Is it true that earning a master's of science is more rigorous and prestigious than a master's of arts?

The assertion that earning a master's of science is inherently more rigorous or prestigious than a master's of arts is not universally true. Both types of degrees serve distinct purposes and have different focuses. A master's of science typically emphasizes quantitative methods and empirical research, often leaning towards technical or scientific disciplines, while a master's of arts may focus on qualitative aspects and broader conceptual frameworks within the field.

The prestige of each degree often depends on the specific program, institution, and the individual's career goals. For example, in some fields, a master's of arts might be highly regarded, while in others, a master's of science could hold more weight. The distinction between the two degrees lies more in their curricular design and focus rather than an absolute measure of rigor or prestige. Moreover, it's essential to recognize that different institutions may value and structure these degrees differently, which adds to the complexity of determining one degree's superiority over the other.