text:
What are the potential pitfalls of having a PhD?
This question follow's JeffE's comment here:

In most industries, a PhD has negative value.

I am curious about what potential negatives there may be with having a PhD, particularly in industries.  For example, my PhD has applications for image sensors, and the potential of working in that field is appealing—would having a PhD be a potential barrier? Would it be a case of how explicit the practicalities of the PhD can be made?  Would this make any difference?

„Why didn't you get a job earlier?”

@gerrit I have a job, not in a field that I wish to stay in (high school teaching).

I'm trying to imagine what HR might ask an applicant with a fresh PhD, 3–4 years older than another one without.  In fact it's a literal quote from a conversation I had with a co-student during my Master's who said („I don't want a PhD, I need a job”).  Space technology.

I'll let JeffE chime in if I'm mis-interpreting him, but I think what he meant was that having a PhD in many fields can lead to jobs that pay less than a job in the same field that you might get with a Master's degree.  E.g., having a PhD in electrical engineering is less valuable than having a Master's degree on average -- the EE professors making $100K/year bring down the average salaries while the Master's degree holders working industry jobs with $150K/year salaries bring up the average.

@ChrisGregg yes, that's the kind of information I am interested in.

@ChrisGregg but someone with a PhD can do the master level jobs ?

@NimChimpsky Sure, but that doesn't mean they are in those jobs.  Also, some employers would rather hire a Master's grad in order to pay them less than a PhD grad (but that might still be above average for all PhD grads).

@ChrisGregg and someone with a Phd will probably take that job, if they can't get more cash elsewhere ...

I think the main issue is that if a job only requires Master, and if they hire a PhD, they have to pay more for the extra degree. Why would a company hire a PhD then when a Master can do the same job for less....

@NickS they don't have to pay more ... in the UK at least.

In my country even the guys with Masters don't get paid more than a guy with Bachelors.And Majority of the companies don't even consider Developers with Phds.I was talking about the software development industry,this might differ in other industries.

It seems strange to me when people say companies won't hire PhDs because they would need to be paid too much. If there is such a large supply and so little demand, how could a PhD command a high salary? If anything, a PhD is so used to living on meagre stipends, that I suspect companies could easily hire them for much less than someone with only a bachelor's degree!

@Casteels not always the case, I have worked full time while doing my PhD, and many more do the same (at least where I have studied).

The Workplace has a similar (if software industry specific) question.

@Casteels It is not how it works. If someone is overqualified for a job, it potentially leads to tensions about expectations (not only salary). Also, people who hire do no need a macroeconomical argument about how this or that is right, if they have different personal experience or perception on the problem.

@gerrit sure if you're comparing phd to your co-batch alumnus in secondary school/highschool or even bachelor's. probably in the spirit of the question. but in the letter of the question what we'd be comparing is phd to, like, bachelor's graduates right? then i guess the answer to the letter of the question is this ?

Though a Ph.D is not necessarily a disadvantage, depending on the field and the nature of the Ph.D, it may also not be as competitive as the equivalent number of years in industry.
Think from a perspective of a hiring dev team leader who needs a good systems engineer yesterday to help integrate some obscure API from a vendor into their product. You're choosing between a pile of resumes.
On one, you have a candidate who has 3 years as a junior engineer in a company that worked on image sensors, 2 years of work as a systems developer II, and one year as a lead developer on a computer vision project. He's delivered seven projects in total and has worked in a highly cross-functional team of hardware and software engineers, salespeople, and on-site support staff. The products he worked on brought the company revenue of $86.3 million dollars over seven years.
On another, you have a candidate who has done 6 years in a Ph.D and 1 year worth of internships in total. He's worked on a computer vision project and has contributed a novel algorithm to solving "Line tracing under low UV light conditions" (I made that up, I have no idea if that's a real problem in computer vision), and has written six publications. He also has taught a course on 3rd year systems programming and has TAed robotics three times.
While they are both good candidates, chances are that unless you need someone who does "line tracing under UV light", the first candidate might be more attractive. Less training, less having to work with that person to integrate them into a product-based flow, proven record of delivering product and making sales, etc...
I personally feel that the "disadvantage" of a Ph.D is more about opportunity cost than an actual disadvantage. In many cases, the culture of academia vs. industry are different enough that it's like switching fields even if the technologies are similar. Basically, someone with 7 years actual work experience has enough to basically go from a new grad hire to a project team lead, whereas someone with 7 years of Ph.D is proven to deliver in an academic setting but not in a for-profit product-based one. However, at the same time, there are many industries that want to have Ph.Ds on their staff as well because they are long-term, deep thinkers who are rigorous and detailed.

