text:
Why is getting a PhD considered "financially irresponsible" by some people?
I've been reading this question, whose premise is that going directly into industry after (presumably) just a bachelor's will make you more money than doing a PhD and then going into industry. To my surprise, most people seemed to agree with the OP.
My thinking has always been that, yes, going into industry with just a bachelor's will make you some money in the short term, but it will also:
A) Land you in a relatively low level position to start.
B) You will eventually hit a ceiling past which you cannot rise.
My thinking has always been that with a PhD you will start in a relatively higher position, and you will not hit a ceiling, so in the long run you will make more money. Why is my reasoning wrong?

Saw this article today which you might be interested in: https://www.ricemedia.co/culture-life-masters-programme/ It's for Masters degrees and not PhDs, but the same ideas should be involved.

Answers in comments and exentended discussions have been moved to chat. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment.

Maybe you want to specify the industry we are talking about: the situation may vary a lot. There are sever factor you haven't mentioned: 1) There is  an opportunity cost as the job market for PhDs are much smaller than for MScs, and much less flexible where they can get a premium for their extra degree.  2) Also for many, going to Ph.D. is not a short time. 2b) it is especially not that short if you consider that in technology is a rapidly moving field and hard to predict what will be hot from 5-10 years from now.

One difficulty of comparing average salaries is that you have to control for the job. Among me and my colleagues, when looking for an industry position, we much prefer an interesting job over a well paid one. The amount of financially driven people amongst those that choose not to do a PhD is higher, which skews the averages.

What discipline? In what speciality? From what college? Accredited or not? Instructed in what language? Not all PhDs are created equal, by any means. A liberal-arts PhD from an overpriced, unaccredited foreign college bears almost zero comparison with a PhD in CS or mathematical physics from a top institution. The question is way too vague.

The point of a Bachelor's degree and a PhD are different, so your premise is a little faulty. You get a Bachelor's degree to get a basic proficiency in some professional field. You get a PhD if you are going to be doing research or teaching at a university level (or both, as many universities require).

..and why are "earnings" important? The same people probably believe a University is an institution for vocational training, rather higher learning.

It depends on which industry you are talking about. The majority of engineering jobs I know don't require a PhD but require industrial/external/non-academic certification such as becoming a Charted Engineer, having a specific diploma/certificate (for example CCNA which even 15 year olds can take if they have money to burn) etc. Most engineering shops view PhDs as just an academic but not professional/industrial qualification

I've also worked in creative industries and most artists don't really get what's the difference between themselves and another artist with PhD - artists tend to respect work rather than degrees. An artist who just have a high school diploma but can demonstrate Photoshop/Illustrator skills is significantly more employable with higher salaries than a PhD art student (most of the ones I know end up teaching or become critics)

I don’t have experience in industry myself, but know several people who do (and have made the transition from industry to academia and vice versa).
Broadly speaking, getting a CS PhD in the USA with the intent of switching to industry after will result in about $500k in lost wages. This is accounting for about 5 years of PhD salary vs programming salary, raises, bonuses etc. The jobs that necessitate a PhD in industry are few and far between, and are highly competitive. Thus, starting a PhD with industry in mind, and assuming you’ll get that job is, statistically speaking, unrealistic. There are still many good reasons to still do it!

It’s a fun and fulfilling endeavor that offers you a chance to think freely about things you care about for 5 years!
If you are entrepreneurial then I know some people who start companies based in their PhD work.
If your undergraduate degree isn’t in computer science then your PhD can be treated as a semi vocational degree (though granted a masters will do as well)
If you’re interested in moving to the USA then a PhD offers a path to permanent residence.
You like research and want to leave the door open to academia. In that case a PhD is a must.

My friend is an undergrad and he works at Jane Street making 250k a year. If he did his 5 year of PhD, we are talking about millions of dollars worth of loss in wages. The problems that he works on rivals any PhD project you can possibly think of, with the benefit of accessing data that no University on the planet has. I don't think the PhD is something realistic nowadays, given that most advisors gotten theirs during a time when the cost of living was relatively cheap.

@SquaringtheCircleisEasy Given that thousands of people are still getting a PhD every year I can assure you the PhD is not "unrealistic" - it's maybe not the right option for you and many others, but there are still people for which doing a PhD is just what they want and should do.

@SquaringtheCircleisEasy your comparison is between an average PhD and a super-excellent post-undergrad situation. It's not a fair comparison.

@SquaringtheCircleisEasy Your friend, given that income, would be in the top 1-2% of households for income in the US - when adjusted for age and level of education, they would probably be in the top 0.1% of comparable individuals. Most people - to say, more than 99% of people - will not experience anything remotely like that, PhD or not. It's a bit like deciding on whether to pursue a PhD based upon the experience of Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Outliers exist, and are important to consider, but they are not the norm. But hey, if someone gets a 250k+ offer, take it :D

I agree with all your points (+1), however your example from CS is just too specific to make a general statement. Some PhDs might earn much more than a Bachelor with work experience, others don't.

While recognizing that data is not the plural form of anecdote, I can confidently add that my CS PhD was financially irresponsible. I have access to other opportunities with the PhD, of course. However, the financial value of those opportunities don't outweigh five years of "lost wages".

@DennisJaheruddin the salesforce link you shared is locked behind a login and not accessible.

I think if net worth maximization is a primary goal, then paying for your own bachelor's and then finding an employer who will finance your master's or MBA gets you into the workforce as early as possible and then gets you to a place where you can command a higher salary for the least investment. Obviously an MD or JD can be much more lucrative but start with a higher initial investment. A BS in applied math with an actuarial focus is also a good way to monetize university studies. A Phd is not a super net worth boost, but it can be awesome in other ways.

Unrealistic...perhaps 'not guaranteed' is more accurate. Keep in mind that though not all people make a succesful switch, on average people with a PHD come to a higher lifetime earnings in quite some fields, an example is given here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/96815/15990 -- Also many jobs don't require a PHD or even MBA, but having one does help you grow faster/higher.

Getting a PhD is not financially irresponsible¹.
Your career earnings may be less, or may be more, than without a PhD.  Whether this is the case depends on too many factors to be answerable without details.  It shouldn't matter too much.
If you earn enough to finance the present and future life of yourself and your dependents, then you are not being financially irresponsible.
With a PhD, you can perfectly well finance the present and future life of yourself and your dependents, therefore getting a PhD is not financially irresponsible².  A PhD is not a recipe for unemployment and homelessness.
Examples of financially irresponsible behaviour

Getting a loan and spending it on consumer electronics, vacations, expensive cars, or gambling.
Spending your salary in the pub as soon as you get it, leaving your kids go hungry and failing to pay the bills.
Spending savings, inheritance, or lottery winnings within a few years without having a stable job.

Examples of financially responsible behaviour
...or at least examples of behaviour that are not, by themselves, financially irresonsible:

Getting a job that earns less (but enough) but makes you happier than otherwise.
Getting a PhD and enjoy life or a research career while still earning enough to pay the rent ones entire life.
Declining a promotion+raise because one doesn't want to perform the duties or have the responsibilities associated with the new role.
Making a career as an artist earning very little, but correspondingly spending very little, in a country with a strong social safety net and quality free public healthcare and education (including tertiary education).

I earn more than I need (in a position that requires a PhD) and I have no clue what I would do with the money if I earned much more.  I still have plenty of savings from the salary I earned as a PhD student.  Plenty for my needs and wants.  Nobody should need €100k+ per year except in places where real estate prices are extremely high (many people may want more, though), but in those places highly skilled people should be able to find jobs that pay enough to pay the rent too — including if you have a PhD — or one can look for a job elsewhere.

¹Self-funding a PhD can be financially irresponsible if it puts you (massively) into debt and causes difficulties to make ends meet.  I believe self-funding a PhD is very rare (I've never met a self-funded PhD student) but I do not have the data and academia varies more than I think, so maybe it's not always as rare as I believe it to be.

²I don't have data on PhDs in all fields and I don't know how much, for example, a humanities PhD may earn; but I would be surprised if a PhD increases the risk of poverty compared to a humanities BA or MA. In this case, it of course makes a difference where you do your PhD.

Great answer. Financially responsible does not mean picking the most money all the time.

While I generally agree with this, I'm not sure how much the line: With a PhD, you can perfectly well finance the present and future life of yourself and your dependents applies to non-STEM PhDs.  Do you have any data about this?

@Kimball I don't have any data, but I would be surprised if non-STEM PhDs are worse off than non-STEM non-PhDs. The statement is relative between PhDs or non-PhDs. Is unemployment high among literature graduates? I don't know.

@gerrit I don't have the data, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were subjects where a PhD didn't increase employment prospects at all.  At that point, the costs associated with a PhD might make PhD's more likely to be in poverty than those with just a Bachelor's degree.

@MartinBonner There should be no cost associated with doing a PhD if doing so in a country where PhD students are employed. I was employed, unionised, saving pensions, and paid quite enough according to the Swedish salary scale — the salary for a humanities PhD would have been identical. If it's difficult to find a "regular" job with ones MA, that would make doing a PhD more attractive, not less attractive. A cousin did a PhD in political science, another friend did one in sociology, both got good employment immediately upon graduation. But those are anecdotes, not data.

