This is something I have been thinking about recently because I have done some work in the past with underprivileged youth regarding educational advancement.  I will preface this by saying that this is not a global criteria for the award of degrees, but from my own anecdotal knowledge of having gone through the process myself and being engaged as an educator in various contexts of this.

Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of Knowledge breaks knowledge down into four key areas:  factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.  I used those as keys to helping secondary students understand the collegiate environment:

From my experience (and my philosophy of undergraduate teaching), factual knowledge is at the heart of a bachelor's degree.  Many classes are aimed at facts, terminology, and details.  Advanced undergraduate courses move more into conceptual knowledge.

The masters degree has its heart in conceptual knowledge and the beginnings of procedural knowledge.  The master's degree teaches theories and models, classifications, categorizations, principles, and generalizations.  For context, work I did in my masters degree related to extending the rationale of particular models to other contexts, exploring what could happen given the use of a particular model.  My master's works included:

A masters degree also weaves in the beginning elements of procedural knowledge, using subject specific algorithms and procedures.  My rule of thumb is that a masters student should be able to converse with academics in their specific subfield.  In my case, that was qualitative spatial reasoning.  A master of science has mastered the science of their field (loosely speaking).

The doctoral degree is highly procedural and metacognitive in nature.  The letters associated with the degree (PhD) refer to doctor of philosophy.  A PhD should understand how their field comes to ways of thinking and why.  That would include diagnosing techniques for solving problems with appropriate rationale, applying knowledge strategically, contextual and conditional knowledge, and ultimately self-knowledge.  My advisor told me that a PhD is awarded for a shift of paradigm (a game changer for a field).  In my case, I brought specific reasoning processes together to create a more powerful reasoning system that would help to solve substantial problems in the artificial intelligence community with regard to understanding space.  If you think about the tasks that a PhD goes on to complete, they become professors who have to teach the next generation of scientists in that field.  While a master can communicate with their discipline, a doctor needs to communicate across disciplines.  My doctoral work included:

So what I am saying here is in general.  It is important to push students up this chain at the pace that they can handle.  As you move through the taxonomy, the level of knowledge has to increase and has to shift in style.

Hopefully this is of some help to you in your quest.

This is something I have been thinking about recently because I have done some work in the past with underprivileged youth regarding educational advancement.  I will preface this by saying that this is not a global criteria for the award of degrees, but from my own anecdotal knowledge of having gone through the process myself and being engaged as an educator in various contexts of this.

Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of Knowledge breaks knowledge down into four key areas:  factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.  I used those as keys to helping secondary students understand the collegiate environment:

From my experience (and my philosophy of undergraduate teaching), factual knowledge is at the heart of a bachelor's degree.  Many classes are aimed at facts, terminology, and details.  Advanced undergraduate courses move more into conceptual knowledge.

The masters degree has its heart in conceptual knowledge and the beginnings of procedural knowledge.  The master's degree teaches theories and models, classifications, categorizations, principles, and generalizations.  For context, work I did in my masters degree related to extending the rationale of particular models to other contexts, exploring what could happen given the use of a particular model.  My master's works included:

A masters degree also weaves in the beginning elements of procedural knowledge, using subject specific algorithms and procedures.  My rule of thumb is that a masters student should be able to converse with academics in their specific subfield.  In my case, that was qualitative spatial reasoning.  A master of science has mastered the science of their field (loosely speaking).

The doctoral degree is highly procedural and metacognitive in nature.  The letters associated with the degree (PhD) refer to doctor of philosophy.  A PhD should understand how their field comes to ways of thinking and why.  That would include diagnosing techniques for solving problems with appropriate rationale, applying knowledge strategically, contextual and conditional knowledge, and ultimately self-knowledge.  My advisor told me that a PhD is awarded for a shift of paradigm (a game changer for a field).  In my case, I brought specific reasoning processes together to create a more powerful reasoning system that would help to solve substantial problems in the artificial intelligence community with regard to understanding space.  If you think about the tasks that a PhD goes on to complete, they become professors who have to teach the next generation of scientists in that field.  While a master can communicate with their discipline, a doctor needs to communicate across disciplines.  My doctoral work included:

So what I am saying here is in general.  It is important to push students up this chain at the pace that they can handle.  As you move through the taxonomy, the level of knowledge has to increase and has to shift in style.

Hopefully this is of some help to you in your quest.