Does your PhD need to relate to your MSc?

[Big Tom]

Hi all!

Pretty much what the question says ^.

I'm studying for a MSc in a genetic subject, primarily with model organisms like in developmental biology. I was wondering whether I would still be considered competitively for a PhD in, say, an immunology type PhD? Or whether I am sure to be brushed aside by applicants with an Immunology MSc?

Thanks,

Big Tom

[timo]

To the question in the headline: I did my MSc in elementary particle physics and my PhD in complex systems. That is, I did my MSc and PhD in formally completely different fields of interest treated by somewhat different physics, but yet with some overlap between the two jobs: both was in a theoretical physics department, both did include lots of programming and data analysis (admittedly, the analysis part in my MSc was rather limited due to bad performance of mine). That may be similar to going from genetics to immunology (which for an ignorant physicist like me is both just "molecular biology").

 

To the question you actually asked: That depends on you and the other applicants. If you are a great student with top grades from a renowned university and all the Immunology applicants are students who barely made their degree and cannot even explain their MSc project in a job interview (rumors are I got my PhD position because the in-field, top-grade Chinese applicant gave a talk that became infamous for "worst talk ever attended" amongst my later colleagues - my later supervisor thereafter restrained from inviting any of the many other Chinese applicants and hired me, instead) then your chances are great. If you are the skill-less applying for a highly competitive field with lots of good students, then chances are obviously slim. So after stating the obvious, I'll add another statement that just as obvious: The best way to find out is to actually apply. Not much to lose in doing so, after all.

[Big Tom]

Thank you for your highly informative response!

So, perhaps more specifically, a hypothetical example:

If you have two MSc students from the same university, one of which got a merit (applicant B) and one got a distinction (applicant A), but B did a dissertation into HIV protease inactivation, while A's was in spinal development, would A still have the edge over B in a funded immunology PhD (assuming a universal interview quality between them?)

I suppose here the question is quality or speciality?

[ajb]

Like Timo,my MSc and PhD are in different, but related areas. My MSc is in theoretical particle physics and my PhD is in pure mathematics. So you can branch out after your masters.

 

You should ask your potential supervisors about this and remember it will also depend on who also applies.

[Big Tom]

Thank you very much, friends. It's just nice to know that my MSc will not fully restrict my career's focal point.

[ajb]

It's just nice to know that my MSc will not fully restrict my career's focal point.

An MSc or similar should not place tight rectrictions on the exact PhD route you follow. That said, one would expect some kind of relation between the two. You will learn new skills during the early stages of your PhD and in my experience people catch up very quickly with those that have masters degrees in the same topic.

 

Good luck

[CharonY]

The relationship can be very thin, and still acceptable, especially in experimental areas. For example, if you are familiar with certain techniques but apply it to a different system, or conversely, same system but different research area. Especially skills in the molecular biological field are easily transferable. The better question is whether you are competitive with your peers as a whole. As a rule of thumb, familiarity with techniques tends to give you an upper hand, as it usually means that they have to invest less time to train you. And time is usually the most valuable resource.

[Arete]

My MSc was more population genetics, my PhD was more macro-scale evolutionary biology. However, I've worked on fish, lizards, insects, protozoans and viruses. The bench techniques and many of the analyses and theory are very similar once something has been turned into a tube of DNA - so I second CharonY's advice at least in regards to life sciences. Experience in a breadth of systems with a common theoretical theme is actually probably better in terms of career prospects than intense experience in a very narrow field.

 

Depending on where you want to end up, being in an interview and being able to say "Here is/are the core question/s I am interested in and here is the variety of angles I have explored it/them from" is in many way preferable to "Explored X problem in system Y for all of my studies." You're more likely to have common ground with other researchers, allowing collaboration and more likely to be able to teach courses to a broader range of students.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Arete

[Big Tom]

CharonY, Thanks very much. That was part (not the whole) of the reason for my taking Developmental Genetics. Genetic manipulation and an understanding of the difference between gene expression and activity - things like that - would be fairly transferable in molecular biology. As well as that, I felt it would provide practical experience with model organisms. Does this seem 'legit'?

Arete,
It seems you're agreeing that techincal knowledge and experience with MOs is more important than a theoretical knowledge on a specific area, which, I suppose, could be picked up via the literature?

Thanks guys!

[Arete]

To clarify, a lot of related fields will have a lot of the same fundamental theory and similar technical approaches. Having a demonstrably solid foundation in good basic theory and approaches is often more important than having experience in a precise, sub-sub field of study.

 

For example, you could do a MSc on say, the developmental genetics of eyespots in butterflies, and a lot of the theory and skills would transfer if you wanted to do, for example, functional genomics of thermotolerance in cholera. You could then thread a common theme of trait evolution through your studies and generate a picture of a comprehensive, but diverse program of study.

 

However, it all depends on where you want to end up. In many senses a PhD is a starting point, rather than an end point, so how you approach what you study might be influenced by whether you want to go into government, academia, private industry, etc. While a basic research PhD with a strong theoretical focus might help more in an academic setting, a more applied course of research might be more attractive to industry, etc.

[CharonY]

To add, as a rule of thumb, it is usually better to cast a wide web during graduate school, niche building usually starts during postdoc.

Breaks in topics are not unusual and in some areas quite common. The main advantage of having a tighter focus is more that one has the opportunity to interact with a given community. But some are so small that it is tough to carve a niche within that community.

 

For industrial work, some applied knowledge is usually desirable, but a lot also boils down to demonstrable people skills, rather than technical expertise. This is even true for positions that include tech support, product management and (especially) project management positions (I am talking mostly biotech and pharma here).

 

It should also be noted that there disciplines that are much more theoretical than others. The key point is less the distinction between practical or theoretical (although of course wetlabs value the former more) but how skills can be applied to the question that a lab has.

 

Also, problem solving skills are pretty much a prerequisite everywhere.

[Genecks]

I've focused my studies toward regenerative medicine as I went on in my biology career. I have come to believe that I could have just as well done molecular biology with plants and taken those skills to do molecular biology with brains. Proteins are proteins. Proteins are found in plants and brains. And I do not doubt that you can use immunoprecipitation on a plant just as you can on a brain. The required antibodies would be different, but the technique would be similar. However, preservation of material would be different, but I do not doubt that it would be so difficult to adjust one's skill set toward that.

 

I don't have a Masters or Doctoral degree. However, I agree with CharonY on the skill set being of high importance. If you can easily take your skills and use them in a different field to solve a different problem or find some new knowledge, then there should not be much difficulty in a transition.

 

I'd suggest looking at the skill sets between what you know and what you would need to know. Compare and contrast.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Genecks