text:
If I have a low GPA in undergrad, and want to get into top PhD programs, should I do an MS degree or redo my undergrad degree?
I want to get into specifically top schools (in materials science and engineering) because I want to have a decent shot at being a professor.
I am aware that quite a few people have successfully done an MS and went on to top PhD programs, but my concern is that because the MS GPA is so inflated, it won't help me in my case. I already have a first author publication soon to be submitted, so my research experiences have been covered well, and my uGPA of 3.1 is my only weakness. Remember, I am trying to get into top schools, where they get so many applications that they are seeking any reason to throw them out.
Because undergrad GPAs are less inflated, I was thinking that doing a whole another undergrad might be more helpful in letting me demonstrate an improvement academically. In addition, some schools require specifically an undergrad GPA limit, apparently without regards to whether the applicant has an MS degree or not. But at the same time, since I would be repeating the same thing, they might not see it as that much of an improvement.
What do you think?

A second undergrad degree would be a colossal waste of time. Go do a masters degree, get stellar grades, more research experience, and strong letters of recommendation while you're there, and you'll be fine.

Also see How do you get a bad transcript past Ph.D. admissions? and How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?

I was thinking that an MS wasn't such a bad idea, and it would have been what I would have decided to do without hesitation, but the classes are curved higher, and apparently not taken very seriously. From your 2nd link, a reply by JeffE: "In particular, at many universities, classes taken by terminal master's students are easier than the corresponding classes taken by undergraduates".

Then why not do research masters?

You're not going to get into a top PhD program because of amazing masters grades. You'll get into a top PhD program because the additional research you do and glowing letters of recommendation you get during the masters will show that your undergrad grades are irrelevant to your ability to do high quality research. (And also show that by the way, in case you were worried, the grades won't be a problem because you've turned that situation around.)

Research is important, but it's quite well known that GPA is used as a cutoff, so that is why I am concerned. Do you think that the inflated MS GPA won't be much of a problem?

As others have said, getting a second undergrad degree is a waste of time.  Don't bother.
The unfortunate truth is that your undergrad GPA may keep you out of top PhD programs even if you have a Master's degree with a perfect GPA and multiple journal publications.
Top engineering graduate programs receive hundreds or even thousands of applicants every year.  Despite what others may tell you, they're not looking for an excuse to reject applicants because it keeps their US News rating high.  They're looking for excuses to reject because there are far too many applications to judge each one on its merits, and far too many highly qualified applicants to admit them all, and the committee members are faculty who have many other demands on their time and who want sleep occasionally.  In some departments, applications are filtered by GPA even before the first human committee member reads them.
By far the best way over that hurdle is to cultivate a champion -- a faculty member who is active and visible in their research community, who will write you glowing letters describing your strong potential for independent research (in personal, technical, and credible detail), and who will call up their colleagues in other departments to tell them to watch for your application.  The goal here is to interest someone in your target department enough to rescue your application from knee-jerk rejection and evaluate it on its own merits.
And then your application needs to shine on its own merits.  It must provide compelling evidence of your strong potential for independent research.  Yes, your graduate GPA is a (small) part of this, but you need to sell yourself primarily as a future researcher, if not a current researcher, not just someone who excels at classes.  Moreover, this evidence needs to be stronger than for other applicants with higher undergraduate GPAs.  Do not assume that one first-author publication is enough.
All that said... Focusing on research and finding a champion will improve your chances of being admitted to a top program, but they will not guarantee anything.  In particular, even with a strong research record and vocal champions, you may still be rejected because of your undergrad GPA.  Admissions is best considered a random process; the most you (or anyone) can do is improve your odds.
Incidentally, the same advice goes for your longer-term goal of getting a faculty position.  Yes, having a degree from a non-top-10 department makes it harder to get an academic position, but you can work against that disadvantage by developing a killer research portfolio and multiple champions (not just your advisor).  Conversely, a PhD from a top-10 department will not guarantee you success on the faculty job market; you also need a killer research portfolio and multiple champions (not just your advisor).  Start developing that now.

The idea of a champion is key. Everyone knows someone who punched far above what their resume might have suggested. This works even better if they have active connections at schools you are targeting.

First, let me state that I am currently in a PhD program in a top school in the US. My undergrad GPA was from an engineering program in the top engineering school in my home country. It was 3.65. Compared to others who applied to my PhD program my GPA was probably below average. (Engineering is hard, yo!, and my school graded on a strict curve that permitted only 20% of the class to get A's)
I agree with others who have said that doing another undergraduate degree would be a waste of time. Having said that, you may want to do a post-bac or something similar if you don't want to go the masters route. This will at least allow you to get some more undergrad grades to bring your GPA up and cross the cutoff threshold. I also think that this would be a waste of time though, assuming you have at least the minimum GPA to get past the first review.
The issue with GPA is that many top schools use undergrad GPA to make themselves seem highly selective, and this is a stat that they are judged on in US News and World Report (That's my perception having talked with my program director in my PhD program). They like to have students with high undergrad GPAs, but not every student needs to have a stellar undergrad GPA.
The downside of doing the post-bac is that if you don't get into the program you want, all you have are some extra undergrad classes and a new student loan, and no "network".
Here's my suggestion.

talk with the program directors for the PhD programs you're interested in and ask them what they suggest. They may say that your undergrad GPA is super important, or they may say focus on the GRE and letters of recommendation and your research. They may also tell you if they think your GPA would completely preclude you from consideration.
Assuming the undergrad GPA isn't going to kill your application immediately, consider doing a masters at one of your preferred PhD universities. make sure you crush the GRE, since that's a relevant entry criteria for most schools. This will do a couple of things.

First, it will give you another set of grades, at the university to which you're applying. These grades will mean something and provide easy context for the admissions committee. e.g. if you do classes at Harvard and apply to Harvard, they should know what your Harvard grades mean. If you do classes at USC and apply to Harvard, Harvard may not know what your USC grades mean. e.g. is an A at USC the same as one at Harvard?
Second, it will allow you to become acquainted with professors at your preferred school. This could be the thing that gets you in. If you have someone on the admissions committee who would vouch for you and agrees to be your adviser, you have a much stronger shot of getting in no matter what the rest of your application looks like. If the faculty know you, they are more likely to admit you assuming you're a good student among your peers!
Lastly, if all else fails, when you graduate the masters, you'll have a masters from a good school, and even if you don't get accepted to that school for your PhD, your masters at a good school with good grades will signal to other schools that you are a competitive applicant (again, this presumes your undergrad GPA doesn't torpedo your app before the admissions committee even looks at it.
All this being said, it's still a bit of a crapshoot. I'm in a PhD program at a good school. I teach a class that many of the masters students who want to go on to the PhD program take. The class is regarded as the hardest quantitative class in the school. It's a requirement for the PhD students. Several of the masters students who have done exceptionally well in this class who have applied to the PhD program have been rejected in their PhD application (but ended up at other great schools). Others have been accepted. I'm not sure how much of an influence this class has, but I haven't seen anyone who has done badly in the class get accepted. At the school you apply to, there will probably be one or two classes like this. Typically they are classes you'd have to take in the PhD program if you're accepted anyway. Make sure you take those and do well. This reduces the uncertainty both for you and the faculty about your ability to succeed in the PhD program should you be accepted.
Good luck!

Thank you for your response. Are there any actual post-bac programs for engineering though? I have a hard time finding them, as opposed to MS programs or just retaking undergrad courses as a non-degree seeking student. And the fact that undergrad GPA, not Masters GPA, is being used to calculate rankings seems like another reason to do something that is closer to undergrad.

my GPA was probably below average — I wouldn't take that bet.

and no "network". — If you're going through any degree program without creating a network, you're doing it wrong.

+1 for If you have someone on the admissions committee who would vouch for you and agrees to be your adviser, you have a much stronger shot of getting in no matter what the rest of your application looks like. — This is by far the most important point.

Moreover, it has been indicated by many that yes a solid gpa in a masters degree program and an excellent explanation describing why your undergraduate gpa is low might help in certain circumstances. Research experience is a big plus as well. Not all is dead!