@gerrit : Not even any opportunity cost from lack of experience?  (But of course, a civilized system like that is going to be a lot better than one where you have to take out huge loans to pay for education.)

@MartinBonner I know little about humanities PhDs, I can't comment on opportunity cost, except that all life choices are in some way a gamble. Maybe the travel and networking opportunities that are one side-effect of doing a PhD open up enough new opportunities to offset any "lack of real business experience" negative effect. Either way, I would not expect the PhD itself to lead to financial ruin; perhaps to starting that job at a museum, school, or (local) government later than one would otherwise have, but then we're back to speculating over career earnings, which I think overrated.

@gerrit ignoring the opportunity cost of a PhD (in CS/applied math) as opposed to working in industry for 5 years is really skewing your answer.

@Spark Not at all. I'm not trying to calculate career time earnings for either CS, applied math, humanities, or any other.  The question was not "does getting a PhD statistically increase or decrease lifetime earnings", the question was "is it financially irresponsible".  Decreasing lifetime earnings is not financially irresponsible, as long as one spends less than one earns.

I agree that you are strictly speaking answering the question. Perhaps it's because the question is not as accurately phrased as it can be. However, I feel like in my field, recruiters tend to spin fairy tales about the amazing industry prospects that a PhD offers, which are completely detached from what actual industry people say, and completely ignore the effect of additional 5 years of extra income/industry experience. We should be honest with graduate students about what they're missing out on, as well as what they're gaining.

@Spark Nobody ever recommended me to get a PhD for industry/career/earnings reasons. Maybe this depends on the field or maybe some institutions are more, say, "aggressive" / dishonest in their PhD student recruitment drives? My advisor told me that a PhD was required working in academia but usually optional working in industry, but that he didn't know enough about industry careers in practice to advice anything more specific about the latter.

@gerrit that’s good to hear. We should always make 5-year commitments based on accurate information. I feel like some professors are complicit in spreading misinformation because of their own survivorship bias, and a need for post-fact justification for their own choices.

This answer doesn't take into account the cost of the PhD or the possibility of student loans, which can both easily flip this to irresponsible. I'd suggest the title "Getting a PhD does not have to be financially irresponsible"

@Mars I hope self-funded PhDs are very rare, but academia varies a lot. They should be and it certainly is very abusive, as PhD students are doing actual research work to the benefit of advisor, university, and mankind.

@gerrit A simple search "average phd loan debt" shows that you are an optimist. Additionally, the idea of "industry or PhD" is simplistic...many people who plan on an industry career are better off getting a job first and going back for further education on a just-in-time basis (when they find that they need it to advance).

@user3067860 The issue of PhD student debt warrants a separate question.  Of course, many people who have debts when they finish their MSc or MA will still have debts when they finish their PhD, because in those countries where large student debts are normal, PhD salaries or stipends are relatively low. Personally, I paid off my student debt using the salary I received in the first half year of being a PhD student. I acknowledge that "industry or PhD" is simplistic yet this is the choice many people face upon finishing their MSc.

I know people with social work PhDs who have decided their best bet is to run out the clock on their (USA) student loans and live in poverty, having never worked a real job until around 30 years old. They missed out on early earning and saving, and now they're over-schooled for a low-paying field. I would say some PhDs are definitely irresponsible if you've not looked at the market for your eventual skill set. That said, I have a STEM B.S. and make more than most of my friends, most of whom have at least master's degrees, through I'm not really in it for the money.

So, in summary, "Getting a PhD that doesn't put you massively in debt and has a high probability of leading to a job that will all you to live the life-style you desire is not financially irresponsible"

@Mars I'd argue that in that rare case it's not getting a PhD as such that is financially irresponsible, but self-funding getting the PhD.  Volunteering to do work that you ought to get paid for can indeed be financially irresponsible if you need money.  I've never met a self-funded PhD student (except when writing up their thesis after funding ran out).

Your assumptions are questionable
Let's take a literal look at the assumptions you make there.

A) Land you in a relatively low level position to start.

The appropriate point of comparison is not at the point of "start" determined by the decision to get a PhD, but at some fixed point of time - for example, the time when you'd start working after getting a PhD. By that time the equivalent bachelor's student would have had something like five years of experience, raises and promotions - and if they'd put in as much learning and work as a PhD program requires, I'd expect that position to be comparable or better than what a PhD graduate can get as their first job offer.

B) You will eventually hit a ceiling past which you cannot rise.

This is simply not true. The majority of career paths (except regulated professions e.g. medicine and law) do not require an advanced degree even in cases when one might be helpful, and someone starting with a bachelors degree generally can progress to the very top either through work experience, or by getting a masters later in life while working.

I've also heard of people in companies that required degrees for promotion, who got a recommendation to join some "degree factory" where for a low five digit sum you can get a real, but totally worthless, but real degree - so the company can then promote them.

I'm not sure this is quite the right framing. It's true that PhDs are required for a very small fraction of jobs, but a person willing and able to get a PhD is also likely to be disproportionally interested in those jobs.
If you want to run your own research projects, almost all paths go through a PhD.

The field does matter a lot. If you want to be a software engineer, it doesn't really matter. There is a bunch of great software being written by people who are just passionate in solving their problems and don't care so much about the degree and 'useless' courses.
They're arguably more employable than someone with a PhD who never finished a real-world project.
So A) and B) are both invalid at least for this field.

This question can't be answered without the details. How much do Bachelor's degree holders earn in your field / locality? How much do PhD degree holders earn? What jobs are enabled by a PhD that someone with just a Bachelor's degree cannot do? It's certainly possible that people with PhDs earn more, but remember you also invest time into the PhD that you won't get back, and because of exponential growth in savings/debt, this can mean you're better off starting to work immediately.
Once you know the answers to these questions, you can run calculations such as this (which is for a different situation, but the same concepts apply) to find out whether it's indeed financially irresponsible. Without the answers, this question is also unanswerable.
Example of how variable the answer to this question can be:

The research shows that Bachelor, Masters and PhD graduates in Humanities — who studied History, Geography Philosophy or Politics — all end up on the same salary, suggesting Masters and PhD students did not see a return on their investment.
In fact, PhD graduates in these subjects earn less on average — £40,000 ($58,000) — than Masters students, who earn £44,000 ($64,000).
Physics, Chemistry, Life Sciences and Healthcare PhD’s also don’t do much to raise pay, with just a £4,000 ($5,800) difference.
Conversely, PhD or Doctorates in Maths, Computer Sciences, Law, and Psychology graduates earn much more than those who only did Masters in the subjects.
PhDs in Mathematics and Statistics earn twice as Bachelor degrees alone — £112,000 ($162,000) — with 78% of PhDs graduates working in the financial and consulting industries.

If you're thinking of doing a PhD, do yourself a favor and study the job market before committing to the PhD.

I think even within maths, there are some that has terrible prospects (such as pure math with no programming), and some with very good prospects. It is very difficult to say. But nowadays programming is paying so much, even for highschool students, anyone who is doing a graduate degree is likely to lose out on years of wages that he or she will never earn back. I know PhDs who earn less than some privileged highschool students. It is the crazy world we live in.

I don't know if these statistics for physics differentiate between academic and industry careers, but in any case they are contradicted by data from from the American Institute of Physics. According to the AIP, new physics BS graduates start around $45-75k in the private sector, while new physics PhDs start around $85-120k in the private sector.

@Danny it's certainly possible. The website is a .au website, so maybe the data only applies to Australia, or perhaps (since it quotes figures in pounds) it only applies to the UK. If so, that just means the answer is even more variable.

While the comments of user Patricia Shanahan are instructive, I'll try to give a bit more perspective.
A PhD is training to do research. In most fields it is theoretical research, and in a few (applied math) it is applied research. Many large companies (IBM, Google, ...) have quite large research divisions. Some of them do theoretical research but the trend has been (last 20 years or more) toward product focused applied research. But the people that hold positions in these divisions need to know how to do research and so a PhD is the more appropriate training.
A person who enters such a company with only a BS or MS has had much less, if any, real research training so would typically be hired into another division - product development, say, likely at a lower salary. A PhD would find the work there to be pretty boring in most cases (startup companies excepted, I suppose), but it would feel "about right" for a BS holder.
Depending on the company there may be a ceiling or not. Most companies try to make it possible for promising employees to move up, so the chance is often there, but in order to do it you need to get the skills to do the required research. That may require additional education, not just "on the job learning". And a person who is trying to move up will always be competing with others (recent PhDs) who already have the skills that are needed at the moment. And you not only have to do the current job but learn how to do the next one.
None of this relates to your headline question, however. If you study six or so years for a doctorate, making essentially no money beyond bare essentials, it takes a while to make up for that financially even if you then start at a higher salary. And then there may be student debt, as well.
But people who get PhDs and similar are seldom driven primarily by money. Such people are more likely to be willing to sacrifice a bit so as to follow the lure of mathematics or science, or whatever. Ideas. But a lot of people, fiction writers, say, value other things more than money. If you can follow your dreams and get paid for it, that may be enough. It is why a lot of people want to be academics, actually.

