If you need someone to hold your hand every other week perhaps you shouldn’t go into academics. You should be operating autonomous at that point.
Your supervisor should at different times, as appropriate, wear the collaborator cap or the examiner cap. During the course of your project, he should be your collaborative advisor who helps you flesh out ideas and improve them. At the start and end, he should be your formal examiner.
This is how I have seen most Masters (and PhD) projects proceed in Physics in North America.
This notion that Masters are for academia is so contrary to my experience altogether. They are not even associated with research, in my experience. What I have seen is:
* BSc: General professionals.
* MSc: More specialized professionals.
* PhD: Baseline for research, but more often than not just doing even more specialized work than folks with MSc.
* Postdocs: Actual researchers, including but not limited to academic careers.
You would not do high school without primary school, right?
The way to get a PHD is to get an bachelor's degree first, then masters degree.
I've seen many people who are quite competent under close supervision but completely clueless on their own.
We could debate if academia would be better off with different approach though.
Being able to work on complicated research topics on your own is what universities are centrally preparing for.
If you really need close supervision, you likely are not made for academia or often not even for a course of studies at a university.
Yes, this is a harsh truth, but academia is really a brutal game of sink or swim.
In Germany, the master degree is considered as such. Basically the final test before you decide for or against "the whole brutal game of joining a doctoral study program".
A professor that I know clearly said: "In a master's thesis I expect something scientifically novel. It does not have to be something deep, but if you want 'a 1 before the comma' (in Germany, the grading at a uninversity goes from 1,0 to 5,0 where 5,0 means 'failed'), it has to be something scientifically novel. The number after the mark is to distinguish whether it is really a deep discovery or not."
Be also culturally aware that in practice, for a final thesis
- 1.0 means "good",
- 1.3 means "average",
- 1.7 means "bad",
- everything below (from 2.0 on) basically means "failure" (you get a degree, but are marked as failure).
So, the professor clearly stated that every grade for a master thesis that "is not in practice a failure grade" means "some novel scientific discovery". And every grade that is better than "in practice 'bad'" means "some very non-trivial scientific discovery".
I know that many professors think this way, though most of them would phrase this more diplomatically.