+1 purely for the first sentence (though the rest is good too, I just can't +1 twice)

"opportunity cost" This.

It's more than just this. Many people have negative stereotypes about PhDs (aloof, deep thinkers - in a bad way, not practical, not able to work in teams ect.) For many in HR you have to convince them that you don't fit these stereotypes. Think about the characters in the big bang theory. That is how we are perceived by many MBAs and even professional technical people.

In the first place why is the 1 internship PhD person applying for the same job as the person with 6 years of work experience? If they are both applying for an entry level position, I think the latter is overqualified.

@dmckee---ex-moderatorkitten sure if you're comparing phd to your co-batch alumnus in secondary school/highschool or even bachelor's. probably in the spirit of the question. but in the letter of the question what we'd be comparing is phd to, like, bachelor's graduates right? then i guess the answer to the letter of the question is this ?

In my field (bioinformatics, systems/computational biology) if you don't have a PhD you practically don't exist on the map, but yet it's a very research oriented field.
I can imagine a couple of issues where a PhD might have a negative effect on the attractiveness of a candidate, while none of the below are prove-able facts, they are directly based on my experience (myself, people I know, etc.)

Overspecialization: In many industries being overspecialized might hurt more than it helps. You might get stuck on obscure case scenarios, or obsess about rigor before anything else. Likewise doing research might have an effect on having a more abstract, rather than practical, way of thinking. Most of us don't really "deliver" a product.
Jadedness: Those 4-6 years spent doing research is likely to have caused some self-doubt, questioning yourself. In my experience most people that go corporate after uni live in a state of blissful ignorance, compared to their classmates who've gone on to pursue PhD studies. (yes, I might have exaggerated it a bit but the point is still valid I believe)
Attitude: While this might not be the general truth, in my experience people in the academic world is much more laid-back than corporate world. While most of my old classmates are expected to be at their desk at 7 or 8 sharp, and expected to leave latest by 5 to avoid working overtime, I can practically show up and leave whenever I feel like. What my boss cares about is whether or not the project progresses as we have decided. A potential employer might be wary of such "bad habits".

As I said, not a factual answer but I hope it provides some insight, anyways.

"In my experience most people that go corporate after uni live in a state of blissful ignorance, compared to their classmates who've gone on to pursue PhD studies." I'm intrigued by this, but I'm not sure what you mean by it exactly. Can you elaborate?

I suspect what posdef meant is: the more you know, the less you realize you know. The more time you spend in academia, the more you see your own intellectual limitations—largely because you're surrounded by progressively more high-achieving colleagues who "made the cut" (top high school students who get into good colleges become top undergrads who get into good PhD programs become top PhDs who become professors at top universities become top professors who get tenure become top tenured professors who win the Nobel Prize/Fields Medal/Turing Award/Superbowl/Whatever).  It's a narrow funnel.

On Jadedness/More likely to realize your limitations:  No, these are just personal psychological traits that are common in many fields.

"most people that go corporate after uni live in a state of blissful ignorance, compared to their classmates who've gone on to pursue PhD studies" no exageration, it really is like that for many people.

I wish when people say things like “in my country”, or “in my field” they would give an indication of which one that is …

@xebtl good point, thnx for pointing out.. As a quick side note; it's getting harder and harder to define fields with a couple of words. :)

An important issue associated with having a PhD is that many "traditional" routes into industry are effectively closed off.
For instance, a chemical engineer with a bachelor's or master's degree could take a position in just about any corporate division of a major company—they could work in production, sales, research, or just about any other field, with corporate training providing the requisite skills needed to do the job. By contrast, someone who holds a PhD will simply not be considered for these positions, as they are too specialized, and too far above the requirements for such a position. Any hire into such a position would probably not offer a sufficient "return on investment" to be worthwhile.
It would also be difficult to cross-train for "standard" management positions, as while a PhD does offer some supervisory experience, it's more useful for research-based organizations than industrial positions.