Some PhDs in some fields and some countries are reasonably well paid.  I certainly made enough money as a PhD student to pay off my (small) student debt and end up with enough savings to buy a home (if I wanted one).  Academia varies more than you think.

In any large company I have experience of that has a large research budget, in the short term you are "competing with others" but in the long term (say > 5 to10 years) you pretty much get to write your own job description, so long as you have a track record of making a lot of money for the company. But of course the majority of new recruits aren't "good enough" to do that, whatever their paper qualifications.

Why do you say that research is theoretical rather than practical in most fields? I would say it's exactly the opposite. I can't think of any fields that aren't essentially mathematics (maths, CS, theoretical physics etc.) where the research would be theoretical. Most PhDs I can think of would be very practical (the various fields of biology, chemistry, experimental physics, pretty much all of STEM). Unless you consider something like historical research theoretical for some reason, all of the liberal arts PhDs would also be practical research.

@terdon, sorry, no. Philosophy can be pretty theoretical. Most doctorates don't concern themselves with applications of the field, but extending what is known: ie theory.

@Buffy ah, I see. I would only call then theoretical if they have no experimental data. So while I wouldn't call a basic research PhD applied, I'd also not call it theiretical if it's based on experimental results and real data. I guess it's a nomenclature issue depending on your field.

@terdon, I think you are overemphasizing data. The question is are you "extending knowledge" or "applying existing knowledge". Theoretical doesn't mean "wild ass guesses".

@Buffy of course not, but I'm used to seeing it contrasted with experimental, not with applied. I'm a theoretical biologist, myself, I'd be the last person to condemn theoretical as "wild ass guesses"!

@terdon A really good example from the 80s/90s in CS would be various formal specification systems like UML. The field was born out of a theoretical idea that formally proving correctness would give bug free code. The leaders in that field agree now that the translation from design to choose is relatively robust, and the biggest problem is actually correctness of the requirements. Essentially they all agree that a decade of theoretical work worldwide was mostly a waste of everyone's time. Industry almost completely ignored it.

@terdon ... With that in mind, put yourself in the shoes of a recruiter in the late 90s. One candidate has 4 years experience in industry, with a track record of making stuff which works. Another candidate has spent 4 years fiddling with UML for no benefit to anyone. Who do you hire?

@Graham, not enough information. Define "fiddling". Recruiting for "what", exactly.

@Graham sorry, what? I was just wondering about Buffy's use of the words theoretical for what I would have just called research (as opposed to applied). I have no idea how a recruiter would enter into this. I wasn't trying to answer the OP's question. And yes, I understand that CS seems to use the words that way, but I'm not from a CS background, so CS examples don't really help me :). Not many fields have such purely theoretical aspects, after all, so it's a pretty niche example. Albeit one of a niche that's very well represented here.

@terdon The OP suggested that "with a PhD you will start in a relatively higher position".  My point is that not only is this not necessarily true, it could even be a detriment.  To generalise a bit more, it's very easy to become overly interested in the theoretical structure of software, and less on its actual maintainability and performance.  I've worked on software which has evolved far too many layers of adapters/bridges, and had to pick up the pieces from people who'd never considered memory copying/usage to be a problem.  CS-wise they were beautiful, but they ran like crippled slugs.

@Graham I understand all this. I just don't understand why you're telling me. My comment had nothing to do with the OP or the question, only with the use of a specific term in this answer.

@terdon Related to your theoretical versus practical comment.  Never mind, we're at risk of vanishing off topic anyway. :)

As a software engineer who has worked for Fortune 100 tech companies, I can assure you that the lack of an advanced degree is no impediment to securing lucrative employment.  I say this as someone who not only lacked a Ph.D and MS, but even a BS degree!  In fact, you may be shocked to learn how much interns with no discernible experience besides a few years of schooling can earn at a FAANG or similar.  At no point in my career did a boss or anyone else suggest: "Your path to promotion is limited by your education/schooling/degrees."  On the contrary, I regularly participated in the hiring process and found that candidates with advanced degrees were, on average, no better than those with a BS or simply a lot of practice.
If your goal is to obtain one of the few positions that actually requires a Ph.D, then I don't have much to say about that.  But the software engineering sector in general prizes youth, not education.  Software companies are eager to snatch up fresh-faced college grads because they will work long hours, learn new technologies quickly, let go of obsolete technologies equally quickly (or better, agitate for change), and absorb the company culture without so much bickering about work/life balance.  As you can imagine, someone who spent 5 years in academia is not actually going to look so competitive or attractive, relatively speaking.  I would go so far as to say that if you bother to get a Ph.D, then it would be "financially irresponsible" to pursue any positions that don't require such an advanced degree, because of the compromises and trade-offs entailed by that choice.
Of course, you can succeed in technology at any age, but age discrimination is real and not going away any time soon.  Software engineers are increasingly becoming like new automobiles--your value declines dramatically the moment you step off campus.

The answer is very straightfoward: A PhD is an apprenticeship towards becoming a researcher. It's not furthering a general education, but rather job training for a specific career path. This career path is not on the route towards becoming an industry worker, which focuses much more on using well-understood techniques to solve well-understood problems than it does on expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. (Both are very respectable careers to have, they're just different things.)
As a result, if you want to go into industry after having completed your PhD, you're asking a company to hire you after you've spent 4+ years of your life doing something else entirely. The person who spent those four years in industry is a safer bet, and also has 4 years of raises, promotions, and job experience under their belt for exactly the kind of work they're competing with you for.
If you know you want to go into industry for certain, get your bachelor's or maybe your master's and then land your first job. If you want to go into research, get your PhD. Don't get a PhD just for the prestige if it doesn't take you down the career path you want.

While I agree with the general idea of the answer it needs to be said that private research is also widely available, just think of Pharma, Lifescience, Cloud Startups, AI, Quantom Computing, Private Aerospace and so on. In addition jobs with highly specialized analytical skills like Big Data Scientists or financial mathematicians and statistics are also areas where PhD are hired.

In the past, now or in future?!
With currently declining number of stock corporations, world population growth converging, machine learning algorithms replacing high-qualified academics in medical diagnostics, finance mathematics, law... you should also internalize into your decision making how future-proof your education based on a bachelor or master degree is. Having a relatively good and demanded but specialist degree now might turn out a professional dead end in 10-20 years with the exponential progress rate in technology.
A PhD diversifies your knowledge and job risk, qualifies you to teach yourself new things and to solve bigger problems autonomously as well as asking new important questions concerning research and industry applications. PhD students often look too much on the title itself which will give you often no salary bonus and lose out of eyes or don't know what they learn on the way to earning the title. During academia you can meet and work with very different people and make very different experiences in comparison to industry.
While doing a PhD later is still an option and many master graduates often choose a PhD sometimes because the job-market is overloaded with applicants in a economical regression, I wouldn't start a PhD in your 40s. Then I think your financial losses will be much bigger than doing it after bachelor/master or in your 30s. But working in industry a few years before doing a PhD is an option I would always consider if you are not sure to pursue an academica career.

Part of answering the question accurately is defining what you think "Financially Irresponsible" means.
In the linked question, the user seems to define it as the maximum amount of profit they can make in their lifetime or at least in the time period of them finishing their PhD and finding their first job.  By this definition, in fields where industry is mostly practical application of skills (think software developer, system administrator, etc), it would be financially irresponsible to get a PhD since you would be losing out on a higher salary, potential bonuses, and most importantly industry experience that could lead to promotions and higher salaries.
In some industries, getting higher education like a masters degree or PhD is necessary to find a high paying industry job.  There are many very general degrees like biology, chemistry, physics, or mathematics that have very few positions for BS graduates but more, higher paying positions for those who furthered their education and got a more specialized degree (Biology BS -> Dermatologist, Mathematics BS -> Big Data Analyst, etc)
In terms of the points you brought up:
A. Regardless of whether or not you have an advanced degree, you will more likely than not end up in a relatively low level position if you have no industry experience.  Even if you end up in a more advanced form of industry because of your degree, you will probably start out on the lowest rung of the ladder.
B. In industry, you are usually only capped by your skill and turnover of the higher ups in your company.  The second point is irrelevant if you are finding a new job with the experience you have from previous ones.
If you are asking because you had plans to get a PhD and are now second guessing yourself, try to figure out the exact reasons why you would like a PhD, even before thinking about if you feel it is necessary for your field.  If you are only in it for the extra money/higher level position, you may need to evaluate whether a PhD will actually be beneficial in your field.
If you asked just out of curiosity, hopefully these answers have helped you out.
To put it into context, I have a BS in CIS and a minor in System administration.  The sysadmin classes were quite close to what I experienced when I worked as a sysadmin with the caveat that you cannot possibly touch on every technology, command, etc that you may need in an industry position with the amount of courses you would take for your degree.  As a software developer, I use little to none of what I learned in my CS classes and in retrospect, I feel like universities are starting to treat the CS curriculum similarly to how they treat other hard sciences in the sense that you are learning primarily theoretical concepts and techniques and spending very little time on the application of such techniques.