I have an answer for you, but you and other people might not like it.
In my opinion, you would look exceedingly foolish and naïve to re-do your undergraduate program or do another undergraduate program.
Understand, I'm almost 50 years old. Nobody is going to give a damn about your 3.1 GPA if you excel at your master level work. If you get a 3.9 or higher in your master level work, that will look very good. But if you create a phenomenal master paper on top of that, you'll be good-to-go. Don't worry about "the top school". Instead, worry about whether or not it's accredited.
Long ago, one of my professors told me that students are way too worried about their GPAs. This professor was highly respected in the structural engineering field and had written his own textbook on structural analysis.
In my opinion, if you re-do your undergraduate program or complete another undergraduate degree, I'd say you're not exhibiting mature, adult judgment. It would look very amateurish and inexperienced in life.

worry about whether or not it's accredited — "Accredited" is a pretty low bar, especially for someone aiming for an academic position.


text:
Leaving academia - what to do with the personal website?
I have a question about "post-academia" personal websites. The question is open-ended and fuzzy because I am not 100% certain with what I would like to do, so I am also looking for suggestions.
Some background first.
I will soon finish my PhD and I will probably leave academia permanently for an industry job (and most likely it will not include any research). Despite leaving academia I am not abandoning my work and my academic credentials. In future (at least in the next 5-10 years) I would like to

brand myself as a professional in the field with an emphasis on my academic contributions (I think that if someone googles my name and as the first result is listed my academic page that can only be positive for my image)
remain open to a potential collaboration with academia (e.g. projects that my company finds interesting; reviewing papers for conferences)
remain open to sporadically co-author papers that are related to my previous research (e.g. someone reads my paper, finds my work interesting enough to ask me to contribute to his future paper, but realises that I am not anymore in academia so gets a wrong impression that I am closed to such offers -> I would like to avoid that).

Now goes the question.
As many academics, I have a personal website with my research interests, projects, publications, and so on. I would like to retain that website, but I have no idea how to design it in the way it is sustainable and not dead for many years to come. I have seen that former researchers leave personal websites on the server of their former departments, but they look quite dead with an obsolete email as contact, old photograph, last update 10 years ago, etc.
But on the other hand, probably I will also not have any new content to fill since I will not be writing papers anymore, and my field is not like architecture where architects have websites with their portfolio even when they work for a large company.
How to design a "post-academic" website in the way it is sustainable? What content to put? Do you have any examples of successful webpages of former researchers?
Edit: I forgot to note that I have a Linkedin profile, but I don't find it as a good replacement for a personal website.
Edit 2: I'd like to make a website that is sustainable irregardless of the job and company I will work for (I expect this to change multiple times in the next 10 years).

You might better know what to fill in your web site after getting accepted for a job. Also, the design of the web page shall be suitable for the position you have. If you are in the medical field, for example, your web site would be professional, strict, not so colourful, etc. If you could specify the field you are in, we would be able to better help you. Additionally, for inspiration, search for some good web sites/portfolios of people in a field similar to yours. ---------- This is not exactly an answer. I would like to post it as a comment, but for some reason, it'd not allow me,

Seems like a reasonable start would be to get a personal domain (like barrylastname.com or something similar), copy the content from your university web page, and set the university web page to redirect to barrylastname. Then you can decide over time how it should evolve.

Is it a technical question (i.e. where to host a website, if not at your univ.) or conceptual (i.e. how to frame its content, etc)?

How about just transfer what's already there to a personal domain and make it primarily a blog with commentary on field-related stuff?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is specifically about being outside academia.

@DavidRicherby The question is about something that frequently occurs in academia: leaving, and how to handle a particular aspect of that. Why so hasty to close a question? SE isn't running out of storage :D

Put your website on some other hosting than your university.
Write up-to-date status and contact, perhaps with a few words of explanation (e.g. to make it clear that is not only for archival purposes).
When it comes to rest of stuff, they can be the same. (Minding academic data and contact; when it comes to branding - it is a question for Workplace SE and answers will depend on your profession.)

So, just some thoughts:

If you are in a field were you are allowed to show of individual work you did for various employers (or various projects for the same employer)

Make it a portfolio driven website. Like with the blog below you need the discipline to keep it updated, but perfect for freelancers and the like.

If not you have two other options

Make it primarily a contact card, so put your contact details, name and biography up front and centre and 'hide' the more time sensitive details away.

For example, on my own site I have removed all time sensitive things after realizing I wasn't keeping them up to date enough and I have a second 'secret' portfolio I update every time (once every two or three years) I need to share it.

Make it a personal blog discussing things in your area of expertise. If you do this however you have to be sure you will be keeping this up to date with at least a single post per four to six weeks. If you know you won't be able to keep that up, don't do this (as an out of date blog looks kinda bad).

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Should I quit my PhD - workload, self-esteem and social life
I don't really want a degree.  I just want to get married, and have weekends and evenings off, and chill out and play board games, and have nice conversations with friends, and have time to exercise and eat good food, and partake in hobbies, and read books and play computer games and watch movies and write a novel or two.  Stuff I used to do as a kid, that I can't do as a grad student.
I like my research, and I like my advisor, but I feel like I work a lot harder than my friends in industry, and I'll be putting my life on hold for at least the next two years, while I'm finishing classes and qualifying exams.  Frankly I don't feel like I can survive the next year, and just the thought of staying here for the next few months makes me depressed.
The problem is if I wasn't a PhD student, I'd just be another fat ugly loser with no social status, and nobody would love me or think I was valuable.  I wouldn't be taken as seriously when it came time to apply for jobs, and people would think I was stupid or at least not any better than someone with a bachelor's degree.  At least now I can apply for internships and get interviews.  And because I am a PhD student at a top school, people assume I'm smart, which also helps me find dates, even though I'm obese, wear glasses, and dress poorly.  It puts me in a different "league" and if I quit I'd have to go back to dating losers who only want me because they can't find any other girlfriends.
Also if I quit my PhD, I would never be able to come back, and what if my new job ended up sucking, or I couldn't even get a job?  I do like my work, and I'm glad I get to do such interesting stuff, I just wish there was less of it.

There is just too much stuff to do, especially since my advisor does not have money and I need to TA while taking classes and doing research.  Also I know I am ugly because when I go on websites like OkCupid, my friends get a lot more messages than me.  However, I have been getting more messages ever since I joined a PhD program.  I have also submitted my picture to rankmyphotos.com and got a very low rating.

By fat I mean I am nearly 200 pounds and my parents always tell me I need to lose weight.  I am not tall either.

You are not a fat loser

"I feel like I work a lot harder than my friends in industry" - Maybe you do. Maybe that's not too bad after all. If you learn how to deal with this kind of stressful episodes, this will give you a strong advantage in any carreer you may be into now or later. But maybe you work too much. Maybe you can do something about the workload. Are you really forced/required to work so much? Or is it your own ambition that drives you to strive for the best you can do? Did you talk to your advisor about the workload you feel is too much? Some people also have a hard time when it comes to say "no"...

@Jennifer Dating websites are designed to make money, they fundamentally don't work; neither for men nor for women.  Research shows a high correlation between online dating and depression.  I would recommend not doing it.

@CaptainCodeman That argument seems ... iffy. Many things are designed to make money, and they still deliver value to their customers. And correlation != causality - especially in that case it seems very plausible that a clientele that would want to make use of online dating also has other problems leading to depression.

If you quit the PhD and do all the things you mention in your first paragraph, you will be more stressed than you were with the PhD. Doing all those things is sold to us as a normal life, but I think the truth is you'll always feel like you're neglecting parts of your life and that there are things you should be doing. Before you decide to quit, consider that maybe the PhD isn't the problem. Maybe this is an anxiety you would experience whatever occupation you choose.

Yeah, what Peter said.  It seems like most of your problems have little to do with your PhD and would therefore follow you around in other occupations.

One practical solution I found to lack of exercise while studying for a PhD: I rigged a book stand on the handlebars of a stationary exercise bike. That way, I could get an hour of reading academic papers and an hour of aerobic exercise in one hour of elapsed time.

Random, probably useless suggestion. Consider learning dancing. Dancing is really good exercise, is social, and is fun. This may or may not be a useful suggestion, depending on your location. Dance classes themselves can be fun, though at some point you'll want to venture to actual dances. Consider it. NOTE: this suggestion has nothing to do with academia, but as others have noted, the question isn't really about academia either.

This question has been deemed off topic, but still, it has amassed a lot of up votes. Can anyone with access to bring this up in meta?

@Jennifer some of the things you say are concerning. If you think you may have a depression (or something similar), please, seek professional help. A depression has a 15% chance of going away without therapy. If that were your case, a professional can help you to see your real situation so you can make the best decision for you.

@Davidmh You can bring it to meta; no special access is required (only 5 reputation is needed for meta participation)

@ff524 for some reason, I can't log in. "The request looks suspicious". I brought it up on the main site, but didn't get any answer, and now it is deleted.

@Davidmh I have created such a question on meta: http://meta.academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1581/what-should-we-do-with-questions-that-are-out-of-scope-but-apparently-of-great-i

I'm not competent to provide an answer but your question hit home with me. I felt the same way; I quit more than 10 years ago, and looking back at it, I'm so glad I did. My case had many caveats that made that decision a whole lot easier so I don't want to imply that it's the right choice for you, but even though I felt like a complete loser when I quit, everything turned out fine. I'd just suggest that, if you do quit, look for jobs with clear paths of progression, because once you're in, your qualifications will mean a whole lot less.

