back

by alephnerd·17d ago·view on hn ↗
> There’s already a 3-4 year advanced degree in the United States with an optional thesis component...

There isn't.

And if you are trying to snarkily describe an MS, then most MS programs are too short.

> So why are they calling it a doctorate? I don’t see the point. It’s not like the NSF under this administration is particularly fond of STEM doctorates.

The I-PhD is basically a formalization of industry-sponsored PhDs based on the program site [0]

[0] - https://uidp.org/i-phd-scholars/

2 comments
> There isn't.

My coworkers holding such degrees would beg to differ.

> And if you are trying to snarkily describe an MS, then most MS programs are too short.

It wasn’t snarky, it was a listing of common points between the two. I don’t see what distinguishes this from a MS.

A year still isn’t enough time to write a doctoral-level thesis, so if the I-PhD is supposed to represent a “longer MS” then it’s still insufficient.

Where does an MS take more then 2 years?
I guess people doing night school maybe? That’s pretty clearly not what this is.
What are you referring to with "such degrees?" Just the name of the credential would be enough. The closest stuff I can think of is a JD or an MD, but otherwise there's no common graduate credential in the US that takes 3+ years full time, other than a PhD. I guess there are EdDs and PsyDs, but I've never heard of that sort of thing in engineering.

And to be pedantic, every single one of those credentials I've mentioned is a doctorate, even if it's not a PhD.

Is this for people who already have an MS, so 6 total?
No. It's basically allocating funding for 250 PhD seats across a couple top engineering programs (CMU, UCSD, UIUC, Columbia SEAS, Penn SEAS, etc) with the expectation that said research would be linked with an industrial partner (eg. HPE, Bayer, Nvidia)

Edit: I just reread your comment. I think it is for students who are already doing their MS or have previously done so and are applying to PhD programs

Probably also for students with “just” a bachelor’s. Most PhD students don’t enter with a master’s.

I do wonder if NSF is hoping to seed more industry-sponsored PhDs as well, e.g., the first will be funded by NSF to establish the program, and industry will fund more once the program gets going.

Definitely makes sense to me they call it a PhD, not a master’s. A PhD is more prestigious and signals the holder is ready and eager to do cutting-edge research and has some experience doing so.

There are all kinds of master’s degrees (I say as someone who has one) and reasons for getting them, so they’re not as strong a signal of anything in particular. And they can mean someone switched careers, someone dropped out of a PhD program, someone took advanced classes during undergrad, someone got a bachelor’s in one country and wanted to study and work in another, etc.

Re: Bayer - the non-health industry side? I'm surprised NIH hasn't rolled out something like this earlier, to be honest, with their increasing emphasis on commercialisation.
Huh, odd. I could see trying to get back to everyone normally finishing in 6. But 4 seems really short.