[XorNot]

My lesson from my failed Ph.D (graduated with a Master's in Chemistry after far too long) is that after the first year take a long critical look at what you're planning to accomplish and whether you really made the progress you needed too.

I didn't, and simply tried to power ahead on the assumption I'd pull it out of the fire: this was absolutely the wrong conclusion. You already have a university degree, and you'll get paid more in industry: the right answer is to abandon ship it you're not looking at a clear path ahead by then.

[chrisseaton]

A first year is a pretty harsh deadline to set yourself to know what you’re doing. Most people I know’s PhDs only came together in the last 18 months of their degree.

[natechols]

For most people in my program and others like it (molecular biology, US) the decision point tended to be at the end of the second year, after the qualifying exam(s). This is because the first year tends to be full of lab rotations and some classes, and you don't really start doing research until nine months in.

[XorNot]

My program was pure research, so I'd say that decision point lines up pretty well with the "1 year of research in, are you looking good?"

Though it seems weird to me to be in classes and labs without it being associated with it's own academic achievement (did that qualify as a certificate of any sort?)

[natechols]

If you dropped out after passing the qualifying exam, you got an MS.