There is grammatical ellipsis, which in general case might not introduce the sense of accelerated time, but quite the reverse, depending on how hard is it to parse, for example:
The average person thinks he isn't.
The parsing here needs backtracking which slows the reading, but gives an effect of delayed and double, in-depth comprehension.
In terms of pure effect, look at diazeugma
The figure by which a single subject governs several verbs or verbal constructions (usually arranged in parallel fashion and expressing a similar idea):
The Romans destroyed Numantia, razed Carthage, obliterated Corinth, overthrew Fregellae.
Wikipedia defines Diazaugma Disjunction:
The subject appears at the beginning of the sentence and each verb follows in its respective clause.
EDIT:
As I said - for pure effect this is diazeugma, but the problem is that the text is agrammatical and the figures apply to grammatically correct texts. However, I think that is a narrow view. I find this text explains the matter in appropriate detail, from which I will only very shortly cite:
Almost 30 years ago, in An Alternate Style: Options in Composition (now out of print), Winston Weathers made a strong case for going beyond strict definitions of correctness when teaching style. Students should be exposed to a wide range of styles, he argued, including the "variegated, discontinuous, fragmented" forms used to great effect by Coetzee, Dickens, Mencken, and countless other writers.
Finally, thanks to @Cerberus, under the same relaxed rules, the figure can be considered asyndeton, from wikipedia example
"We must... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
Finally, the reason why I want to be tolerant of the fullstops is that I find it interesting and rewarding to interpret them as commas, but with certain dramatic pause of undetermined length and tend to read the text as an internal monologue of the storyteller.
For answer on how common is this (I assume in literature?) head to literature.
Best Answer
Firstly, a master's degree is not proper and therefore does not require capitalization, but personally I've seen several highly professional institutions spell it both ways.
Seeing as how all three of those sentences are grammatically sound, it's more a question of etiquette or regional custom. Like Peter Shor was saying, it's not wrong to say that you took your master's degree in somewhere but you may have to use caution repeating prepositions.
e.g. I took my master's degree in astrophysics in the University of Somewhere
Using in twice is potentially awkward in situations where you may need to elaborate on your area of study.
To answer your question, all of those examples are grammatically strong and should get the message across appropriately anywhere you go.
On an editorial note, however, there are some ways to bypass this dilemma by opting for more colorful words:
I (received, earned, attained) a master's degree after (studying in/at, attending, graduating from) the University of Somewhere.
Play it right and you'll sound like a Nobel Laureate, but all of your sentences will work well; none of them is really noticeably better, even on paper.