You only need to work less and start changing your lifestyle. Start do things at night. Reward yourself. The reason for working hard is the fact that you enjoy what you are doing. I bet your advisor is happy with your progress as it is now but you keep pushing yourself harder. Do Not. this will end up very bad.

If you did all of those things as a kid, you were a remarkable child prodigy and I envy you.  Realistically, and unrelated to your question about whether to continue with a PH. D, you need to take a step back and consider if your expectations are reasonable.  There is such a thing as giving yourself too much pressure.

Also, you have a Graduate degree. I know thousands of people who would kill just for that. You are far from a 'fat loser'. In fact, you're already accomplished a great deal. And you CAN go back and finish a degree - you may lose some credit that is no longer accepted, but you can always, always finish a degree in the future.

Learn to accept yourself for who you are.  Appreciate your strengths.  Understand your values and what is most and least important to you. Accept your weaknesses because everyone has weaknesses, and they can't just be wished away.  Don't worry so much about what others think of you - they are probably so self absorbed they don't think of you at all.  How will you think of yourself 5, 10 years from now in these various scenarios?  What would make you the most proud of yourself?  What would position you to maximize your values?  Make that your Plan A.  And pick a good Plan B, just in case!

The problem seems to be you do not think your actions will have any significant change in your life; you take as hypothesis that you are a fat loser who wear glasses.
That can change! If they bother you, lose the glasses, and start losing weight. If you think of these as unrealistic objectives, then there it is your problem! It seems to me that much of your frustration comes from the fact that you feel helpless.

You can solve the "poorly dressed" problem quite easily. Find help from a friend if necessary and find a style that fits you. That could help you feel more confident about yourself in the future.

It's completely up to you what you do with your life.  I spent way too many years in academia, BS, MS, PhD.  I am not currently using my PhD, it is practically irrelevant to my career.  I thoroughly enjoyed the years I spent getting it, though.  It was a struggle, but it instilled discipline and self-reliance in me.  Do what you want, but don't lose sight of the fact that everyone in a PhD program has depression and massive self-doubts.  The truth is, no place in 'industry' is any picnic, either.  It's just a different set of issues and frustrations.

Graduate students have a much higher chance of being depressed than the general population. I highly recommend seeing a professional for the depression. The stress from grad school probably aggravates underlying issues. That said, finishing your PhD gives opportunities your friends in industry won't have without one. I wish I could say academia has less stress as you go on after grad school, but I would be wrong. But industrial work with a PhD is probably better than without one.

I had similar qualms about grad school and concerns about leaving as you do. I didn't want to lose the prestige of having a Ph.D. from the top school in the world for what I was studying. I dropped out. I'm very happy I left; I love the job I have now. Just be honest with yourself about why you want a Ph.D. (wanting more value as a person is not a good reason to stay).

Update: I saw a therapist about this.  Turns out I'm bipolar and should probably take medication.

Based on the current state of the meta question, I'm going to vote to close this question again. I'm glad you yourself sought help from a qualified professional, and I sincerely hope things get better for you.

You have got admission from top university. But you can not loose wight !!! You underestimate your self very much.

There can be social, professional and emotional complications to quitting a PhD. For instance it can take a toll on your own self-image - if you have internalized a feeling of failure. It can make other people think you weren't good or smart or strong enough. And it may be a challenge to show that they are wrong without making the hard-working people who endured getting their PhD angry at you for not putting up with the same struggle - kind of questioning their own decision to endure. Those people may turn out to be in the other end interviewing you for job opportunities in the future.

I just stumbled on this question and now I'm intrigued (having been in a similar situation myself). @Jennifer, what did you end up doing?

However a "fat loser" is defined, it is Independent from having a phd degree.

I don't really want a degree.

There are many good reasons to get a PhD. Probably lots of people get say, bachelor's degrees and master's degrees, because they just want a degree, but the number of people who get a PhD just for the sake of getting a degree is (in my opinion) lower (for example, you might want to teach at the university level, see answers here). This is partly because a PhD is in some sense harder and more time-consuming that bachelor's/masters degree, but also that the degree isn't really the point of a PhD, see for example, this answer here by Pete L. Clark. To very briefly summarize, a PhD is a way to 'learn how to learn' and the stuff that you learn is a lot less important than the process of obtaining said knowledge. So your statement that you 'don't really want a degree' worries me a bit. I mean, the degree is not the point, and wanting a PhD is not at all the same as wanting a degree in general. Why did you apply to PhD programs? What was your motivation? What are your goals?

I just want to get married, and have
  weekends and evenings off, and chill out and play board games, and
  have nice conversations with friends, and have time to exercise and
  eat good food, and partake in hobbies, and read books and play
  computer games and watch movies and write a novel or two.

Don't we all! Anyway, you know, you can do these things as a graduate student. This is easier/harder depending on your exact circumstances/stage of graduate career, but certainly doable. I recently graduated (with my PhD in mathematics), but in my graduate department on Friday nights a lot of us hung out at the grad student bar and then repaired to the department lounge to play boardgames often to the early hours of the morning. Some of us came in to work over the weekends, but not all of us. Anyway, even while physically in the department, we would visit each other's offices and goof off fairly regularly. Okay, for us goofing off also often involved talking about mathematics, so it wasn't entirely a waste of our time. In any case, chilling out and nice conversations with friends occurred throughout the workweek as well. In the first few years of graduate school, I did a really good job of eating right and reading and such, since my time was a lot more structured, and I was able to plan relatively well. Much of my department were regulars at the gym, and quite a few of us were spotted running on the jogging track (some of us were/are pretty good at this stuff: for example, one of did quite well in the Houston marathon and a current student is doing some awesome Crossfit things these days). During major exams, or thesis-writing, or trying to get a paper out, these things got a bit harder of course. Aside from fitness, many of us did well with hobbies. Some of us were hardcore gamers – we even had an informal Magic the Gathering tournament periodically among the grad students; others enjoyed cooking – the rest of us enjoyed the food they would bring in to share; I enjoyed jigsaw puzzles – for a while we did jigsaws in my office, where others in the dept would drop by to puzzle for a bit when they needed a break from work; one of us was in a band, others in in/formal choirs and such; I and some others were involved to various extents in students organizations; and so on. Some number of us got married while in graduate school (not me personally), and one of the students in my cohort had a child as well. How did we do all this stuff? We had an advantage in being mathematics graduate students, since we are not tied to a lab as our counterparts in the rest of the STEM fields, and we had the advantage of being in a department with supportive faculty (who sometimes joined us for weekly boardgames and graduate student bar hangouts) and awesome fellow students.
The most important part of the above list though, were the awesome fellow students. I was in a small department, so it was natural for us all to hang out together, but perhaps you're in a large department where this is harder. Try to find some fun fellow students. They are possibly feeling much of the same things that you are, and if they are in your department they possibly share your interests. If you don't know too many people (if this is your first or second year in the program), organize something – a movie night at your home, a potluck, or a boardgame night. You might be surprised at how many of your fellow students also want to find someone to chill with.
The second most important thing is time management and prioritization. Figure out what's important to you, and then figure out a way to do it. You might have to be very disciplined and focused during the workday so you can run in the evenings, or play boardgames every weekend. But, if there's one thing I learned in grad school, it's that the number of hours you work is not as important as the quality of work you are getting done. You might end up spending less time overall on work, but if you're happier in general, you will probably do better work in the smaller amount of time. For example, I absolutely need some time every week that I can be at home by myself watching TV, probably with multiple cats napping on me. This might seem like wasted time to the outside observer, but really it's time that I need to recharge so that I can get actual work done at other times. That's just the way I work.

I like my research, and I like my advisor,

That's really great. I mean this sincerely. The opposite is sadly far too common.

but I feel like I work a
  lot harder than my friends in industry, and I'll be putting my life on
  hold for at least the next two years, while I'm finishing classes and
  qualifying exams.

Well, to be frank, it is possible that you are working harder than your contemporaries and that you are putting your life on hold, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Lots of people have lots of life-changing stuff happen in their mid-20s. For example, it seemed to me for a while that everyone that I knew in my age group was getting engaged, married, or having kids. I decided to count in 2013 and here is what I found

51 people I know got married i.e. about 1 wedding per week.
31 people I know got engaged i.e. about 2.5 engagements per month.
19 people I know had a baby i.e. about 1.5 babies per month.

(The count is with multiplicity, that is, if two people I know independently get married, I counted two weddings. There were no twins/multiple births that I'm aware of.) That's pretty intense!
These are all cool people and I wish them all the luck, but I don't want to be getting married and having kids just because all my friends seem to be (I mean, what an odd story to tell your grandkids someday).
Again, yes a PhD is hard work, hard work that doesn't ever get compensated for in any 'real' way. But the point of the PhD is not some eventual reward, the point of the PhD is really just the process of the PhD. Most likely I will never make the same amount of money as my friends with MBAs; they will probably have fancier job titles than me, and depending on where we are in the world, they might get more respect and power as well. But (forgive me) a PhD craves not these things. If you want prestige, power and such things, a PhD is not the right way to go at all.
If you're getting a PhD chances are that you have somewhat different priorities than the average person (which is fine, just as the average person's goals are also just fine). My friends who are younger than me have much more seeming grown-up lives true, but they are on a different track than me, and it doesn't really make sense to compare.