There is an implicit assumption in the question which (at least in the US, and with a CS degree path) is completely false.  That is that you must follow a sequential path: BS -> MS -> PhD -> employment (whether in industry or academia).  It's perfectly possible to do BS, lucrative employment while working on MS, more lucrative employment, work on PhD because all that lucrative employment (and a lack of extravagant habits) you don't really need any more money (or at least not much), and can pursue things that interest you.

Unless you have people who depend on you as a source of income due to inability to support themselves financially and broken economic systems that don't address this, there is simply no such thing as "financial irresponsibility". It may be financially disadvantageous to you to get a PhD, but you're not wronging anyone else by doing it. You're well within your rights and reasonable, non-antisocial behavior to make use of academic opportunities because you think it will make your life better/happier/whatever or because you think doing so will bring benefit to others or to the sum of human knowledge.

If money is your main concern then yes, you should not go for a PhD.
If you are more concerned with risking your the tasks in your working life to be 99% trivial under-stimulating boredom traps if you don't go for a PhD, then you should go for a PhD.
The thing is, you don't know how boring or understimulating you would find typical BSc or MSc tasks to be until you try working for a year or two.


text:
In Germany, does an academic position after PhD have an age limit?
Is it true that in Germany, after PhD you are required to acquire some kind of tenure track or teaching position before a certain age? Is this the same all over Germany? Does it depend on the field? I could not find any good information or statistics on this online, at least not in English.

There is no actual age limit.
However, there is a limit of the number of years on which you can be employed in academia in Germany before and after your PhD on positions with a limited-duration contract and that are not professorships - currently that is be six years before the PhD and six years after the PhD. Afterwards, no new working contract can be issued.
This requirement comes from the "Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz", which is a federal law.
So at some point, you have to snatch a permanent position. There are some "glorified postdoc" positions ("Akademischer Rat") that are permanent, but they are rare.
There is an enormous amount of ifs and but surrounding the limits. This includes, but is not limited to:

The maximum number of years get extended if you have children
The limits are slightly different in the medical domain
If the number of limited-time contracts held so far is too high, the administration may block your contract extension.
Even beyond the limit, you may still be employable on third-party funding.
Unspent parts of the 6 years before the PhD can be also used after the PhD, but times spent on a scholarship (not employment) need to be subtracted first.

Excellent answer. It might be good to add a few lines on why this has been introduced (e.g. exploitation of non-tenured staff on repeatedly extended fixed-time positions) and why this employment duration limitation is a problematic matter. Truly, this response answers the question very well, but it is useful for others perhaps to have some context.

@CaptainEmacs Yes, I would love to add that, but I'm lacking a good source to be honest. The limit has several effects, including "freeing" the precious "Promotionsstellen" after some time and enforcing that those that will not have a scientific career find their way into industry faster. But which one is the reason why it was originally introduced is a bit hard to tell. Feel free to edit if you have a good source. Avoiding the exploitation of junior researchers is surely another aspect.

Ah, yes, the clean sourcing problem! I sympathise; no, I do not have good sources at hand, just memories of general discussions. So, if you want sourcing instead of speculations, more digging would have to be done, right now I am reluctant to promise anything, as I have a full schedule.

In addition to DCTLibs great answer: There is an age limit after which you cannot become "verbeamtet" (a special public official status) anymore. It varies from state to state but it is normally around 50.
Almost all professors are beamtet so getting your first professorship later than that might be a problem. There are ways around it but it is a hassle.
Additionally, in some states (Baden-Wüttemberg at least) you cannot get a junior professorship if you have been employed at the university for more than six years after the beginning of your PhD. But this is about your academic age, not your actual age.

"you cannot get a junior professorship if you have been employed at the university for more than six years after the beginning of your PhD": Similar rules are common for funding available for junior researchers. Also, this is not about biological age.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should I recommend with reservation or omit reference?
I have recently worked with one of my least capable students in recent memory. Here are a few specifics:

He has a great attitude
He has great difficulty communicating in English for technical and non-technical purposes.
In terms of technical skill, he has some high level expertise but very little low level expertise and seems to pick up new concepts relatively slowly.

Ultimately, he was able to complete his assigned tasks with notably more assistance compared to peers.
Based on other referral forms that I have seen, I expect to have the option to "recommend with reservation", which I would be willing to do, but I do not want to hamper or harm his learning journey.
Do we have empirical information on whether omitting to refer is better for student outcomes such as acceptance rate or other outcomes of interest compared to "recommend with reservation"?
One more note on the context of this conversation: This student made it clear that he intends to go for graduate school prior to taking my class and asked whether I would recommend contingent on his performance, to which I agreed. So again, I'm happy to recommend him, but these forms ask about whether he's a top 1, 10...% and I think he is genuinely in the top 50% at best.

You might want to change your username to something less identifiable...

Have you had contact with this student in other than this class? How extensive is your knowledge of their overall work?

No I haven't. Our course content is in software engineering and I have seen his portfolio, which is the only further knowledge that I have.

How can "one of the least capable students" be anywhere remotely close to the top 50% of students? Shouldn't that be more like "bottom 10-20%" (or "top 90%", if that sounds better)?

@TooTea I said "top 50% at best" and yes technically I think top 70-80% is accurate but I typically don't see those in the referral forms. So perhaps 50% is a categorical rounding of 70%. I think top 50% is about as far as some forms go. I could justify top 50% of engineer students (not only my students) on the basis that my typical student performs above average, his good attitude, and also he is "one of the least capable" among those who "complete his assigned tasks" so he did not fail he's just at the bottom of the passing group

I think you should tell the student you cannot provide them with the glowing recommendation that programs likely expect.

So again, I'm happy to recommend him, but these forms ask about whether he's a top 1, 10...% and I think he is genuinely in the top 50% at best.

I don't know if I would express it to them quite so bluntly, but I think you should communicate this: they've done well in your course, but that graduate schools often ask if you can place the applicant in the top 1% or 10% of all students and that you won't be able to answer "yes" to that question.
I would encourage them to seek other recommendations, but if they insist then think it's then entirely up to you whether or not you agree to still write a letter if the student, after knowing your letter will be lukewarm, still wants your recommendation.
If, in fact, you really mean that this student is "one of my least capable students in recent memory" then I guess I am a bit puzzled why you are concerned with the acceptance rate of students like this. If the programs are competitive, and this student is among the least capable at their current level, it may not be to their benefit at all to advance to that level and be overwhelmed. There are many successful career paths that do not involve graduate school.

It isn't exactly clear what the state of the request is. If the student has already informed the institution(s) that you are a reference then it may be too late for the following. I hope not.
I strongly suggest that you have a talk (face to face if possible) with this student and tell them about any reservations and that you would need to communicate them in any LoR. Let them decide, with full knowledge, whether you should be a recommender or not.
The talk with the student can be productive in other ways. Knowledge of your reservations might put them on a better path.
I'll note that your point 1 (attitude) can help with your 3 (slow learner) if they understand that they may need to do more work than they might think to build a career.
I once had an undergrad student in an upper level course who had previously never had a really positive educational experience. He was thought of as marginal-at-best by the faculty. I simply treated him differently and invited him to spend as much time as he wanted during office hours asking questions and such. It sort of drove me crazy, but in the end, he wound up at the top of my course without any accommodations made. He was so good, in fact, that the normally "top" students, and they were very good, thought I'd thrown in a "ringer".
Your situation is more serious, since a "recommendation" that isn't really a recommendation can destroy a potential career. They need to know and understand that before you act. I treat that as a moral imperative, though comments here suggest that isn't a universal view. Do. The. Right. Thing.

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


text:
I would like to translate an old dissertation, who owns the copyright?
I have found by absolute chance a doctorate thesis by a foreign author dating from the 70s, having as a subject the village where my parents are from. I was able to order it and have it in my possession.
No one knew about this work in the village, and only a few people told me that they did remember a young foreign individual hanging around in the village for a while  at the time. I started translating it by myself and it is extremely interesting.
I emailed the university to try and contact the professor but got no answer. I would like to hire a professional translator and make the book available to the natives (not looking for profit, as I’m thinking 100-200 copies would be enough).
My question regards to copyrights. Ideally I would be able to contact the author and ask for his permission, but if I am not able to do it, how should I ago about it?

You need permission from the owner of the copyright, which is almost certainly the publisher and not the author.

By "contact the professor" you mean the individual who wrote the thesis, who's now a professor? As opposed to their supervisor (who is probably long gone anyway, but just clarifying)

@AnonymousPhysicist I just checked my university's dissertations and the copyright is retained by the author.

@AzorAhai-him- Well, sure, now that you have changed the question to not say "paper" that would be correct.

@anon The original said doctoral thesis, I edited to clarify.

