Hi all.
Long time reader, little time poster here.
Hope all is well with your own endeavours.

I have recently been pondering the benefits, or otherwise, of doing two masters. I have completed a masters by research (in history) and have been offered a place on a PhD. I couldn't take that up at the time.

I now have the possibility of doing a second masters by research in another university, with the possibility of that leading to a PhD.

As I think about it, I think it might not be a bad thing to do two masters by research. It would allow me to work on different methodologies before committing myself to a fuller research project in a PhD. I think it might improve the PhD significantly.

Has anyone else followed this route?

No, but i think if it is financially feesible then why not? Also, if your two research masters are in related topics, they both may contribute to the making of a better and more informed PhD. Good luck.

Hi. Thanks for your reply.

I guess it just boils down to a question of funding...

I'm not sure how worthwhile it'd be to do two Masters by research, particularly as you say the second 'has a possibility of leading to a PhD' rather than that it definitely will. If you did two taught Masters on different topics, I could see the point in that, but how much extra 'added value' are you going to get from that second MRes? Are you really going to learn *that* much that is new/different to your first one?

When you say it's possible to lead to a PhD, do you mean if you stayed on 3 more years you'll get a PhD and this depends on how well your Mres project goes, or it'll just improve your chances for applying to start a PhD from scratch? If it's the former than yes it sounds like a good idea (the first year of a PhD is always an Mres and is probative anyway). If it's the latter an PhD supervisor may look at it as if you were just doing something to fill your time.

I don't understand why you'd want to do two MRes courses. Perhaps 1 MRes and 1 MSc/MA...but I'd only do that if it was demanded by a higher authority...

Also, the first year of my PhD was not an MRes. And I've never done one, I did an MSc. It might have been nice if my first year was an MRes but it's been fine as it is.

Thank you for your kind replies my dear forum dwellers.

One consideration I had was that it may be significantly beneficial
to do research with two supervisors in two different institutions, in
what would be to most people closely related topic areas.

Another consideration is that I am of the opinion that a PhD should
be about mastering techniques and methodologies rather than forming a nice and pretty novel argument.

Or is that just wishy-washy?

A116 in science the first year is always an Mres. :/

"Another consideration is that I am of the opinion that a PhD should
be about mastering techniques and methodologies rather than forming a nice and pretty novel argument."

You can't write a thesis on the basis of 'I learnt to do X'. You'll be expected to have learnt how to do X. What a thesis needs to contain is what you did with that. You can learn as many techniques as you like, but that kind of thing is viewed as a given. Your examiners aren't going to be impressed by how many skills bixes you tick.

I really can't see any point in doing two MRes degrees. There comes a point where you just need to get on with a PhD and learn further methodologies 'on the job'. It's not like you'll have got to grips with all methodologies by doing two MRes degrees or a PhD - you'll carry on learning these things thereafter. So if there's any way you could get on and do a PhD straight away, that's the route I'd take.

*boxes

I haven't even got a masters and I'm getting on fine with my PhD, gawd knows why you need two! I was probably a bit weak on stats at the beginning but that wasn't hard to catch up with. In hindsight I probably could've done with doing an MRes/MSc first but thats not how things panned out.

Personally I think two masters is a waste, especially two MRes. If I was a prospective supervisor I wouldn't think 'Oh my, what a diligent student we have here'. I'd think 'what a show-off, no thanks!'

And as hazyjane says, you can't just list the techniques you've mastered to get a thesis...else any old git could do a PhD.
You sure you know what a PhD is? I think you need a bit of a reality check to be honest.

Could you please explain why you think I need a bit of a reality check?

Thank you HazyJane for your reply.
What you say makes a lot of sense in many ways.

I think the responses are self-explanatory and I second that you need a bit of a reality check. That's because you don't appear to understand the nature and purpose of doctoral research. It's not all about methods and techniques!

Jouri, I also wrote the following.

One consideration I had was that it may be significantly beneficial
to do research with two supervisors in two different institutions, in
what would be to most people closely related topic areas.

Do you also think that not worthwhile? and sufficient justification for doing two research degrees?