Frankly I don't feel like I can survive the next
  year, and just the thought of staying here for the next few months
  makes me depressed.

This is concerning. Please consider talking to someone directly. It's great that you asked AC.SE this question, but we are after all strangers on the internet. Talk to someone you know and trust. Your university probably has a counseling center. Talk to your advisor/mentor.
Graduate students are often discouraged and depressed (I was no exception, see here), for example, see this article. The 'usual' discouragement often passes, but it is not uncommon for us to have undiagnosed mental/emotional health issues. A trained professional is a much better person to talk to about these things, and I hope you will consider doing so.

The problem is if I wasn't a PhD student, I'd just be another fat ugly
  loser with no social status, and nobody would love me or think I was
  valuable.

This seems very unlikely to me. From just this question itself I see that you enjoy reading, and playing boardgames and video games, and enjoy good food and hanging out with friends; from this I see that you have hobbies and interests, and enjoy people. You asked this question, from which I gather that you can be introspective and that you are giving actual sincere thought to what you want to do with your life. This is all from this one question. The poster of this question seems like an interesting person to me.
Some of us are fat and some of us are less than conventionally attractive. Each of these things comes with barriers that one has to overcome. Conventionally attractive folks have their own set of hoops to jump through too. Yes, there do exist people in the world who think 'this person is overweight/stick-thin/different race than me/unattractive/the opposite gender/something else and therefore I do not value them', and those people can go f* themselves. There are enough of the rest of us too though.

I wouldn't be taken as seriously when it came time to apply
  for jobs, and people would think I was stupid or at least not any
  better than someone with a bachelor's degree.

That's kind of a judgmental statement about people with bachelor's degrees. Anyway, all of this depends on what kinds of jobs you're applying for. There are some jobs where having a PhD would actually hinder you (see here).

At least now I can apply
  for internships and get interviews. And because I am a PhD student at
  a top school, people assume I'm smart,

This is also a worrying statement. It's possible that I'm misinterpreting your statement, but in case I'm not, please look up imposter syndrome, it's distressingly common in academia; in short, this is a phenomenon where despite much evidence to the contrary, someone is convinced that they do not deserve the success that they have achieved (also see this question).

which also helps me find dates,
  even though I'm obese, wear glasses, and dress poorly.

If you think that wearing glasses is hurting your ability to date, you could wear contacts. Similarly you could try to dress better (I recommend the show 'What Not to Wear'), or try to lose weight.

It puts me in a
  different "league" and if I quit I'd have to go back to dating losers
  who only want me because they can't find any other girlfriends.

The people I know that are single do not all look alike, or dress alike, or all have poor vision. There isn't much that's common to them than the fact that they are single. You seem to be saying that if there were two individuals who were identical in every way except that one is in a PhD program that the grad student version would get more dates – I simply do not buy this. I might be willing to accept that this would be a true of a man, but I absolutely do not buy it for women.
If you think someone is dating you just because they can't find another girlfriend, please dump them. Similarly, if you think someone is dating you just because you are a PhD student, please dump them just as fast.

Also if I quit my PhD, I would never be able to come back,

I know this guy who was a PhD student in my department (mathematics) in the 60s, didn't finish, left with his master's and was teaching in community college. He kept doing math on his own time though, and he came up with something cool, enough that a faculty member he had been in touch with got him back into our program and he eventually got his PhD in 2011. He is an inspiration. (See here for more such stories). So, yeah, I disagree with this statement.

and what if
  my new job ended up sucking, or I couldn't even get a job?

Yeah, it's possible. But it's possible that you couldn't get a job with a PhD. Or that the earth is destroyed tomorrow to make way for an interstellar bypass. But worrying about this will not help us in any way.

I do like
  my work, and I'm glad I get to do such interesting stuff, I just wish
  there was less of it.

You know, reading your question, it really seems to me that it's not that there's too much work, but more that there isn't as much fun non-work in your life right now. I would really suggest trying to build a social circle among your fellow graduate students, not only for having people to do fun things with, but also for people in similar situations to talk to. I know that for me it was really helpful to talk to my fellow students about my doubts and concerns, because we were all in the same boat. It sounds like you are very concerned about dating, so for what it's worth, lots of graduate students I know dated other graduate students.
While on the subject of dating, please consider whether you're giving too much thought to it. It is nice to have a partner that you can talk to, who will support you and care for you when needed, but finding such a person doesn't need to be take over your life. I strongly believe that successful relationships are composed of people that are also happy on their own and in their own skins. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to work on your own happiness for a while before seeking out a partner, particular since when having self-esteem concerns it is very easy to find oneself in abusive and/or unbalanced relationships.
I would also recommend that you give some serious thought to what you value most in your life and what you want to do with it. What are you looking for? What is your dream job? It will probably help to talk to someone directly about such things too. You said that you like your advisor, so they might be a good person to talk to. Most of us that have been through graduate school have dealt with these things to some extent.
Depending on this self-examination, you might decide that a PhD is not for you. This is fine. Or, you might decide to stick with it. This is fine too. With the caveat that you're doing it for the right reasons. Some of us hang on to PhD programs with this notion that 'quitting is bad'. That's a poor reason to stay in a PhD program. On the other hand, if you truly enjoy doing what you're doing, and you want to keep doing it for the rest of your life, that's a great reason to hang in there. If you want to stay in the program so that some hypothetical someone might deign to date you, that's a poor reason to stick around, and also such a person clearly isn't worth your time.
Getting a PhD can be hard work, probably harder work than your contemporaries are doing in industry (I speculate, I've never had a job in the real world). It is rewarding in its own way though, to some people. This isn't a value judgment. Math makes me feel like a complete idiot almost all the time. The remaining 0.01% of the time is pretty good though, and that's enough for me. Mostly this makes me a masochist I think, but that works for me. But it makes perfect sense for it to not work for everyone, and honestly these other folks are probably better adjusted anyway.
Lastly, your last paragraph makes me think that you're worried that you're making irreversible decisions. You're not. If you choose to leave your PhD program now, you can still come back to get a PhD (probably somewhere else). If you started your PhD with the goal of being in the academic world, but decide later that you want to be in industry, you can still do that. If you want to start back from scratch and work in sociology (say), you can still do that too. These things might require some work, but they are all still possible.
Best of luck in your decision-making! I'd like to reiterate, pretty much all of us wanted to quit at some point, and pretty much all of us wondered why we were doing it. You're not alone!

Fantastic answer for anyone doing a PhD.

This is the longest SE answer I dared read to the end. Good Job.

Another example:  A friend of mine started Ph.d. in mathematics, left after 2 years with a Masters degree, worked as a programmer in the same city for a couple years, decided he wanted to come back, and is now starting up right where he left off.  He got married in the mean time!

@Aru  (I speculate, I've never had a job in the real world) You are not alone!

Just wanted to say I thought Aru is a nice person who super-did-not-judge someone clearly having a (few) bad day(s)

I cannot answer your question right now. So, take this as a friendly advice from someone on the Internet. It may be wrong, of course.
I think you should not quit your PhD. Not right now.
There will be time for that, maybe.
But a lot of stuff is going on, and from your message your work is the only thing you seem to like and that gives you self esteem.
So, two thoughts.
Growth mindset. Please don't be fixated that you are like you are and there is no solution to that. You can do many things. You are smart, you can lose weight, you can dress better. These are not easy things, but you can accomplish them. So, maybe, think of eating healthier. Of being a little more careful on your health and body. This alone will make you feel better.
Seek counsel. There are people, more competent and talented than a stranger on the Internet, that can help you. Find one, it's the best way you can spend your money. Counselors are great, they can help you find solutions you thought they were impossible. I used them many times, I never regret it. There's no shame in that, remember.
In my very humble opinion, you need to clear your mind about what are the burdens in your life, then decide if you want to quit your PhD. It may be the problem, it may be not. Good luck Jennifer!

+1 to all this, but especially the suggestion of a counsellor; I found that extremely helpful during my PhD.    In case (as I did) you find the practicalities of finding a counsellor at all intimidating, it’s worth knowing that many universities have a counselling service or similar as part of their health services, and can offer counsellors extremely experienced in these sort of situations.  Again, good luck with getting through this, and working out what you really want!

I'd like to repeat my comment directed at the OP - You've already accomplished something great if you have a Graduate degree and are a full year into a PH. D.  If you're not hearing that from the people around you they are wrong.