@Andre Pires if you managed to "order it" as you say, why can you not ask whomever or whereever you ordered it from for help?

Which country are you in? Lots of countries have some level of exemption from copyright for academic use, but exactly how that would work is country specific; https://teflpedia.com/Copyright_in_English_language_teaching (note the link also discusses translated works)

@Sursula-they- Presumably the library of the university has copies of all dissertations written there and will give out copies for a fee. That doesn't imply they have any means to contact the author.

@AzorAhai-him-I assumed the author would now be a professor . The thesis supervisors are now gone (yet one of them only past year).

@Sursula-they-I got it from an antique book vendor, neither  related to university nor author.

One possibility is for you to use Google Scholar to track down other publications made by the same author, and see if they have worked in other academic institutions after completing the dissertation. If so, you might try to contact the department and see if some faculty has the author's contact. Copyright issues are dependent on the country where you live. In many countries, copyright has been extended to 70 years after the death of the author. In any case, out of caution, it is probably best for you to not get the book made without solving the copyright issues first. It's too much of a risk (an unnecessary one, as a matter of fact). Some authors might not care at all that you translated their work, others would never allow you to do it, even if you paid them.

If the author's not keen on you publishing several hundred copies, ask about making 1-2 translated copies to donate to the local library. You'll still be making the material available, but it might be easier to accept if there's not a large production run involved.

@bta, "making available" is a form of publishing. It is this right held by the copyright owner. Donation is also irrelevant.

Thank you for your suggestion. I searched Google scholar yet the author does not have a profile there. I won’t consider publishing without permission before I have run out of options to find him.

Answer for the UK: If you cannot trace the author you can obtain a licence from the IPO if you need to.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/copyright-orphan-works

Thank you for the suggestion. I am however not in the UK, nor the author is originally from there. Would it still be a possibility to publish it there?

@AndréPires, You can make use of the scheme if the use of the work is for within the UK. I.e. the work and the right holder can have any origin but if publication will be in the UK then the scheme can apply.

The law regarding translations, fair use, and copyright duration varies by country, so it is difficult to offer a clear answer to this question. I am answering this question assuming that US law is relevant and that the work in question is under copyright. (If the work is not under copyright then obviously you do not need to concern yourself further.)
US copyright law has a doctrine called fair use which allows use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. I believe that distributing a limited number of full translations of the dissertation at cost or at a loss (that is, not generating a profit) for academic research is not likely to be legally infringing. Let's look at the 4 factors involved in fair use:

Purpose and character of the use: The use is non-commercial academic research, which is a point in favor of fair use.
Nature of the copyrighted work: Seems irrelevant here.
Amount and substantiality: You are suggesting translating the full dissertation. This does not necessarily disqualify the use as fair but you would have an easier time justifying distributing a translation of part of the work. Incidentally, this would also reduce the cost of translation so you may want to go this route.
Effect upon work's value: I believe this limited translation would increase the original work's value because it would increase its market size, so I think this is a point in favor of the translation. Note that this may change if you were to post the translation online for anyone to download.

The most legally justifiable way to publish a full translation would be to make one printed copy and get it put in a library. This used to be relatively common (I've received translations via interlibrary loan that were published this way) and I'm not aware of any legal challenges to this approach. This approach minimizes the effect on the market for the original.
Note that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. You should ask a competent IP attorney in your local jurisdiction if you want a better answer. If you are at a university, your university may have one or more staff attorneys who could answer this question for you at no cost to you.

Note that it still is polite to get permission from the copyright holder and/or author(s). I have published quite a few translations and while it is rare that I am able to contact the authors (usually the papers I translate are quite old and the authors have been dead for a long time), I am yet to encounter any author not enthusiastic about translating their work. I don't recall ever getting a response from publishing companies about translating work they own the copyright to.

You have #4 exactly backwards unless you give the translation to the authors to publish, in which case you can get permission. "Selling at cost or at a loss" is also irrelevant. It is the act of publishing that is the problem.

@Buffy I would recommend taking a look at the links I gave on fair use for summaries of case law on this subject, as there are examples covering what I mentioned. I also clarified #4.

Thank you for your response. It all seems very sensible, and I will try to see if such norms apply to this country.

Hi @Buffy. You mention that the problem is publishing it, which is also my intuition. Does 'publishing' make reference to some official way of releasing the translation? Would, let's say, posting it online for free count as publishing? Or printing a few copies at home and giving them away?

Any sort of making it available generally to the public is "publishing". So putting it online has all the concerns mentioned. A few copies for friends/colleagues is normally ok because it is below the threshold where any copyright owner would make an issue of it. Sending electronic versions to "a few friends" is fraught, since you can't control where it goes from there.

Take the risk. You're very unlikely to be sued; if you are, you will almost certainly be able to come to an agreement. It's not as if they're losing revenue as a result of your action. If you can show that you made best efforts to contact them, then you have a good defence.
My only reservation would be if there are privacy concerns or other sensitivities that might mean the original author doesn't actually want the work to reach a wider audience.

This is disrespectful to the author. The right of translation is (most places) with the copyright holder and requires permission.

And, what reputable publisher would touch an unauthorized translation that might break copyright? Though laws vary, it is still an ethical violation.

I didn't think the OP was proposing to publish it, just to distribute copies privately to interested parties, who surely have a right to know what was being written about them.

It is polite and ethical to try to establish the copyright holder(s) and ask their permission first. OP is trying to do the right thing here and asks how to best do it, not whether to do this.

I agree, and am almost certain the vast majority of authors would most likely feel flattered that a work written more than 40 years ago would be rescued from oblivion and translated to another language (in this case so that the objects of the study could enjoy it), yet the interesting thing about people is how unpredictable they can be…


text:
Can I make a case for authorship if I spend two weeks running a series of repetitive experiments for my PI?
I am a postbac working at a national lab. I have a project that is funded through an outside source, but my PI and postdoc informed me that they need me to spend the next two weeks completing a series of repetitive experiments they don't have the time to do for an alternative project. These experiments are required to satisfy the peer review criteria of the paper. Can I make a case for myself to attain authorship within the paper?

What does the PI say about this?

She has not said anything to me.

It depends a bit on the norms of your field, but no, running repetitive experiments is generally not considered an intellectual contribution to a paper, and therefore not sufficient for authorship. Also, two weeks is really a very small contribution in most fields.

How did the PI answer when you asked her?  (You did ask her, didn't you?)

I tried to talk to her about it yesterday, and she avoided me. I am going to ask her, but at the same time, it is just a bit awkward for me. I don't want to ask for anything that's totally unethical, and when I do ask her, I want to give her a proper answer to why.

What is a postbac?

I guess: "bac" = "bachelor's degree", so "postbac" someone with a bachelor's degree working in the lab.

"I tried to talk to her about it yesterday, and she avoided me."  Try again, and try harder.  It seems unlikely that your PI can actually avoid talking to you about this (given that you are doing work for her so must be in somewhat regular contact with her) if you are sufficiently determined.  "I don't want to ask for anything that's totally unethical" You shouldn't ask for authorship.  You should ask about the standards for authorship and whether they are or can be met in your case.  That is flawlessly ethical behavior.  Don't be shy: just do it.

The short answer:
It does not hurt to ask, and a good mentor or PI will explain the criteria for authorship and their reasoning for why you have/have not earned authorship.  It is a teachable moment.
The longer answer:
Different journals give different criteria for authorship, and this is usually explicitly stated in the guidelines for authors.  In your question you mention that the experiments need to be performed to satisfy peer review.  If the article has already been reviewed for a particular journal (and perhaps now it is in a revision stage) then you and your advisor know which guidelines to check for their description of authorship criteria.  That said, it is a common criteria to require intellectual contribution (rather than simply data). If that is the case, and if you are very interested in this work, you could offer to help edit the paper.  However, if the paper has already been submitted, it can be challenging to add an author (for some journals this requires all other co-authors to sign off on the new addition).  If the paper has not yet been submitted, and the target journal is undecided, you really should discuss this with your advisor (which you should do in any case).  Personally I have worked for months on projects where I was not a co-author on the write-up when I was paid to primarily collect data.

Great answer that brings up 2 key points: intellectual contribution and paid work.  In my experience authorship is usually extended to paid early-career technicians as a courtesy or mentoring opportunity.

In addition to the answer provided by user2860703, you may also need to consider the policies of your university. In germany, almost all universities follow the recommendations of the DFG (German research agency) (pdf, german). It explicitly excludes "honorary authorships", and states as one of the reasons that do not qualify you as an author (page 30 of the linked PDF) "purely technical assistance in data collection" ("lediglich technische Mitwirkung bei der Datenerhebung").
To qualify (as per these rules), you would need to make "significant contributions to the concept, development, analysis / interpretation and writing of the paper" ("Konzeption der Studien oder Experimente, zur Erarbeitung, Analyse und Interpretation der Daten und zur Formulierung des Manuskripts"). Disregarding this policy is academic misconduct and may, in the worst case, lead to your degree being revoked.
I have not heard of a case where a degree was revoked because they gave someone a honorary authorship, but be aware that these rules exist if you work in germany, and that your institution may have similar or additional rules for this. Enforcement of these policies probably varies across institutions and countries.

