I have a PhD and never really bought into that "must be your one burning passion" stuff. To me it was a job. I could have been happy in plenty of other jobs...I just didn't know what they were. Academia was a more legible path. Turned out it sucks though.

You don't get a PhD in the hard sciences for fun. In addition to doing a ton of work, there's hazing. It's pretty miserable, but necessary if you want to work in a lab science. You just have to get through it.

There's tons of attrition, so you really really have to want it to finish, in addition to being good enough and having enough political savvy to navigate the power games that take place between professors. Of the 16 in my grad school class who started, only 5 finished with a PhD. Top 10 school, too. Theses were all really good students. It's just a miserable gauntlet.

It all depends on her field. PhD may or may not be needed for what she wants to do. I think she should arrange informational interviews with people who have the kind of careers she is interested in, especially if there are both PhDs and non-PhDs with similar jobs.

Anonymous wrote:It's not the narrow field thing that gets you. It's the question if why am I here. You're going to be making a Mac of 40000 when you could be getting at least 80000 in private industry. You'll probably fail an exam, get a paper rejected, ultimately come to this thing of why am I here. And if you can't answer that, you'll probably leave. I have a PhD and I really wanted it. I wanted it in the core of myself. It was hard to imagine me doing what I wanted to do without a PhD.

I found a topic that I could work with enough to get out and got out. But it's not an easy road.

Can you please elaborate on what you wanted to do?

It's not the narrow field thing that gets you. It's the question if why am I here. You're going to be making a Mac of 40000 when you could be getting at least 80000 in private industry. You'll probably fail an exam, get a paper rejected, ultimately come to this thing of why am I here. And if you can't answer that, you'll probably leave. I have a PhD and I really wanted it. I wanted it in the core of myself. It was hard to imagine me doing what I wanted to do without a PhD.

I found a topic that I could work with enough to get out and got out. But it's not an easy road.

If you are admitted to a STEM
PhD program in US and pass your quals, you can then quit with an MS degree. And since usually STEM PhD are free plus salary, you get a free master with no debt.
Something to consider (but don’t tell that to admissions 😉)

DH has a PhD and I do not. For his career, he 100% needs it. That said, I think his choice to get the PhD as a 22 year old was pretty random. He was also looking at professional degree programs and kind of fell into the PhD - not hugely passionate. Upside was phD was paid for while professional degree would not have been so he graduated with no debt.

I applied to both MS and PhD and ended up with an MS. For me, not having a PhD has been somewhat career limiting. I’ve done well, but there are paths that are not open to me on account of my lack of degree. I wouldn’t necessarily go back and do anything differently, and I have a couple of phDs that report to me, but it has limited the type of roles I’m qualified for.

I got a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago because I was working at Starbucks and had no idea what to do with the rest of my life. She should not do that. PPs had good advice working for a few years before deciding whether to do the degree. Among my cohort, the biggest regret was not taking time between undergrad and grad.

Of course, the topic of interest is important to keep your interest and stay on task. But I do not think that is the test of whether you should get a PhD.

It is whether you need it for the career you hope to pursue.

A phd can go fast if it’s a topic of Interest
Often there is a stipend and campus housing.

Not that she has to have a narrow interest in one topic, but she should be quite sure she wants a career that requires a PhD (such as being a professor or scientist who supports herself on grants).

Most people would benefit from working before getting a PhD just to be sure that they indeed like the kind of work that a PhD leads to. Because yes, it kind of paints you into a corner. And there is a large opportunity cost to earning that credential.

(But, if you want the career of a researcher, it is worth it. Just be sure that you know what that life entails.)

If one wants to work in scientific research, a PhD in that science field is normally required, much like a union card for an electrician in NYC.

That said, one can do one’s PhD in the UK or Canada, where graduation is predictably 3-4 years after finishing one’s undergrad in the same field. Those degrees are equally valid, but avoid the unpredictable timing of most US PhD programs. A science PhD from Oxbridge or Imperial College London would be universally acceptable, for example.

I don't personally have PhD but I have 4 friends who started one after undergrad and various family members who have PhDs. You're entirely correct, OP. You can get a Master's as a means to an ends no problem (I did) but you won't finish a PhD unless you're genuinely super into what you're studying. 2 of my 4 undergrad friends never finished their PhDs (and one's a lawyer now so clearly the smarts and determination was her issue).

Yes, I would def agree.

My college kid talks about post-graduate plans and often mentions wanting to get a PhD, but her statements often point to seeking some external reward (e.g. " so I can go do this afterwards") and the PhD topic also changes from time to time.

I've been telling her that you really need to have a pretty burning desire to explore a narrow topic in depth in order to pursue a PhD, because it's too many years of your life and a lot of grinding work to just do it for some hypothetical reward after you graduate. If you have a PhD, would you agree with this characterization?