"I like my research, and I like my advisor"
You might be surprised how rare these things can be, there's a lot of people in industry who have neither of those things and pretty much feel the same way while also being bored out of their minds 99% of the time.
I can understand your feelings about social status but you're probably overestimating their social effects vs the social effects of your own perception of yourself. You got into a PHD program in a top school, you say people "assume" you're smart as if you don't believe that yourself but it's extremely unlikely you got where you are by being anything other than actually very smart. When you're surrounded by very bright people all the time it's easy to underestimate yourself.
As for your perception of yourself: I've felt the same way and in your shoes I would have regarded any kind reassurance from nice internet people as a simple phatic gesture since it's just what nice people do when someone is feeling crap about themselves but suffice to say, it's important to realise that your own judgement of yourself is probably not 100% reliable and is likely heavily skewed towards the negative.
Personally I found the best way to deal with feeling crap about myself was to pick the things I felt most negative about myself and to try to do at least one thing to improve each each week, feeling like you're not going anywhere can make it worse.
You sound burned out and for that the same generic advice probably applies:
It really really sounds like you may need to sort out your work-life balance a little, better to work 40-50 hours a week and be able to finish than work 80 and burn out half way. If it's crushing you to not be able to write that novel and leaving you unable to do the PHD it's essential that you get time to write the novel. If you feel the PHD is damaging your health then it's essential that you get the time to tend to your own health.

(I feel this is borderline out-of-scope, but I decide to answer this anyway half-expecting the question to be closed soon)

I don't really want a degree. I just want to get married, and have weekends and evenings off, and chill out and play board games, and have nice conversations with friends, and have time to exercise and eat good food, and partake in hobbies, and read books and play computer games and watch movies and write a novel or two. Stuff I used to do as a kid, that I can't do as a grad student.

If that's actually how you feel, this is strike 1 that you should almost certainly quit. However, make sure that you are not falling prey to the "the grass is always greener on the other side" effect. There are plenty of things you also can't do working in industry because you'll have no time. (writing a novel might be one of those things)

I like my research, and I like my advisor, but I feel like I work a lot harder than my friends in industry, and I'll be putting my life on hold for at least the next two years, while I'm finishing classes and qualifying exams. Frankly I don't feel like I can survive the next year, and just the thought of staying here for the next few months makes me depressed.

If you feel you can't survive next year, this is strike 2 that you should get out. But again, make sure that you have make correct assumptions about life on the other side. Many people in industry definitely work at least as hard as I do in academia.

The problem is if I wasn't a PhD student, I'd just be another fat ugly loser with no social status, and nobody would love me or think I was valuable. I wouldn't be taken as seriously when it came time to apply for jobs, and people would think I was stupid or at least not any better than someone with a bachelor's degree. At least now I can apply for internships and get interviews. And because I am a PhD student at a top school, people assume I'm smart, which also helps me find dates, even though I'm obese, wear glasses, and dress poorly. It puts me in a different "league" and if I quit I'd have to go back to dating losers who only want me because they can't find any other girlfriends.

That's a really concerning paragraph, which makes me feel that you maybe want to seek out professional help. You seem to have a habit of putting yourself and others into buckets of "valuable" and "less valuable" people, based on quite superficial distinctions (looks, whether somebody has an advanced degree or not, losers, etc.). As a sidenote, I am close to 100% sure that you don't get more or better dates because you are a grad student, but (if at all) because you feel better about yourself as a grad student. This is strike 1 that you maybe should indeed stay in grad school.

Also if I quit my PhD, I would never be able to come back, and what if my new job ended up sucking, or I couldn't even get a job? I do like my work, and I'm glad I get to do such interesting stuff, I just wish there was less of it.

Is there no way to turn down your workload a bit without giving up grad student status entirely?

I think that if you don't feel like that sometimes in your PhD, it means that you are not doing it "properly". Its a hard thing, specially personally talking. It gets into your life and makes you feel like you can't anymore sometimes.
But cheer up, if it makes it better, everybody doing a PhD feels like that sometimes; it's part of the job. In my university there are several courses every year just for grad students to help us cope with this kind of feelings.
Actually, not long ago a guy came to our uni. He wrote a book (and some Nature papers) called "the 7 secrets of successful PhD students"  (http://www.ithinkwell.com.au/). I recommend you look at it. There are 2 main ideas that may help you deal with it, and deal with it happily:
1.- There is more chance you fail kindergarten than grad school. If you make it to the end, you'll pass. So the problem here will be perseverance, if you get there, you'll make it.
2.- Treat it like a job! Go to uni, work (and work hard), but when you get out, its not PhD time anymore. Play video-games, read, go out for a beer (or 7!) and write that novel. Define a strict line between PhD time and free time.
My advice as PhD student. You can. Of course you can. You are not a loser. You definitely can deal with the PhD and the workload. If you are unhappy with your life, change it, and get out of the PhD, but if you like it and it's just workload pressure that makes you feel bad, keep with it, because it's probably going to be worth it.

I do not know the law of your country but, e.g., in Italy is possible suspend the PhD. Ask freely to your supervisor, if he/she is a person, as I hope, that not only observes the professional side of things, but also (and especially) the human, you have chance to find an agreement.
Try to explain, to your supervisor, your situation with this words. And remember: your life is the only and too much important to hear the thoughts of the people who do not believe in you.

Even in the USA, it is possible to take a medical or personal leave of absence. It's best to do this while still in grad school (preferably in the early years) because these leaves become more difficult when you are in the early years of tenure-track.

I want to just address one aspect of the question, which is:

I just want to get married, and have weekends and evenings off, and chill out and play board games, and have nice conversations with friends, and have time to exercise and eat good food, and partake in hobbies, and read books and play computer games and watch movies and write a novel or two. Stuff I used to do as a kid, that I can't do as a grad student.

I did everything on this list on a regular basis while a PhD student in a top-level program.  (Except for the married bit, I only did that once.)  This is kind of piling on at this point, but if you are in a program in which you need to put in 80-hour work weeks to be successful, you are in the wrong program.  There's always going to be other people who work insanely hard, but unless your entire life revolves around an all-encompassing need to be the best scientist of them all, you shouldn't.  Work hard during the day, and at the end of it go home and have a life.
Edit: Misread this the first time.  I read tons of novels but wrote zero.

If you are miserable, but stick to your situation, seeing other possibilities as even worse, you may be suffering Stockholm syndrome.

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.

Moreover, one of he key dangers of PhD in academic career in general is that we tie our academic success (grant, paper, fellowship) with sense of own value. Many people are afraid to "give up" (as it hits their sense of identity) even if they would be happy to pursue other options.
See:

Rebecca Schuman, Why Is Academic Rejection So Very Crushing?
 Losing out on a job, tenure, or publication can be a unique agony. The cure is not success, it’s compassion.

I cannot recommend on weigthing your choices (on the one hand you like your research, on the other - you would like to have more social life). But don't tie your sense of value to your academic status.

All grad students are miserable, though.  The pay is low, the hours are long, there is a lot of pressure.  You do it because it is an investment in you.  It is like climbing Everest--if you are unable to continue, your chances of survival go way, way down.  Nobody is going to rescue your graduate career except you.  Syndromes and psychological hooey aside, either determine you are going to do it, whatever the cost, or leave.

It could also be the emotional fallacy of sunken costs or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment

Take advantage of the university facilities to improve your physical condition.  That will help with the perception of pressure, improve your social options and self-esteem, and relieve some stress.  I started martial arts training 26 years ago with a university club because I needed exercise and the club fit my schedule.  Throughout my post-academic career, the practice of martial arts has remained a near-constant.
A PhD is a three-year program.  It is transient, finish it.  (Corrected per comments below)
The industry is not necessarily less stressful.  My careers outside of academia, in more than one industry, have always involved a certain amount of 24x7 work.  While academia is not without its stress, the stress of not getting published is not in the same league as the stress of not getting the 2 million dollar bid that your company needs to survive the next six months.

PhD over here is 4 or 5 years of work after completed MSc. Not uncommon with people ending up becoming full professors who have taken 7 or even more years or so completing their PhD.

Even if it were three years, three years when you're 22 is different than three years when you're 50.  Besides opportunity cost, people, like your potential employers, place greater emphasis on what you do with those three years earlier than later.

