Can anybody please explain to me what the difference is between a taught masters and a research masters. I have asked a variety of people yet have failed come to a conclusion on how the two differ. I'm curious to know if the main differences are in their length, level of supervision or hours of teaching/lecture time. If anyone can help I'd really appreciate it.

in most cases, a taught masters last one academic year, whereas a research masters often (but not always) lasts one whole year, ie. sept-sept. in a taught course, the vast majority of the course will consist of taught lectures/practicals etc, with maybe a short project at the end which may last a couple of months. a research masters is generally a few months of taught lectures, and then a large project (in my case it was 6 months lectures followed by a 6 month project, but this may differ subject to subject). in general, a research masters is geared more towards students who wish to continue onto more research such as a phd, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a better choice! if you are deciding between a taught and a research, i would go for the one that is most relevant to you and what you intend to do in the future rather than worry too much about what type of masters it is. generally, a masters is a masters and as long as you get a good grade it shouldn't matter to a potential supervisor/employer which type you did, as long as the skills/knowledge you acquired is relevant.

hope this helps, any more questions then just ask! :-)

As a general rule I was under the impression that an MSc was about 50:50 teaching to research, whereas an MRes was 30:70 teaching to research.

Which to choose depends on what you want to get out of it. If you've got some research experience but need to acquire knowledge of different field, then an MSc would be a good option. If you've already got a fairly specialist knowledge but need some research experience, then an MRes might be better for you.