This is just my 2 cents, but I think far too many of the answers here reflect "ideal science" rather than what actually happens. You don't get authorship on a paper because you met all the requirements for authorship that the journal asks! haha, gosh, no way. Here are what I suspect are the most important factors that contribute to authorship ranking (in Biology):
1) Person Directly Responsible for the project.
Is it a PhD project (where a PhD student is directly responsible), or it's a project being supervised by a post-doc (who is directly responsible) but work is being carried out by others? The PDR has the most right to authorship, regardless of how much time at the bench they put in. When i was a BSc, I did months of work for a post-doc, and of course I wasn't an author on anything, because it was his project not mine.
2) Person who wrote significant portions of the paper.
This is surprisingly the second most important factor, after the PDR, because it's very difficult to justify being higher-up on the authors list of a paper that someone else physically wrote. Often the PDR is also the person who writes the paper, so this is rarely an issue, but when thats not the case it's important to bare this in mind. There's a person in my lab who wrote up a paper using the results from a PhD student who after graduating (but before publishing) left for a post-doc. The ex-PhD student being the PDR is number 1 on the paper, and the person who wrote it up is number 2. Myself, a PhD student who contributed a key experiment (and considerable time) to the project, was somewhere in the middle, because I obviously have no leg to stand on demanding authorship on something i didn't write.
3) External lab wild-card bonus.
The more your PI wants to collaborate with an external lab that did something on a paper, the more likely that external lab will be placed high on the authors list. This is particularly true if the external lab is a medical facility which provided sample material. I've seen people who have supplied biopsies being credited as 1st author over the PhD students who worked for 3+ years on the project because the PI needs to maintain a good relationship with that medical facility if they are to expect more samples in the future. More often than not though, these people end up as 2nd/3rd authors with everyone else apart from the PDR and PI wondering who the hell they are.
4) Results contributed.
This is different to work, because results are measured in figures, not hours. Basically, if one of your experiments determined the take-home message of the paper, you contributed a result. If your work added support to the take-home message, that may or may not be a result, depending on the PI. Statisticians/Bioinformaticians can get lucky or unlucky here, depending on how well their PI understands their job. If you run data through a standard analysis pipeline and the results end up looking interesting, and this may give the bioinformatician more authorship credibility to some PIs than the PhD student who had to optimise the protocol to get that data in the first place (even if that optimization took months/year), because the output of protocol optimisation is what we expected to work now works, whereas the running of data through a pipeline lead to a new research direction.
5) Work.
As you can see, work comes pretty low on the list - in fact it takes considerable work to even make it on a paper if you have not contributed results. If you are proving something the PDR knows is likely to be true, as is the scenario in the OP, the chances of authorship are essentially up to the benevolence of the PI/PDR.
Finally, I don't agree with the system we have, obviously, because i've been stung in just about every way imaginable by it - but that's just how it is. Authorship ordering is not a science, it's political, but having been in Academia for a while now i'm slowly coming to appreciate why the system works the way it does - there are often just too many diverse stakeholders in a paper to apply any system other than a political one. There is no authorship formula.
These days, now that i've nearly finished my PhD, i've noticed that this system benefits me more than it used to. I've contributed in small but important ways to numerous projects, and as a result my authorship average is getting higher for less work. No doubt, any system that benefits those who know it the best, is a system that is likely to remain until it gets overthrown by the angry masses.

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


text:
Is it better to use reference letters that show variety, or two letters from the same job that better fit the program I'm applying to?
I am an undergraduate student getting ready to apply for graduate school in a few months.  I have worked in two jobs in Physics (my desired field), one in experimental and one theoretical.  At each job I have at least two people willing to provide reference letters, and I believe all of them would be good references.
Many of the graduate application websites indicated that 2 (or more) letters of reference are required.
When I apply to one of these programs is it better to double down and use 2 letters that apply to the same program (ie, use 2 references from experimental group when applying to an experimental graduate program)?  Or would it be better to have a bit of variety (ie, one letter from each group, regardless of whether I am applying to experimental or theoretical)?
I'm leaning towards the variety, because I think that two letters from the same job would end up having the said the same thing, whereas the variety gives the university an idea of my breadth of knowledge.

You might consider getting 3 letters, if you think you can get 3 good letters.

The content of the letter is more important than whether the author is a theorist or experimentalist.  I suggest you ask your letter writers what they think.  They will know if they will write you a good letter better than I will.

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


text:
Changing PhD area of math?
Some background: I'm currently about to finish my first PhD year (in a 4 year program) in complex geometry and I'm really struggling with it because I have to learn a lot of new mathematics essential for the area and which are completely new to me. My background is not completely in mathematics. I did my bachelor in physics and computer science, and after that I obtained a masters in pure math, where I got to learn the foundational material (analysis, topology, number theory, etc.)
As a consequence I've contemplated the following options:

The first gambit: Continue with it and give it my best try. I'm confident I can learn all the material I'm required to, the problem is my learning speed is not fast enough.
The second gambit: Change to a more friendly area: I'd like to think of this as an area that requires less foundational material (more vertical perhaps?). An area which may be better suited for me according to my background AND for which my university has a group for it (this limits the options). One of the options would be applied math.
The solution I fear most: Quit the PhD. I really don't have the slightest idea what would be of me in this case since I despise the idea of working in a 9-5 job, it's just not my thing.

In fact, all this got triggered by my advisor showing concern about my progress a few months ago, and as of now, they told me to learn certain topics, yet I find them quite hermetic given my foundational gaps, so I often get very stressed while studying this foundational material since I should be also studying what I was told to.
At the moment I'm not personally ready to take options 2 or 3, but these ideas are always in my mind.
What this post is for: I'd like to know what other people in similar situations to mine have done and how it worked for them. Maybe I'm overlooking other better courses of action. Maybe it's normal to feel this way or have some of this problems, or not. Broadly speaking I'm looking for advice from a more experienced person.

I started my phd works in complex analysis. Now, 7 years later, I am working in algebraic combinatorics. I sort of drifted gradually towards combinatorics during my 5 year program, and it was perfectly fine. This was more accidental, the tools I needed in the end were of combinatorial flavour, and now I do combinatorics 100%.

Don't worry about what you "should" do.  Try to figure out what you would like to do.  I assume you chose complex geometry because it was interesting to you.  If it still seems very interesting and enjoyable, do that!  But if it has become nothing but a chore, I don't think it's too late to transition into something more appealing.  In my experience it's very difficult to do good work in a field that doesn't have strong appeal for you.

what hours do scholars and professors keep?

There is one piece of advice that seems particularly important to give: do whatever is needed to enjoy working on your PhD. You won't go very far if stress and pressure is all that gets you going, and the probability of getting an academic job after even a very good PhD is too thin to go into PhD without enjoying the PhD years by themselves.
Of course you will have to work hard whatever path you take, and not all the work will be pleasant. But if you are not enjoying your current work at least from time to time, you should definitely change something. Having insufficient foundations is a pretty good explanation for not enjoying oneself, so going to a subject where this problem will disappear feels reasonable to me.

I really feel for you.  I had a very similar experience in math graduate school.  I won't go in to the details, but let's say I ended up in a research group whose general area I was interested in, but the particular research they did was not as interesting to me and required a rather different background.  I struggled to fill in the gaps in my background, but it was difficult not least because I wasn't all that interested in it, and I always felt only half welcome in the group.  I ended up basically taking approach 2 from your list, working on a project at the interface between my current group and another group in the department.  I wouldn't say the latter group "required less foundational material", but the stuff I wanted to work on had not been that heavily studied before, so it was in some sense easier because I was the first to look at it seriously.  Not surprisingly, the results were not particularly breakthrough, however, but I did complete my PhD defense ( a year longer than usual ).
I have since left academics, in no small part due to my experiences in the social and societal aspects of academic math life. In fact, realizing this about the fourth year of my PhD program, I started looking outside of academia for job opportunities, took a couple of classes in more applied fields, and contacted a recruiter.  If you decide to go this route, I very strongly recommend contacting someone to help you with the job search.  In my experience, the disdain for leaving academics and entering industry amongst pure mathematicians, while mostly tongue-in-cheek, nevertheless means they are clueless about the prospects and the process.  Again, one person's experience, but I think it can't hurt to reach out.
I might have been able to struggle harder through the foundational material, but I felt I would have ended up with a thesis in a subject that was not my passion, and it seemed to me at the time at least that once you've gone that far into a specific research field, your post-doctoral position(s) will be in that field, and it will be even harder to switch; I didn't want to spend my career in the same field as my research group.
I don't mean to dissuade you from trying to stay in academics, but I will say that I'm very happy with where I've ended up.  I would also caution you, the last year of my graduate school was very difficult and I had to find my own way both in terms of research and job prospects; my advisor could not have cared less about my job search once I was no longer looking in academics.