There is already a lot of good advice here, so I'll keep mine short.
It's hard to get into a PhD program, and it's easy to get out. You can quit any time, but it will be very hard to get back into a program if you change your mind later.
It sounds as though you like the work but you don't like the workload.
Instead of just quitting, why not try dialing down your commitment just a little bit first?
You mentioned not being happy about your weight (I assume you are saying you are not happy, and not that you just think other people are not happy). Why don't you set aside some time each day, a half hour or so, and go for a walk? It will improve your health, might improve your self-image, and it will give you time to think. Think of it like a "trial quitting."
During that time, think about what you really want out of life, and whether a PhD will help you get there. Maybe you will decide that it won't, but then you will be making the decision from a calm, thoughtful place, and not from a feeling of being trapped.
If you think you might want the PhD, but that the effort to get it is too much, you should know that every PhD student goes through this (speaking for myself and the people I went to grad school with).
This might be hard to understand while you are in the middle of it, but the truth is that we tend to make things seem more important than they really are. We have high expectations for ourselves, and in a PhD program, it is easy to feed into other's expectations as well and make ourselves miserable. If you can reach an understanding that it is all just expectations - none of it is real - it might help you.
My other advice (after you take daily thinking walks for a week or so) is to talk to your advisor before you quit. He or she might have some ideas of ways that you can make the workload more manageable. Your advisor probably went through a similar crisis, and probably helped many of their former students go through them as well, and so they will probably also be able to give you some advice.

You can quit if you like.  Life isn't that bad on the "outside" (I quit my first degree), and if you're good at what you do you can get a job.  You'll get much better opportunities if you finish your PhD though.  You can get married and have kids and watch movies either way, the question is what will you be doing with your life when you're not doing these things.
It seems to me that you are going through an emotional low period, and you may have self-esteem issues which make it difficult for you to overcome them.  Which is quite common.  Most PhD students think of quitting at some point.  You can talk to your counseling service, they are equipped to help you.  (Admittedly sometimes they can be useless, but it's worth having a chat.)
Also if you're upset about being fat, you can get in shape.  (It has nothing to do with whether or not you quit your PhD.)  I used to be a fat college dropout working in IT with no friends and no girlfriends.. but you make gradual changes and improve.  It takes time but it's worth it.  Momentum is key, you need to make gradual changes to your lifestyle and as you move forward it becomes easier as you become more motivated.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTuElM6T50w

I'm glad that I finished my PhD.
Why?
Because I had very similar thoughts as you describe them, and (after very hard struggles) managed to grow as a person.
I now have a clearer view on my priorities, and I know where I don't compromise. I make the rules for my life now.
Currently I work as a postdoc and ultimately I determine my workload.
I will not accept any workload that undermines my life quality.
I now communicate this clearly and politely to the head of my lab.
On the other hand, I will spend a considerable amount of time to furthering my career, and will pursue the goals that I chose.
I now communicate this clearly and in a friendly manner to my partner.
The point is that these are all subjective decisions, that know one can answer for me. Having been on the fringe of quitting the program, and going through a process of evaluating all my life decisions, has brought me into a very fortunate position, I find in retrospect.

That's not an answer.

Maybe you are right Cape Code - however, if the question is "should I quit my PhD program" no-one can answer this for another person. However, I came out strengthened from a similar situation, and maybe this perspective is valuable to others.

There are quite a few very nice answers, so I'll just make a minor point.
When I was in grad school, I also sometimes felt I'd fallen into this hole in which I have to work very hard and that if I fail and quit I'd be a disappointment and a failure. It's not the same as in your case but, well, similar. I also considered quitting, and was stuck with my research for long(ish) periods of time.
The reason I'm telling you this is not to moralize and say "Ah, but I managed to pull through and so can you, don't worry be happy". The point is that even after getting the PhD, occasionally in my life I've felt the same way, i.e. I was worried I'm going to end up as a big (non-fat) loser with a PhD, and that people mighty pity me for having let my academic training go to waste and not amounting to anything.
Which is to say, what you're feeling is not really about quitting or keeping up the Ph.D. at all.
And of course: You're not a big fat loser damn it. I could find objective justification to this in your own question, but you really should think about positive things you've done and even if it's not convincing you emotionally, start by making a mental argument for your not really being a loser. Maybe just someone with supposedly-simplistic/childish desires? Probably even not that. Also, read about Impostor Syndrome.

Before making any decisions, it may be worthwhile to see if you can stay with your PhD, doing research with the supervisor you like, while fixing some of the things that cause you problems. You say you do not have any weekends or evenings. This is something i recognize but it may not be all due to your PhD program.
This happens when the work is (or feels) important, ambitions are high, and both your own and your supervisor's expectations are unrealistic. I've had the same problem at two separate jobs. My friend had it worse: he had a job for 3 days a week while in reality he worked full time and quite a few times through the night.
A tell-tale sign is when work and leisure mix in a bad way, like working (because it needs to be done by Monday) while watching television (because you are allowed to take micro-breaks, it's the weekend!).
This can be fixed. Your university maybe has courses and/or counselors to help you with time management. If your workload is insane, it helps to get a clear picture of it, so that your supervisor also understands that a more realistic plan needs to be made. The people i know who are efficient and good at work/life balance: 1) spend time planning their work, that is, prioritizing tasks and writing down how much time each will take  2) stick to their plans 3) communicate plans and any changes in plans with their supervisors, co-workers and/or bosses.
My friend now has a far more responsible job, works full time and he even has the evenings off.

Whenever you feel down, compare what you have achieved in a certain period.
E.g. Were you happy before starting PHD, was your life as beautiful as you think it would be after quitting PHD.
You quit PHD or not, one thing you should always remember,
Always be grateful, never compare yourself with people better then you, but think about people who are in worse situation then yours.

The problem is if I wasn't a PhD student, I'd just be another fat ugly loser with no social status, and nobody would love me or think I was valuable.

That's concerning in two ways.

Proving you're cool to other people is often listed as a bad motivation for doing a PhD — it's not strong enough. Good motivations are closer to "you care about your research" --- and you do! And that's so great — so few people have that!
Thinking of yourself as a loser is a negative attitude which is (to some extent) a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In fact, a PhD might be helpful to prove to yourself your worth. OTOH, you "shouldn't" need to get a PhD to prove to yourself you're worth. I would indeed seek psychological counsel. If you have a good advisor you might also talk to him/her - lots of PhD student have motivation crises.

There are lots of reasons for low self-worth. One which also increases your workload and is probably common among PhD students is perfectionism --- "maintaining standards that are unrealistically high and impossible to attain".
You might regret quitting, especially if that's just due to depression or something else.

Generally, if you enter a PhD, getting a PhD or not is not a question of ability/intelligence, but of motivation - it's not a battle against your topic, but against yourself.

And because I am a PhD student at a top school, people assume I'm smart

What do you think? It sounds like you don't agree (you say "assume"). But you're at a top school, so you might be a victim of impostor syndrome (thinking others overestimated you). I think it's endemic between PhD students.
Also, BTW, if you're working a lot it's probably also because you're at a top school, and research is a career profession — a bit like running for an election, being a top manager, etc. None of those jobs are easy or would take less effort.
For me, realizing this was very scary, since I've avoided such jobs on purpose - but I decided to stick with it, and right now I'm happy I did.

Is your ultimate life goal to be a tenured professor working 60-80 hours a week? If no, then you don't really gain anything by staying in your program.
A lot of the answers provided imply that staying in your program should be the default option. I don't really know if that's how you should approach your decision because it really depends on whether you're committed to the academic life.
The fact that you were smart enough to both get into and do well in a top-tier PhD program and quit when you realized that path wasn't for you will signal to interviewers that you're intelligent and great at cost-benefit analyses, so I wouldn't worry about no longer being able to get interviews if I were you. All else being equal, I would hire someone who quit a PhD program over someone who stuck it out.

To add to the excellent advice posted by many others,
I just want to focus on one particular aspect of your post:

The problem is if I wasn't a PhD student, I'd just be another fat ugly loser with no social status, and nobody would love me or think I was valuable...
  I'm obese, wear glasses, and dress poorly.

Question: Why do you feel like a fat loser?
I have felt like a loser at various points in my life.
Mostly, I feel this way when things are going badly
and I feel that they are out of my control.
It seems to me that you feel that
many things in your life are out of your control.
In particular, your obesity seems to be
an extremely discouraging situation.
How do you deal with things that seem out of control?
I found the following so-called Serenity Prayer helpful:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
  The courage to change the things I can,
  And the wisdom to know the difference.

You have to accept the things that you can't change—such as
who you are today,
the situation you are in—yet
work towards making it better.
In addition,
I would strongly encourage you to find someone whom you can trust
to talk regularly with;
this can be a friend / mentor / religious leader / counselor.
When I was a PhD student and dealing with depression,
it was extremely helpful to see a counselor about once a week.
This was a perk provided free-of-charge
by the student health services at my university,
and was conveniently located a short walk from my office.
Finally, with regard to the issue of obesity,
while I am not an expert in that area,
I empathize with you because
this can be a very frustrating issue for many.
It is just so hard and discouraging.
Worse still, there are so many different viewpoints
about what is the right types of foods to eat,
from veganism to paleo to really crazy ones like the hCG diet (don't try it!).
Personally, I feel that the book
Why We Get Fat
by Gary Taubes
seems to me to be the right scientifically based explanation
as to why many people today in the US are fat.
I would suggest that you do your own research
to find out what is causing you to be obese,
so that you can figure out what you want to do about it.
By doing this, you won't feel like you are a victim to your circumstances
but that you are able to overcome them.
If you can become a healthier person,
this would improve your self-image
and your general sense of well-being.
Good luck! Hang in there!

