I agree with my collegue Tirath Das Dogra. The forensic scieces comprise a very large field of kwoledge and the subjests of study are very differentiated. Tody it's impossible to have a good command of all forensic disciplines because of the rapid progress of the science; in my opinion it's necessary and more usefull to make different courses of specialization for the different fields of the forensic sciences.

I agree that it is becoming more difficult as techniques in each area progress to be a true generalist (reflecting an ongoing difficulty in other areas including clinical medicine). I would also agree with Cynthia Zwart's comment above that nevertheless it is possible to have an overall view of forensic disciplines - such individuals can be key in directing the forensic strategy in homicides etc.

However as to whether it is worth doing a masters degree in as broad a topic as 'forensic science', I would say it depends on what your intention is in doing it. I am a pathologist and I undertook a postgraduate diploma in forensic medicine and science (an even more broad area!). I didnt do this with the intention of becoming an 'expert' in forensic science, or indeed an 'ill-baked quack', but rather to gain a greater basic understanding of the strengths and limitations of forensic sciences that I might interact with during my pathology practice. Understanding the difficulties other specialists face helps me interact with them more effectively.

Something broad gives you a thorough understanding which is of utmost importance as several forensic scenarios have become more multi-disciplinary than ever before. In my opinion it is your preferred specialization and application to case work that would in the end get you focused on one area and not the other. The concept of too broad needs to be assessed with reviews of what a degree is composed of. Is it too broad because for example analytical work is lacking in preference to evidence gathering or is it a question of too many instruments in your modules and can't get a solid grip on each of them?

There needs to be a balance. Take GSR for example. Being an expert on inorganics and SEM-EDS alone is not good enough as in recent years organics and chromatography started to play a role. So does that mean that inorganic chemists are lacking in knowledge? Certainly not! Their ethic requires them to absorb new ideas and meanings in the challenges that affect their work. Hence, you need a broad understanding to apply new knowledge along the way during your career as well. No degree course is totally prefect. But a good balance of sound principles is vital to key understandings in different applicable areas.

As in most practice professions, the influx of new knowledge far exceeds the ability to cover it all in the educational preparation of forensic practitioners. As such, a broad knowledge of Forensics, in my opinion, forms a basis for decisions about what specialized area in forensics an individual is most interested. Application of generalist principles at the baccalaureate level of practice, and progressing to specialized areas of practice at the master's level seems the most appropriate means to prepare forensic scientists.

I personally agree with you. There is a lot of branches of forensic science which all require expertise. In that sense we don't expect to see a Master graduate who is competent in all these fields of science. To be forensic science the following are some components which must be mastered

Chemistry

Biology

Toxicology

Drugs

Evidence

physics

Engineering

Anatomy

Pathology

Entomology

Odontology

Taphonomy

Anthropology

And so on.......

Yes, I agree with the answer of Mr. Petro Karungamye.