It's worth mentioning that such hiring decisions—i.e., not to hire a PhD to a masters-level job—are made at the very outset of the job search, during the resume review phase, likely even before reading a cover letter. As such, there is often very little opportunity to argue that you are indeed appropriate for such a position.

what is this based on,any evidence ?

Outside of R&D positions, where PhD's are normally concentrated in industry, the PhD is considered to have too much specialized training. I see this all the time in advertisements—research positions expect MS or PhD, other positions usually call for a BS or MS, but not a PhD.

positions call for BS or MS, but that doesn't mean a PhD is excluded ... its just a bonus. The BS or MS are min requirements.

@NimChimpsky: It's not really a "bonus"; it's more like an albatross around your neck. The skills of a PhD scientist are very different, and most companies assume the fit will be poor.

@NimChimpsky, I'm applying for Chemical Engineering jobs now. This is fairly accurate for an entry-level PhD candidate. A MS with 1-3 years experience =/= PhD. However, you could always apply for a MS position with 0 years experience, but then why did you get the PhD in the first place?

@NimChimpsky what is this based on,any evidence? Talk to HR guys or read their blogs or talk to a headhunter. Their answers are much more reliable info source than sitting on SE and theorizing up and down.

@bobthejoe My experience is a little different in the same industry: for MS entry positions PhD guys are generally considered too old and overqualified. With a PhD it is generally better to go on different entries, e.g. experienced professional.

It has been a positive for my CV. It gets me interviews that I wouldn't normally have got in a variety of organisations and positions. I have a PhD in computer science - my CV/PhD has got me interviews at banks/biotechs/multinational retailers (I screwed up some of the interviews but that's another problem :-))
I have never had a problem being overqualified - most employers would rather this than the opposite I imagine.

PhD has applications for image sensors

I think it will be viewed as a major positive by any private company working in this or related fields.
A PhD shows you know a particular field very well and also have a number of transferable skills - self motivated, working independently and in a team, management, teaching/tutoring, communication (public speaking and journal articles).

That is also an interesting point, I have been a full time teacher while studying - a wonderful juggling act, I could probably get that as a reference from both my university and workplace.

From my personal experience of questions asked in interviews for non-academic jobs, presumably the assumption is that someone with a PhD did this as a cushy option rather than going out in the "real world" of competition, responsibility, long hours, tight deadlines, office politics etc.
Academics are also seen as removed from financial considerations, with their head in the clouds, ignorant of real world issues, pondering on the philosophical rather than the practical (rightly or wrongly - this can be the perception).
An actual I was once asked was, "Can you handle the pressure of a commercial job?"
Another obvious answer is that your PhD does not represent commercial experience. While you have some additional research experience, if your job is not to do research, then this is not seen as much of an asset. Rather you are viewed as behind in your age group by 3-4 years in experience but will probably want the same salary (if not higher).

+1 tight deadlines. I personally have seen ABD/PhD keep fiddling with a problem when they just need to decide on something reasonable, finish it, and move on (software engineering).

Hmmm this is good food for thought about how I could structure my CV, as I have been working full time while completing my PhD.

rather than going out in the real world of competition, responsibility, long hours, tight deadlines, office politics — ...because, after all, academia is completely free of competition, responsibility, long hours, deadlines, and office politics.

The deadline thing can be succinctly expressed as "making the perfect the enemy of the good". It's one of my vices if I don't sit on it, and you can get some slack about it in at least come parts of academia.

@JeffE and sarcasm, too!