I would like to point out that 99% of the people out there don't give a darn about your being in a PhD program versus "only" having a bachelor's degree. The only people who care would be employer's looking for a PhD person to fill a specific position and snooty people like you are projecting yourself to be, by thinking that being in a PhD program actually gets people to like you more. At best, being in the PhD program might give you more confidence which is what attracts people.
I will also point out that while you may believe you "work a lot harder than your friends in industry", I can guarantee you that you are almost certainly wrong in that regard. New grads tend to have to work their butts off to get noticed in their early years. They are making money, so they do have more opportunities to have fun experiences than a college student just scraping by, but that doesn't mean they have more time or are under less stress. But I suppose that also depends on the type of job and degree your friends have and their own ambition levels.
With regards to: "I just want to...." and not having time to do it has nothing to do with being in a PhD program. It is what happens when people transition from being a child with no responsibilities to anyone but their self to actually growing up and being a responsible adult where they not only have obligations to their self but to others also. If you think being in a PhD program leaves you no time for the fun stuff you like to do, wait until you get married and have children. You will long for all the free time you have right now in your PhD program.
Finally, part of the reason people prefer to employ people with college degrees is not just because of the education. Many jobs that require a degree can be adequately learned and performed by someone without a degree. One of the key reasons that employers like people with a college degree is that it shows that the person is not a quitter. Almost everyone goes through a phase or phases in their college career where they just want to chuck it all in and quit. Many people do just that. However, those who persevere and finish their degree demonstrates a high degree of willpower and the ability to do what needs to be done whether they want to do it or not. Employers want that kind of person because there will be many times on the job where people will want to chuck it all in and quit. Employers want people who will persevere, not those who quit.
I am of the opinion, you made a commitment to get a PhD. So get the PhD. Don't quit. Quitting easily becomes habit forming. I also think you are falling prey to the grass is greener syndrome.

Apparently I need 125 reputation to vote this down for being a possible danger to mental health… The "you made a commitment so just do it" mentality has its place, but is also potentially dangerous.

I tried to down vote for you Ricky but it wouldn't let me:( I am quite surprised that this post is in the negative, since it is the most truthful and useful response out of all of them. The OP's perception of "everyone else" is so far from the truth and nobody was pointing that out to her until this post. As for your thinking this is "potentially dangerous", did you miss the "this is reality tone" of the first several paragraphs and then the last paragraph starts with "I am of the opinion". Certainly not telling the OP what to do or even saying this is the right choice. That was on purpose.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
On the market for TT faculty positions, is having my credit frozen a problem with University's background check?
Like many Americans, after last year's Equifax fiasco, I froze my credit with the big three. I'm on the job market, and at least all the Universities in the US do (or will do) a background check on the tenure-track faculty candidates (not sure if schools from other countries do so for international applicants).
So far I was able to get invites for interviews + campus visits, but I'm not sure at what stage the schools will do a background check.
So my questions are:

does the fact that I have my credit frozen impact my chances as a candidate in faculty positions in the US?
what about in other countries, such as Canada, UK, and other EU countries?
If so, what should I do? just lift the freeze now? or will the school contact me if they can't get access and ask me to lift the freeze for them? or will they just reject me outright?

I've never had trouble with the law etc, or even my credits. The only thing is I have been a victim of at least one of these security data breaches in the past couple years, the worst probably being the Equifax fiasco, which prompted me to place the freezes.
Any advice or suggestion appreciated! Thanks!

The situation of freezing your own credit rating(s) yourself, versus having them frozen by other parties, makes all the difference in the world...

I'm on the job market, and at least all the Universities in the US do (or will do) a background check on the tenure-track faculty candidates (not sure if schools from other countries do so for international applicants).

I’m not sure where you heard this, but if by “background check” you mean specifically something that includes a credit check (as your question seems to suggest), I’m pretty sure the statement is false. At my large university where until recently I was a department chair and was closely involved with hiring of several new faculty members, I am not aware of any practice of running credit checks on anyone; if it happened at all, it would be part of the paperwork an incoming faculty member has to go through after already receiving and accepting an offer, so would have no influence on any decision making at the department side. In other words, at least at my university this would not be a concern in connection with your tenure-track application.
Aside from my personal experience, the other reason why I’m pretty sure your assertion is false is that in many US states it is illegal to base hiring decisions on job candidates’ credit history. Thus in those states no sane hiring process would attempt to obtain such information prior to making an offer, and I can’t think of a good reason why it would make sense to obtain it after making an offer either.
Good luck with your job search.

Thanks! this makes me feel much better. It just occurred to me to ask because a family member, upon knowing that I'm on the job market, asked me this very same question. Your answer with the above comments by others assure me that if any check is going to happen, it will happen after they make the decision.

Background checks would be done very close to the time the offer goes out—there's no way a school is going to perform five hundred background checks for a single faculty search.
You're allowed to request a temporary lifting of the freeze for either a specific period of time or a specific party. So you could authorize the credit agencies to lift the freeze for schools at which you're offered an interview. The latter might be the easiest option.
Also note that background checks are performed by the Human Resources department of the administration, not by the faculty committees, who as far as I know never see the results of such checks, because they are not entitled to do so. However, this also means that you're not going to be denied an interview just because the HR department wasn't able to perform the background check. If it actually were an issue in the interview process, the department would contact you and say "we'd like to have an interview, please give us access for a credit check" rather than "forget it, it's not worth the trouble."

thanks for quick reply, is this only for US schools? I'm guessing uni from other countries don't do credit check? (they will obviously still do criminal check)?

I'm pretty sure schools in other countries aren't going to do a US credit check. Maybe include Canadian schools, just to be safe. But in other parts of the world you won't need to worry about this.

@PandaPants I don't know why US universities should be interested in your credits, but I doubt a European university would be interested in checking your US credit. FWIW, I'm almost sure that my university doesn't do a credit check (I even suspect that it could be against the law such a check).

@MassimoOrtolano I know its weird, but as I understand it, it's standard procedure in the US when you apply to jobs (any job, not just in academia), in fact, in the US, in order to do anything important a credit check is almost always involved....

I believe that doing a background check usually requires the applicant to provide their past addresses (age 18 on) so you will know when the check is occurring.

@Dawn thanks for your comment, could you elaborate a bit more? do you mean they will tell you beforehand that they are going to perform a check? my main concern is that the checks are being done without me knowing and when they couldn't get access, they just deny my entire application.

@PandaPants: See my edit above. This should not be something you have to worry about. If they want you, they're not going to let a credit check stop things.

@aeismail thanks! my concern is not so much with getting interviewed or not, I was just wondering what happens afterwards, like when they are ready to make an offer, I'm guessing at that point they probably will want to make sure the candidate is not a criminal on the lam etc. and I was just concerned that credit check in any way influences the decision of making the offer. But I think you are right, if they've already met the candidate + like them and are ready to make an offer, they probably won't let credit check stop them, instead they might reach out and ask for a freeze release. I hope!

When I was hired, they did a background check. It was after the offer but before the contract. It involved me filling out a rather annoying informational form where I had to list all addresses from age 18 on.

These checks are purely for purposes of catching things like criminal convictions in your past.  No one cares about your credit history.  My recollection is that when background checks have happened to me, it's been after the offer was accepted, so I knew it was happening.  It's not really possible to rule out something as impossible, but it would be probably the weirdest hiring issues I had ever heard of for a offer to get scuttled by a credit report.  If it makes you feel better, just unfreeze your credit report, but I would rate it considerably below typos in your cover letter as an issue likely to cost you a job.


text:
How can I replicate a search strategy described in a publication?
I found a Cochrane Review from 2012. I would like to perform a new search with the same search strategy to see if there are an updates in this topic.
The search strategy is given at the bottom of this post.
Now my questions: Where can I input those keywords? Did they perform every line a whole new search, or are those keywords linked together via one search.
I have access to OVID and read/watched some tutorials but they didn't show me something similar.

