rate.) Suggest a few times in your email, and give them an estimate of how long you expect the conversation to take (15-20 minutes?), and stick to it unless they explicitly offer otherwise.
I might also include a link to my LinkedIn profile in my email signature.
posted by deludingmyself at 9:06 PM on September 11, 2011 [2 favorites]
Don't be discouraged by a low hit rate.
Keep your request short and breezy, but personable - no more than 4 or 5 sentences in an email. Don't sound too needy, or like you have seven pages of questions to ask them. Instead, if you can, read and reference something that your target interviewer or their organization has put out lately - this can be a research paper, a press release, an NGO's annual report, whatever. (Don't spend too much time on this, since again, you should expect a low hit rate.) Suggest a few times in your email, and give them an estimate of how long you expect the conversation to take (15-20 minutes?), and stick to it unless they explicitly offer otherwise.
I might also include a link to my LinkedIn profile in my email signature.
posted by deludingmyself at 9:06 PM on September 11, 2011 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
After you identify that, try to figure out whether having a master's degree will either be essential for getting the job, or be significantly more attractive than working for another year. You should also consider the lost earnings of not working that year, and the total cost of doing the master's degree (including loan interest if necessary).
posted by grouse at 6:20 PM on September 9, 2011