All I can say is - I certainly hope not.
I've been building models (primarily ships, but sometimes aircraft, figures, and various other things) for more than fifty years. I don't consider myself a "master modeler." I learn something about modeling every week - if not every day.
To my knowledge there's only one phase of modeling that does bestow such labels: model railroading. I haven't kept up with such things for many years, but I believe the National Model Railroad Association gives a "Master Modeler Award." In order to get it, the candidate needs to build a working locomotive from scratch, design an electronic circuit (and prove that it works), leap a tall building with a single bound, etc., etc., etc. If the model railroaders want to operate that way, that's certainly their business; it's not for me to tell them they shouldn't. But it's surely obvious that the fields covered by the FSM Forum are so diverse and varied that virtually nobody would be likely to satisfy any set of standards that could be agreed upon by all of them.
For example, it could reasonably be argued that the title "master modeler" should only go to people who've demonstrated big achievements in scratchbuilding. How many modelers have scratchbuilt creditable models of (a) a tank, (b) a biplane, (c) a machine from a science fiction movie, (d) an eighteenth-century soldier, on 54mm scale, (e) an automobile, (f) a modern warship, and (g) an eighteenth-century sailing ship?
Modelers (like people in other many other forms of endeavor, I guess) tend to toss phrases like that around pretty indiscriminately. Two others that I don't like: "professional quality" and "museum quality." Both of them, really, are oxymorons: terms that contradict themselves. (Other famous examples: "jumbo shrimp," "airline food," and "military intelligence.")
The word "professional" simply and literally means that the person in question gets paid for doing whatever it is that he/she does. Whether a person gets paid for building a model has absolutely nothing to do with how good a model is. (The professional, charging by the hour, often finds it necessary to take short cuts that the amateur, with no deadline to worry about, won't even consider.)
And I spent three years working in a maritime museum. Believe me, there's no such thing as a "museum quality model." Some of the lousiest models I've ever seen have been in museums. "Quality," as it's normally defined in this Forum, is only one of many considerations a museum looks at when it decides whether or not to accept a model. If the model is a donation (especially if the donor is a friend of the president of the board of trustees), many a museum will accept it, regardless of what it looks like. On the other hand, suppose I'm a curator of a maritime museum and somebody brings in a model of the Mayflower with a lopsided hull hacked from balsa wood, sails made from burlap, rigging made from what looks like kite string, and cannons made from old nails. If he proudly announces that he built it himself last week, I'll tell him what a beautiful thing it is and get him out the door as quickly and politely as possible. If he offers me documentary proof that it was built by a sailor on board the Mayflower in 1620, I'll start a campaign to raise half a million dollars so I can buy it.
My firm recommendation to modelers has always been, and continues to be: build models for our satisfaction (or, if you are in fact a professional, to your customers' satisfaction). If you think it's a good model, let that be enough. Putting some sort of label on it, or you, won't make it, or you, any better.