[HelgeSeetzen]

There is value in a Masters because it introduces a new mode of research beyond the bachelor (self-directed investigation vs. learning by rote).

The downside of the Masters is that it is a degree without role. It doesn't qualify you for anything more than the bachelor does (e.g. grants, faculty positions, entry to certain "degree conscious" societies, etc.). Those things don't matter in a lot of cases but the incremental time cost is so small that it would seem worth it to do a PhD instead.

Your PhD really shouldn't take 6-7 years. Realistically, the Masters should cover all your course requirements so the incremental time should be 1-2 years. If that's not the case then you have a time management problem which is a major problem for any contemplated entrepreneurial activities as well.

[neilc]

Your PhD really shouldn't take 6-7 years. Realistically, the Masters should cover all your course requirements so the incremental time should be 1-2 years.

At least for a CS PhD in the US, this is not the case: even if you enter with a Master's, finishing in 4 years is usually typical. Of course, it depends on the school, area of study, adviser, and the student.