IMHO I believe the answer to this question is “it depends.” In industry, the answer will always be around demonstrating what value you can bring to the table, and accordingly, why a customer should pay a premium for that. I would highly recommend talking to professionals in the field(s) that you want to eventually leverage your PhD into, and get their opinions on the value of their PhD’s to help you understand how you can flourish in your chosen specialty.
Let me caveat this however by saying the following: I do not have a PhD, but I find the endeavour personally and, depending on how well you can translate your PhD into economic value, professionally, very worthwhile.
Now, I am an Engineering and Project manager in the oil and gas industry, and have nearly 12 years’ experience in the production and management of engineering for projects greater than $US 1Bn. My largest project was over $US 40Bn, and I have worked with, and been served by, many engineers, scientists, and other technologists of many disciplines.
I have encountered many people with PhD’s in that time, most of whom were good people to work with. Almost to an individual, no one ever cared to emphasise their PhD, and in many cases, most chose to suppress it in favour of demonstrating the value delivered on previous projects and engagements that mattered to my needs as a manager or client. Most of the professionals with PhDs who we were paying real money for were not actually delivering any services or products that was connected to their PhDs. However, they were specialists in their fields, and their PhDs were almost always related to their chosen specialty. So if you had studied a PhD in geology or civil engineering (very common), then it would make sense for you to leverage your PhD into a geotechnical engineering firm where you would often be marketed to your client as, eventually, a Principal Geotechnical engineer or similar. This is a specialised role, with a narrow scope (same applies for any discipline), and if you are actually good at your job, you will be high in demand around town. Clients, whilst not necessarily paying an above-market rate for you, will likely insist that they “want you” as part of the delivery team because you are known to be credible at what you do. The PhD itself will have very little to do with that, but you will be rewarded if you are able to translate what you learnt from the PhD into delivering a service your clients will pay real money for. I have had these kinds of people work for me before, and I would seek them out again, but they never emphasised their PhD to me. In fact, I’ve worked with people who were exceptional at what they did, very highly regarded not just in my country but in others around the world, who didn’t have a skerrick of post-graduate education.
If you were to study a PhD (in Psychology say) and tried to leverage that into a non-related field (like management consulting), then the question of value will be even more poignant for you. In this instance, you would likely be relying on the “general” skills that a PhD would afford you (not that they are trivial by any means), and again, you would need to demonstrate to a buyer of your skills that your PhD provides greater value than someone else who may have more direct industry/ field related experience. Firms and industries where these generalised PhD-related skills might be valued (e.g. some investment banks, blue chip corporate strategy companies) are open to candidates with PhD’s but again, you would be required to demonstrate how your PhD translates into products and services your customers want to buy, and even pay a premium for.
I can appreciate the dilemma of someone contemplating the study of a PhD as it is, indeed, difficult to truly understand what kind of value you can demonstrate to a buyer at the end of it. Brian Rushton’s narrative is a fine account of the individual kinds of skill that a PhD can develop, but in industry, I would treat such skills as a given. Moreover, Brian’s description over emphasises the individual skill component, and is notably silent on other critical individual, team, and other “corporate” attributes that are necessary for success in industry. Brian mentions time management: again, this is something that I would expect a graduate engineer to be well on top of by their first or second year in work, so why, as either your manager or your client, should I expect this to be a differentiator for you? Especially given that you’ve invested some three or more years of your life developing this skill! Likewise, Brian also mentions being able to see many possible solutions. Creativity is a valuable thing, but in my industry, this must be executed with discipline, and applied with the necessary soft (emotional intelligence) skills to translate ideas into solutions that can be implemented successfully within a corporate risk and financial framework. I have often come across so-called “experts”, some with PhDs, who waste a lot of peoples’ time and money with ideas that are insensitive to the corporate, political, project and commercial realities surrounding them, and this often harms their reputations.  Understandably, their ideas are not implemented, and these kinds of insensitive people are not hired again. Finally, the other skills that Brian mentions (project and cost management, business skills) are fine but these are carried out on a small scale. My question is: clients will pay for demonstrable experience, so how are you going to convince your future employer or client that they should pay good money to entrust you with a project or business that may exceed your PhD undertakings by a factor of thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, or millions?
So my question is: why should I, either as your manager or your client, be prepared to pay a premium for your skills from a PhD when they can be honed by someone else working “at the coal face” in a demonstrable way over the same amount of time as your PhD? This question will vary depending on your industry. In my industry, real value comes not with the PhD, but your demonstrated experience in delivering valuable services and products, over a sustained time, to real customers. In other, very highly specialised industries, the PhD may serve as an entry point, after which your work performance will likely prevail.
I’ve really emphasised the “economic” aspect of the PhD in my response, and I tender it not to discourage you, but to help you to think very deeply about why you wish to do one before you decide to take the plunge. If you do decide to do one, then I wish you to do so with your eyes open, and, most importantly, sincerely wish you the very best of success with it, both personally and professionally.