The search strategy:

Appendix 1. MEDLINE via OVID search strategy

Molar, Third/
(“third molar*” or “wisdom tooth” or “wisdom teeth” or “3rd molar*” or third-molar).mp.
T ooth, impacted/
((tooth adj5 impact$) or (teeth adj5 impact$)).mp.
T ooth, unerupted/
unerupt$.mp.
1 or 2
3 or 4 or 5 or 6
7 and 8
T ooth extraction/
(extract$ or remov$).mp.
asymptom$.mp.
(symptomless or symptom-free or “symptom free”).mp.
(trouble-free or “trouble free”).mp.
or/10-14
9 and 15

The above subject search was linked to the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (CHSSS) for identifying randomised
  trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity maximising version (2008 revision) as
  referenced in Chapter 6.4.11.1 and detailed in box 6.4.c of the
  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version
  5.1.0 (updated March 2011).

randomized controlled trial.pt.
controlled clinical trial.pt.
randomized.ab.
placebo.ab.
drug therapy.fs.
randomly.ab.
trial.ab.
groups.ab.
or/1-8
exp animals/ not humans.sh.
9 not 10

You should probably take a look at the Cochrane Handbook. What you have are two searches. The first is a search for papers about 3rd molars. The 2nd is the CHSSS and is used to find the RCT studies from the search of the 3rd molars. You need to enter the search items exactly as the history shows since some steps refer to previous steps (e.g., step 9 of the first search refers to steps 7 and 8).


text:
What to do if a discussion letter/paper is rejected because it's not an original research article?
A while ago, we read a paper published in a quite credible journal (impact factor around 3), which we believed had a few very basic but significant mistakes in the methods and final results.
The journal's guide for authors mentioned the possibility to submit a discussion ("Discussion: A short commentary (1000-3000 words) discussing an article previously published in XXX."). Together with a colleague, we decided to write a discussion manuscript highlighting the problems of the paper in two pages. We did it twice, actually—one time very polite, and a second time more to the point.
Although each time all of the reviewers agreed on the highlighted problems and one reviewer even recommended publication "as is," both times it was ultimately rejected, because the editor focused on a comment of the reviewer like: "was not general enough", or because "it is more a discussion, and not an original research contribution." (But this was actually exactly what was intended, and fully in agreement with the objective for this type of manuscript in the guide for authors.)
It is OK if a manuscript is rejected (I am a PhD student because I like to learn new things), but it should be rejected for the right reasons. The arguments against the article did not seem to consider properly the submission type, "discussion" instead of "original research article." Furthermore we have the feeling that the editor could be embarrassed to publish a discussion highlighting a paper with such errors that could be recognized by frankly any above-average high school student. (although the paper has been cited quite a number of times, apparently without anyone noticing the mistakes).
It is probably not worth the effort, but it became a matter of principle.
We contacted a few other people (not our friends) in the field for a quick opinion about the manuscript, and they confirmed our impression that it has probably been rejected out of embarrassment. This seems quite a disgrace, but what can one do about it?
Should we publish the manuscript together with the reviewer comments on our group website? Submit the manuscript to a competing journal?  Would it make sense to contact the publisher (Elsevier) to complain about the editor in chief?
I should also mention that the writers of the original article are, according to  their group website, co-sponsored by a big company which gains obvious advantages from their erroneous findings. Is there maybe an ombudsman to which we could go to?

Have you written to the EIC directly describing the type of article you were trying to submit? What did you cover letter say?

Perhaps you can publish it with another journal (published by a different publisher).

@BillBarth The cover letter was very clear, quoting from the guide for authors about this specific manuscript type, to avoid any misunderstandings. Do the reviewers also receive the cover letter? When we read the review, it seems really like most reviewers and the editor review it as a usual paper (then the commends make sense) ? And not as a discussion (for which the commends don't make sense) I know they are busy people, Is it common for them to skip the cover letter?

@rmounce We are thinking about that, but usually these type of discussion papers/letters are only published in the same journal as the article they are commenting on. I haven't seen any exception on that. But if there are no alternatives it might be worth a try.

Have you been in contact with an editor, or with the editor in chief? If the first, you could escalate to the editor in chief. If not, there is likely little you can do, beyond fleshing your paper out to become a full research article (pointing out the errors in the original article), then submitting it either to this journal, or to a different one. Let the EIC deal with people laughing at his journal.

What are you trying to achieve? If the "paper has such errors that could be recognized by frankly any above average high-school student" how this simplistic 2-page paper is going to help your career? To prove you are an above average high school student (you have a Bsc that proves that anyway). To prove you were right and the other authors were wrong? Why don't you invest your time on writing something original than waste your time on proving a point.

@Alexandros, if there is a paper out there with substantial errors, regardless of OP's characterization, wouldn't you like to see it corrected?

@Sarmes, I don't know if reviewers get the cover letter. Usually not in my review experience. If your cover letter explained that you were writing a discussion, then the editor should not have followed that negative review that was seeking novelty. I would email or call your editor and escalate to the EIC if you've already spoken with the editor.

@BillBarth. Of course. If the OP really wants to just correct the paper, even a blog entry would suffice for that. Making a publication out of this, is not very possible.

@Alexandros, if the journal claims to accept these discussion articles, then it should follow its own guidelines. Also, his blog post is not archival, and a discussion article would be. If it's bad enough, it may lead to a correction or retraction.

@BillBarth the communication was already with the EIC. I didn't really think about the possibility that the reviewer did not get the cover letter. In that case it would all make more sense. Because without cover letter its not clear what kind of manuscript is submitted, and i think these discussion letters/papers are really rare, so there is a big chance the reviewers were not clearly aware of the manuscript type. At the other hand the EIC should have know, but maybe he just read trough the review commends without reading the cover letter again. Or maybe he just didn't like the discussion.

@Alexandros, i get your point, in retrospect i should maybe not have wasted my time. On the other hand its a quite big journal, because of the mistakes the method described the paper is useless and dangerous, and the main results are almost opposite of what it should be. Once found the mistakes are embarrassingly simple but apparently not so easy to find, since people keep citing the article.  What it will bring me for my career?... probably nothing. But now it became a bit about the principle that its just not fair, not to correct a paper with mistakes (principles can give a headage i know).

I will write the editor, hoping that it is a misunderstanding but because i suspect that he does not really like the discussion, i was thinking about putting some editors in cc to generate some wind, such that its gets a fair look. If they have a good argument that takes in to consideration the manuscript type i would give up, but until then...
Maybe in my case its a misunderstanding, but in a general case that one has a problem with the EIC there seems no opportiunaty for appeal. He can just ignore his email, I am somewhat disappointing that these things can happen.

Have you tried contacting the authors to hear what they have to say? I would like to hear from someone who found an error in my model. Some journals actually contact the original authors whenever there is a comment on one of their papers (see e.g. Physical Review).

The first step to take, if not already done, is to answer back to the Editor in Chief, politely explaining that the status of your submission (discussion letter) seems to have been overlooked. Stress again, politely, that the policy of the journal allow explicitly such letters, and that it would be better for everyone that they either enforce this policy (and not reject letters on the ground that they are not full research articles) or remove it from the guide to the authors. Given the answer you get, there are several possible follow-ups if your letter keeps being rejected.
You can contact the authors and see what they have to say. In fact, it would be something to be done before any of the propositions below. They may acknowledge the mistake and publish an erratum by themselves, acknowledging you, and this would make things right in the best way. If they do not answer in a satisfactory way, at least they will have been warned and your case will be stronger.
You can appeal to an ethics committee on your field, if one exists, disclosing both your letter explaining the error, the written exchanges you have had with the journal, and the conflict of interest you spotted for the authors of the original paper. Do not make assumption, just present the fact and let the committee judge for itself.
You can try to publish your letter in another journal, in order to make the official record straight. Depending on the existing venues, you may have to add some flesh to your letter and grow it to a full paper, even if short. You are right in your principles, such mistakes should not be let unknown, and a blog post is too personal and too unofficial to make it right. People should get the information on the mistakes you spotted while using the databases usually used in your field.
But, given you are a PhD student, before you take any step I very strongly advise you to ask your advisor (or another senior researcher you can trust) about it. Depending on your field, your situation, the stature of the author the work of who you criticize, you could end up in pretty bad situation if you do not beware. I cannot tell from the information you gave, but you also have to protect yourself, and unfortunately this is not always achieved by doing the right thing.

I agree that contacting the authors before submitting a comment letter is the most diplomatic solution, it gives them the chance to submit an erratum, as you say, and also clearly states the the OP is acting in good faith. It is very easy to interpret a comment letter as an attack, especially if the tone is not right. Making enemies in academia is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot, especially if your field is particularly small.

I like your suggestions. Also the warning for the risk of some sort of revenge. We discussed with our supervisor about this but decided to continue. I ve send the letter today.

@Miguel your responses are itching my brain, you are right it would have been kinder and better to write the authors. Before this all. Ill come back on this. Sorry to flag, fat fingers on a phone

I can understand the editor's decision not to publish your discussion if the mistakes highlighted should have been identified by the reviewers.
However, it does seem out of context to send the discussion of a paper published  in a said journal to a different journal of which the first one was published in.
As for a solution, in your stead I would not really know what to do either. If you have a relatively significant connection to authors in your domain via social media (e.g. Twitter, ResearchGate), you could consider uploading your manuscript there.