What makes this terrible advice? Is there something in particular about landing a job at Google that makes it objectively better in every value system than continuing with a PhD that one is already seeking?

I left a very good position on the table after my undergrad, in favor of pursuing a graduate degree. I weighed my options and decided that I would rather spend some years in my youth learning how to conduct research -- lessons I believed, and still believe, will carry through into my future endeavors. I picked up an excellent job after my Master's (at the same place I had left behind previously!) and am very happy with how things played out.

I realize this is the best possible outcome, but what makes this general arc such a bad idea?

> What makes this terrible advice?

Some PhD programs focus on non-marketable topics that don't help candidates develop marketable skills, and exist only to dump the research group's drudge work on an unsuspecting soul.

Wasting years of your life in a low-pay low opportunity dead-end job that's prone to abuse just to pursuit a pipe dream is not a great career move, particularly if the alternative is landing a job at Google.

This is all true! Entering into a graduate program without being fully aware of what you’re embarking on and what you’re getting out of it is a bad idea. But I would argue this generalizes beyond just grad school.

Some people enjoy scholarship and research. There are places that support this. To generalize only slightly unfairly, most of industry is not conducive to this kind of personal goal. Pipe dream it may be, but we still have artists and musicians.

> I picked up an excellent job after my Master's (at the same place I had left behind previously!)

It sounds like you would agree that joining a PhD program is not a good idea.

It sounds like you have read far, far too much into my message.

You can get an offer from Google many times if you are good, getting a PhD offer from MIT, even if you are good, won't come that many times.

An MIT Phd opens many doors in many areas and will do throughout your life. Trust me, you won’t always be young and you won’t always be interested in the same thing.

It shouldn’t be, but it is way more difficult to get high level professional qualifications when you’re older. The expectation that reaearch students are young is quite embedded.

How much is expectations vs the reality of life circumstances? I’m mid-40s and almost surely slightly slower in raw intellect than I was 20 years ago, but being married with two young kids is much more of a limitation on my ability to earn a PhD or even MBA than any inate degradation.

A lot of people would salivate at the opportunity to become a Googler. Some of us actively shoo away the recruiters. To each their own, but I would have made the same choice.

For the most part a software engineering job at google is pretty mediocre from a coding perspective. Most people hired there will never work on cutting edge tech. For the enlightened few its amazing. This is speaking strictly about the work, and not the money/prestige/perks.

There's a lot to a particular individual's situation and life goals to indicate whether the advice is bad or not (for them).

It’s almost always better to achieve for yourself instead of others. A PhD. is infinitely more valuable than a couple of years working for any company, especially if your subject is interesting enough to on-spot hire you before you finish.

And I say that as a manager who’s hired a lot of people before they earned X because their work was interesting. I don’t do it anymore, as a rule, because it crushed a lot of those people with regret later and I have to live with that.

I'm not sure about that - my N=1

I went to a State school and got an economics degree, I started my career as a SQL-lackey for a B.I department in declining midwestern retailer, but I treated my career like graduate school insofar that I worked hard at it.

About 4 years after my first day of professional work, I started as a data scientist at a FANG. My team of 9 had 3 Ph.Ds (all science Ph. Ds). As I understood it, the Ph.Ds do receive higher compensation but it's not that much more (~18% higher base) and if I really kick butt, I can out earn them with bonuses.

But I think my path was much easier and lucrative. I was able to save ~$100k, I had a standard of living above that of a regular graduate student and I had flexibility that they would dream of. I made 4 years worth of contacts of my profession, I

I'm sure some Ph.Ds are worth it as investments, but if you're interested in renumeration, get working.

Can't you offer them the job with starting date when they are scheduled to finish?

Why did it crush them? Shouldn't the job they agreed to take with you have set them up for success? Or did they not perform well and find themselves unemployed?

I think it’s easiest to explain like this.

You don’t get a lot of opportunities to earn a PhD, most people never get the chance. By comparison almost everyone in CS get a lot of truly great job opportunities in their lives.

That’s a PhD, we had a habit of hiring people before their finished they CS degrees because skilled people were so hard to come by back in the day. They have good careers as far as I know, but they would have had much better opportunities if they had finished their degrees, and some of them haven’t taken that well.

Maybe they wanted to hire so they can patent it because some of the work was done during their employment?

Off topic