Apologies I have misquoted Brian Rushton - apologies to you. I should have referred instead to User 11206. The formatting on my smart phone showed Brian Rushton as the poster.

You can edit your answer to correct that error by pushing "edit" button. By the way, this is a good answer. I already upvoted it.

Thanks scaaahu. I've made the edits which are pending peer review.

What are the potential pitfalls of having a PhD?
It depends. I believe the closer your PhD research is to applied research, the better your industry job opportunities would be.
Those PhDs who have been doing basic (pure) research tend to have problem with industry job hunting because their skills/knowledge are not immediately usable in industry. It is simply not cost effective for industry companies to hire them. They need to be re-trained to get them to do real practical jobs. Don’t forget one thing, private companies are for profit.
On the other hand, those who have been doing applied research could have readily available skills/knowledge for the employers to use. They naturally have industry jobs lined up for them.
We can see two examples right here. User16371 has a PhD in pure math. He has trouble in finding private industry jobs. NimChimpsky probably has done applied research, he has many job interviews. Whether he will get a real industry job soon is another matter.
As in your case, I think you’ll have a good shot if your research is more toward real application. I am absolutely no expert in image sensors. But, I can imagine that if CT scan manufacturers can use your skills/knowledge, you should be able to find a good job in matter of months. Here, a good job means high salary – a barometer to measure how good an industry job is.

Ph.D. is a mismatched degree for industry. A typical industry employer wants to find smart, witty people with (1) sufficiently high level of specialized skills who would be (2) productive in the existing company environment, and (3) would be able to balance the initiative based on what they know vs. following instructions when a project needs to be pushed in a specific direction and completed by a given deadline.
Out of these, the Ph.D. label only provides the evidence that you are smart, addressing (although still only partially) the requirement (1). Mid- and upper-level technical positions, especially in research departments, would require Ph.D., so there is a qualification issue of door-opening (or rather not opening if you do't have the degree). In many situations, though, the narrow specialization of the "Line tracing under low UV light conditions" is irrelevant for most practical purposes, and the employer would rather want to see a person who can tackle a wider range of light conditions and frequency spectra.
The Ph.D., however, fails to deliver on all other counts. On the second aspect that I brought up, doctorate programs do not teach people and business skills, and most programs even won't touch say computer skills if you are a biologist or may be even a mathematician. It is up to you as a  grad student to self-teach project management, version control and all other team-work, productivity-increasing stuff. On the third aspect, the overqualified Ph.D.s may have a tendency to roam towards their own interests, and provide beautiful solutions for narrow problems, as that's what they are used to be doing in academia. Sometimes, though, you just have to shut up and format the Excel report. A decent solution that is delivered on time is MUCH better than a perfect solution delivered two months too late. Academicians are not taught to make these judgement calls of timeliness vs. depth (although the pressure to submit this now before the competitors do is often present in many lines of research) or cost vs. what the client expects (and grad students usually have no idea regarding how to budget a study; most professors also take the zero time cost of their grad students for granted, but that's not how the real world operates).