My experience was a little like yours. I studied algebra as a pure math grad student. Up to a certain point, I actually enjoyed the work even. But, when it came time to really get down to writing a dissertation, select an advisor, etc., I just found that I did not enjoy the subject that much.
I switched to doing an applied math PhD and have found it personally to be much better. I enjoy the subject a lot more, feel more inspired in the field of research, and am ultimately a lot happier.
I sort of "lost" a year or two of time by making this switch, but it was better than spending the next 30 years in a field I did not enjoy.
Grit can only take you so far in a PhD.

You are taking a journey a road less travelled by many educated individuals. There had to be a compelling reason for you to choose y
To quote the first articles last paragraph:

Successful PhD students thrive in a highly intellectual environment, are willing to work very hard with only a possible payoff, love their field of study, and don't mind forgoing impressive paychecks. If this sounds like you, forge ahead!

http://www.princetonreview.com/grad-school-advice/why-you-shouldnt-pursue-phd
Remember that your pursuance of new knowledge will expand your perspective. It is not just solving a new or lingering problem, your cognitive notions will be tested and truths will be challenged and verified. The rigor is real and the demand complex. Your computer science background is your cure for the analytics.
Physics roots theoretical understanding to tangible outcomes.
Quoting someone who directly engaged your current field of study:

Because you love math[s].

http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~justin/phdadvice.html
Option two sounds most to my liking because I am a Computer Science and Applied Math fan. Its practical to me.
For you, it sounds like you are going to finish with choice 1 and really should get back to the books to exercise your brain on the routine of the extra courses not seen or remembered from your past (like number theory). You have a lucky foundation that favors your current studies. Have a good journey.


text:
How to enhance my prospects for a PhD?
I am looking to apply for a PhD in the CS realm in the next cycle, particularly something with an AI flavor like Machine Learning or NLP. I am a bit of an anomaly in CS as I have undergraduate majors in a very different area (one was history...). I am finishing up a Masters focusing in signal processing at a well-renowned school and have a good GPA and top GREs. I was a CS minor undergrad, but started too late into college so I couldn't have gotten the major, although I took the core courses.
Although I finished undergrad with plenty of accolades (and I TAed in CS for 3 semesters), and I have excelled in the engineering courses at the Masters level, I am really concerned about my chances to get into a great PhD program. (There are a number of reasons why I want to pursue PhD, but at the same time, *for  me*, the time commitment doesn't feel warranted if I'm not working with great faculty at a great institution.)
I have some research experience (an undergrad honor thesis in my majors--I know it's not exactly related--and I'm a co-author on a couple non-CS papers published in IEEE journals from some summer work), but nothing really in depth I've done on my own. My Masters is a non-thesis program so I've had trouble finding an adviser who'll take me on (I want to do a thesis anyway). I've also had trouble finding (and being accepted) to worthwhile summer research opportunities (academic settings related to my interests). I have actually really enjoyed my previous research opportunities, and I know that for PhD admissions it's research, research, research (and some recs). So here are my questions:

How do I find my way into substantive research endeavors?
With my eclectic background, how can I rise above the thousands of CS undergrads with plenty of relevant research during the admission process?
Any suggestions how to sell my academic background as a positive?

NOTE: Of course I think I'm qualified (every applicant does or else they wouldn't apply). I also think that my unique background is a bonus. I'm concerned that those making hiring/admission decisions will feel differently. (edited since first posting)
Thanks in advance for the advice!

Do you want to do theoretical work in AI/ML or applied? The reason I ask is if its the latter, then you are better off applying to alternative departments like information science departments (like mine). We love people who have interdisciplinary backgrounds but usually, with a computing flavor.

Thanks for the tip! I didn't think about that... I'm a bit more interested in applied. For example, when I hear of new ideas or approaches, my first thought is always "what could I do with that?". I'd rather be an Edison than an Einstein (although let's be honest I'd be happy with either ;-)). I always felt my biggest strength is thinking creatively. Part of my desire to pursue a PhD is to develop the technical (and procedural) understanding in order to substantiate some of my crazy ideas.

Then, I think that a HCI/ischool/information science department maybe what you are looking for. At most places, such departments are equal mixes of social science and computing science and your unique background would be welcomed in most programs, especially if you add a dash of qualitative work in your dissertation as well.

The most important criteria though, is to have a good vision of your potential research question i.e. it is not enough to say that you are interested in AI/ML - but how you are going to use this approach in what research questions.

Unless I am mistaken, "next cycle" is half a year from now. There are many ways to enhance one's PhD prospects, but many big ones are no longer available to you due to timing.
Robert Peters in Getting What You Came For cites an ETS study about how important various parts of the PhD application are considered by committees, on a scale from 1 to 5:

3.9 Undergrad GPA in major field
3.8 Recommendations from faculty known by committee
3.7 Undegrad GPA in last 2 years
3.6 GRE verbal score
3.6 whether undergrad major is related
3.5 Undergrad GPA
3.0 Educational or career aspirations
3.0 Recommendations from faculty unknown by committee
3.0 Whether applicant is known to the committee
2.9 Academic achievements (papers, projects)
2.9 Quality of undergraduate school
2.7 Personal statement
2.7 Interview
2.6 Work experience
2.6 GRE analytical score
2.5 Non-faculty recommendations
2.5 GRE Subject score (related to program)
1.9 Other test scores
1.9 GRE Subject score (related to undergrad major)
1.6 Particular subscores on GRE Subject

You have half a year. Some of these things, like your GPA, obviously cannot be changed. What you can do is:

Try to publish or present at a conference
Make sure you don't get low grades from any classes you are taking
Make sure you get strong recommendations
Study for the GRE, especially the verbal part
Make contact with faculty at the programs you think of applying to
Research thoroughly the programs you are interested in
Start working on your Statement of Purpose so you have time to edit it

I disagree with many of these criteria as I can easily point out a counterexample i.e. my department. Having said that, I think that the second part of your answer is much more meaningful in this context and should be elaborated upon in detail (and maybe you should consider not having the first part in your answer)

@shion I think the survey is a good explanation of why I suggest the things I do and don't suggest others. Also, the book discusses OP's exact situation at length, and is worth a mention.

This depends in which country or "world" you live in.
PhD programs and similar are very different around the world.
You have:
- U.S.
- Uk
- Countries like Sweden
- Switzerland
- Central Europe like Germany/Austria
- India
- etc.
Each country has a very different culture in general and a different university culture in turn, and also different resources.
Just one example: in India PhD positions are hard to get, in Germany/Austria there are sometimes 5 applications for a single job, so just by chance it is easy to get a position.
In research in technical disciplines (computer science, electrical engineering), my option is that the most important thing is mathematics. It is the hardest and most gerneral applicable topic. This is also, in my eyes, the most important topic for applied research.
If you don't know mathematics it is hard to do functional programming. You need Category theory to use Monads, Functors, etc., to write programs in functional languages like haskell. There are state of the art programming languages based on Higher Order Logic and others that are based on Martin Löw type theory. Without an excellent mathematical background one is helpless.
If you want to analyze and predict signals in electrical engineering, this is comparably easy if you know how to do harmonic analysis and state of the art statistics.


text:
What did teachers write on before the invention of the chalkboard?
I read that the chalkboard was invented in the 19th century in the UK.  What did teachers write on before the invention of the chalkboard?

That timeline, wherever you read it, seems completely wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard#Etymology_and_history

Blackboards ("Tafel") are mentioned in  Johann Amos Comenius’ Orbis sensualium pictus (https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost17/Comenius/com_o097.html) in 1653. James Pillans (1778–1864)  is credited with the invention/introduction of coloured chalk.

Copied from my answer in another forum HSM...

the first mounted classroom chalkboard was pioneered in Scotland in the early 1800s,
...
Teachers would usually have to individually transcribe the problems onto each individual slate, which took up a lot of time. All of this changed when teachers began mounting bigger boards onto classroom walls.
wisegeek

This leap forward is widely believed to have first happened in a geography classroom in Edinburgh, Scotland; that teacher, James Pillans, is said to have taken a rough piece of raw slate and mounted it himself up on the wall behind his desk.
Wikipedia

[I am not talking about a separate small slate for each student.  That is much earlier.]

I think this answer shows the danger of relying on English language sources when looking at a time when English wasn't the lingua franca, pun intended ;-)
This dates from 1653 and depicts a school scene: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost17/Comenius/com_o097.html

Before the invention of chalkboards, teachers used a variety of methods for instruction and display of information. The most common methods included:

Hornbooks: These were small wooden paddles with a handle, where a    printed sheet of paper, often containing the alphabet, syllables, and
the Lord's Prayer, was pasted and covered with a thin layer of
transparent horn for protection.

Slates: Individual students used small handheld slates to write and    erase text. These were particularly common for personal
student use    rather than for teaching to an entire class.

Manuscripts and Books: In the absence of large writing surfaces,    teachers often relied on manuscripts and books. They would read from
these texts and provide oral instruction to students.

Sand Tables: In some cases, especially in early education, sand    tables were used. Students could write and draw in sand, which was a
practical and reusable method.

