[rubidium]

Eh, there's a lot of good in academia too. It's just the people who have good experiences are busy with their lives for the most part.

My experience was great. I got paid to do 6 years of learning and experimental work by the government (thank you DOD and NSF) on the coldest states of matter in the universe. I traveled the world for free and hang out with Nobel prize winners. I was surrounded by bright and a few world-class brilliant people. I didn't have any real deadlines. I got to write and publish papers trying to explain my work.

Now, the post-doc/professor rat race is only for those who are truly called to the field. My plan was PhD->industry the whole time.

[arjunrc]

Mind if you share the University you went to?

I'm a Post Grad from Gatech myself, and from what I've seen this wasn't the norm.

Also, I wonder how different the pay/career options are for a PhD in industry vs. having a Masters in the same field.

[arcanus]

I had a similar experience to rubidium. (Texas Ph.d., here, although in computational science, not a vile experimentalist ;) )

I've seldom seen an argument suggesting that the pay between Ph.d. and masters is substantial, or even advantageous (on average). Ph.d. is about becoming an expert and leader in a research field. It is not about the $$ or ROI.

On the other hand, in terms of career options, the differences are often quite substantial. Ph.d. is much more likely to be in a small research team than in the line of fire for a deliverable. Much more likely to be working in a laboratory somewhat independently/autonomously. Because of the predilection towards independent, high-risk/reward work, I have seen some recruiters and VP/engineering who are hesitant to add doctorates to typical engineering teams, as they gravitate towards different sorts of problems.