Blackened Boards or Walls: In some instances, a piece of wood painted    black or a wall smeared with a dark substance was used to
write on    with chalk or a similar substance.

Lecture and Rote Learning: Without visual aids, teaching often relied    heavily on oral instruction and memorization.

Each of these methods had its limitations, which eventually led to the development and widespread adoption of the chalkboard in the 19th century.

How they learn math with just oral instruction?

Fascinating. What are your sources so I can read more?

Welcome to Academia.SE. Just for future reference, please note that this policy exists.

I have heard that professors, such as Isaac Newton, had to file a copy of their lecture notes before the start of a term. Students could copy the notes. Lectures were usually just oral. For hundreds of years it was all in Latin.


text:
How to quit/put on hold a PhD program due to personality clash with advisor?
I've been trying to cope with a very abusive and mentally unstable advisor. In a recent clash she has been spewing lies and threats. It has become clearer and clearer that despite the four years of manipulations, borderline extortion, and five publications that I've survived through, I will never receive a degree from this advisor. I have decided to accept a job offer and I want to just close things up at the school in the best possible way. If possible, I'll leave a door open by taking a leave of absence for a year to come back to a different advisor.
How should I go about my next steps? Do I email the Department Chair directly asking for a meeting? I have been warned such an email would probably reach my advisor first. Do I just walk into the student affairs department with a leave of absence form? If I should email someone, who should it be, and what should I write there?
I'm funded by an NSF grant, so should I write them now in conjunction or after I finalize my leave at school?

Did you try to have an honest, off the record, conversation with the department head (or similar authority figure, above your advisor) ? The advisor might be a "known problem" and they might help you find a third way. I've seen people in your situation swap advisors against the previous advisor's will (overruled by the dep.'s head) and do the thesis deposit/set up defence inside a week... Extreme case, burned bridges all around, but doable...

You may also want to consider whether or not you already have been granted a masters or would be eligible to receive one, if that could be of help to you in the future. It is pretty common in the US to receive at least a masters even if you drop the PhD program itself.

Five publications? Good God, you deserve a PhD more than me and anybody else I have known. FábioDias is absolutely right. I know of an identical case where the advisor wanted the student to do more work after six years and four publications...and refused to fund him AND wouldn't get him a TAship. He finally, talked to the graduate chair in our department. He was ready to go to the department chair and even the dean of the college...but it didn't come to that. The graduate chair immediately took charge, switched his advisor, emailed his thesis to three other faculty members to judge if his thesis was sufficient. He scheduled a defense. Half of the department (students and faculty) showed up. The abusive advisor was also present because he was kept as part of the committee, he was just not the chair nor the "advisor". He successfully defended and even the abusive advisor passed him.
He defended and left within a month.
You have done a lot of work and invested a lot of time and you definitely deserve your degree if you have so many peer-reviewed publications. I wouldn't recommend taking a leave because only rarely I have seen someone coming back after a break (whatever the reason may be for the leave) and finishing. And as you said, it will have financial complications and NSF wouldn't like it very much. In addition, would you quit your job a year later to come back to school? Or work part time? Start fresh with a new advisor, or continue the same project? Will you spend another four years with the new advisor? I would say that finish this as quickly as possible in your own favor. And how specifically would an email to the department chair reach the advisor first? Does he or his/department's secretary play golf with your advisor?
I would say, without writing anything, just drop by the office of the grad chair. Talk to him first. Tell him everything verbally. You should think very hard before putting anything in writing as in an email. Ask him for help. See what he does. If he takes control, then good. Otherwise just drop by the department chair's office and talk to him. This also avoids the danger of your advisor seeing your email first because there never was an email.
At the very end, I would compose a very careful email and send it to the dean of the college and/or the dean of the graduate school, making sure to CC both the department chair and the grad chair.
These are all different levels of escalation. You should start at the bottom, give them a fair chance and a reasonable amount of time to resolve this in good faith. But if it doesn't work, then don't be afraid to escalate it to the next level and repeat.
If you want to take it even further, there is the division of student affair and conflict resolution which is usually under the chancellor or the vice-chancellor. There is also the ombudsman office. At the very end, I would talk to the legal counsel at your school. In the US, even the hint of a possible litigation can have miraculous effects. The school's counsel will of course look out for the school but they might convince the school/college/department to behave rationally because the bad publicity is not worth a grad student.
I'd say hang in there. Research these offices in your university. Read up on some of these policies. Be reasonable and fair but also firm and assertive. I know you have put up with so much abuse but you have to start at the bottom and move up fighting for what's rightfully yours.

This is the right answer. Be reasonable and fair but also firm and assertive.

Definitely +1. Leave of absence has such a high probability of meaning not coming back. With that much work, I think any reasonable professor would happily take on the student so they could finish out their PhD.

Thank you very much for the well thought answer. Another professor explained to me I'd lose all the research I have done and I can expect another 2-2.5 years before I get 3 new publications in his field. I regret not switching out a couple of years ago or a year ago but I was afraid that my name would be removed from the publications still in progress and leave with my word against hers that 'I haven't done much'. Not to mention I was truly obsessed with my project for which I got the NSF grant for but she was not going to let me take it with me.

I scheduled a meeting for tomorrow morning with the Chair but I have no idea how to present this. The Chair does not know me and I'm afraid I may seem to defensive or problematic. I don't know how to tell my story. My only hope is that she knows enough of about my advisor's past clashes. My advisor has had legal battles with two past subordinates (post doc and research assistant), and many other regular clashes that resulted in people being kicked out, but all of these altercations came up in another department since she has a double appointment.

@codekitty: without getting too personal, just state exactly what the issue is. "It seems that my advisor and I are unable to work in a functional manner with each other. I am still interested in pursuing a PhD (of course, given that you are) and I would like to talk about my options for continuing work with a different advisor".

If you're in good standing with faculty overall, a leave of absence justified with a desire to temporarily join an exciting industry option might quite possibly be granted. Justifying it with "personality clash" strikes me as poisonous, so don't do that - at least not in a public request. You say you plan on coming back to another adviser; but it doesn't sound as if you've worked on finding one.
I don't think you've thought this through: you leave for a year, with only a vague idea of coming back to "someone else" who you must believe you'll find while not even on location. If you don't have one, or several mentors behind you (other than your adviser) who you know have always been very fond and supportive of you, you'll have to explain to some other faculty, while away, why you don't want to come back to your old adviser. A person neutral in the matter will naturally want to hear the other side of the story, and talk to your old adviser who is likely to have similarly ambiguous feelings about you. This is anyway the right approach for faculty as the new adviser will not want to act behind the back of a colleague. This has only some remote hope of working out if the new adviser does like you a lot, and it's certainly made harder by - apparently - planning on tackling this while working in industry.
This is to say that - in my opinion, and absent a powerful other ally among faculty very fond of you - you should first switch to another adviser; then consider if you still want a leave of absence, and see if this is cool with your new mentor. If either the former or the latter don't work out, you should accept the very real possibility that your temporary leave will mean the end of your Ph.D.

Thank you for your reply. I'm actually not set on coming back in a year. Reading through answers answered in this general topic, most people chime in that you should leave a door open and that you got nothing to lose by 'leave of absence' so that is why I'd prefer to file that form instead of another (termination?). My main concern though is who to email and what in order to update my status. I'm also concerned leaving mid-semester may have financial implications (will I be charged for the partial semester if my nsf grant pulls back?)

@codekitty: given that grants are involved, I'm not the right person to ask about this aspect (we were all funded by our school, so approved leaves of absence, after your qualifying, were granted whenever the opportunity arose). Procedurally, I'd line up a meeting with both your adviser (first), and the chair, in which you focus on how awesome you think the opportunity is, while re-affirming your basic commitment to and excitement about their program (true or not). As you say you want to keep the door open, I'd still think about what I write in my answer.

@codekitty: I really am not sure that "you got nothing to lose by 'leave of absence'". I've heard from many people that the difference between taking a leave of absence and formally leaving the program is the formality and that's it. As a point of reference, someone in my program took a leave of absence. When they decided to return, their advisor stated "you can come back when you publish a paper". They responded with "how am I supposed to get a publication without being in grad school?" to which the advisor responded "not my problem". So I wouldn't take it too lightly.

@CliffAB: that sounds like a horrible advisor to me.

@MartinArgerami: without pointing fingers, I don't think it needs to be said that the student and advisor had a very bad relation. But as it sounds like the OP has a similarly negative relation with their advisor, the anecdote seems quite relevant.

Four years is a lot of time to just throw out, and 5 publications seems like you should (at least) be close to having enough completed for a Ph.D.  Could you switch advisors to someone who would count your past work? Does she have any previous students you can talk to about what they did?  Are there faculty with whom you are on good terms who could give honest advice?  If what you say is true, you might not be the only one who has noticed this behavior.

This seems like it's asking more questions than it's answering. Perhaps it should have been written as a comment?

An astute observer may find some answers in these questions.

Asking the right questions is often the essential part of a good answer.  (I think this is a good answer.)