A PhD degree tells that you can work independently on your own, that you are able to critically decide whether a particular method in a textbook is good or not. PhD holders are needed in industry though in small amount. Industry needs them as PhD holders have been trained to bring innovations and make a field advance. Whether the PhD research field was narrow or not, the skills that you developed while tackling your PhD work will help in many different fields. For example I hold a PhD in a field other than dealing with computer science and yet during my PhD studies I had to choose between a plethora of programming languages available and I learned Object-oriented programming and code re-use. The skills that I have thus mastered in software engineering can be applied to any field that I will work in the future where computer programming is involved.
As one answer pointed out, during the PhD studies you have doubts about your own capabilities. It happens as you may be tackling a problem that has been here for a long time and your analyses over several months are revealing that you are nowhere close to make any new discovery. You may be the best of your batch in your Bachelor degree or be the best of your MSc batch but that is no guarantee that you will be successful in doing a PhD degree. I have seen many intelligent friends putting an end to their PhD studies as after a year or two they see that they cannot handle the stress of not being able to produce any tangible output. PhD studies are not about scoring good grades at exams. You do not have to know equations by heart; You are not sitting for a 3-hour written test to answer questions that are based on your textbooks. No, you are on your own with some support from your supervisor. Your supervisor is here to offer advice but it is up to you to decide what you want to do and convince the funders and other partners of your ideas. You are the one choosing the textbooks and other publications to read. Reading 200 books on the subject rather than say just two is never a guarantee that the PhD studies will be successful; What is required is to think beyond these textbook equations and come up with new ones, with new analysis techniques or with new algorithms that are universally applicable. When you are learning an equation, you are learning it very deeply and then you realise that how much you didn't know about that same equation when you were a Bachelor degree holder or an MSc degree holder. At lower levels, you are only taught what you need to know in order to solve some specific problems.
Doing a PhD degree means that you are excellent at managing your time. You have advanced courses to read, you have some teaching and administrative work to do, and you have to handle your research work with confidence. So you find yourself waking up at night and start doing some analyses by hand or on the computer as you think that you are on the verge of finding some good results which have escaped you for months. You work the whole night and if in the morning you see that you are not getting anywhere, you still have the courage to wake up and go to your office at the University. It is only someone who has done a PhD degree who knows the hard work and patience that is required. So this is why PhD holders will always get the attention of a recruiter who himself/herself is one.
Someone with an MSc degree is limited in his/her own thinking. Every PhD student who has taught MSc students knows this. While an MSc student can perhaps think of one or two methods of tackling a problem, a PhD student or a PhD holder knows many more methods and knows also which method may be the best depending on the situation at hand. This is why in industry, the top posts among researchers are filled by PhD holders. This is because people with the best brains, and who know a whole range of techniques and methods are needed to innovate. This is also why in some countries PhD students are required to read advanced courses since they have to know more than what MSc degree holders do. Among these courses, there may be pedagogy-related courses. But pedagogy courses are only here to improve communication skills and understanding of the audience. Isn't this true? So such a PhD holder with pedagogical skills has learned how to deal with people around him/her of various intellectual levels.
There is the idea that PhD holders do not have business skills. Well, it depends on what you are doing at work. There are lots of successful smaller companies in engineering created by PhD holders. Even during the PhD studies, the PhD student is aware of the funding that he/she has and so he/she finds tools and equipment and software that the budget will allow. Similarly in industry, a PhD holder will use the least resources to get the job done as he/she is very much familiar with costs of equipment and software in his/her field. Would a company not want this PhD holder who already know how to manage the money? A PhD project normally lasts for five years or longer in some cases; This shows that the PhD holder can manage a project spanning over a long period of time.
Business skills can also refer to interaction with other people regarding the scientific research. Many PhD students have to establish cooperation in academia or in industry either at the national level or at the international level. The supervisor may help in this but finally it is the PhD student who decides with whom to work. So the PhD student has to be aware of how much information to divulge to the new partners and how mutual benefit can be achieved. So this demands business skills. Would an employer not want such a person around him/her who knows how to collaborate and negotiate with others? Thus the PhD holder has gained business skills not through books but through real-life experience.
A PhD holder is also someone who can defend his/her ideas successfully in writing or orally. Publishing in very good journals is tough and defending the PhD thesis at the viva can last for hours. Being successful at the viva shows that you are mentally very stable, and are able to withstand pressure and all kinds of irritable questions one after the other for a long time.
A PhD holder after so many years of hard work has already built his/her own toolbox. Just as a carpenter who has to sharpen once in a while the tools that he/she uses daily, so does the PhD holder the same. A PhD holder cannot sit idle; He/she has faced lots of obstacles when for example deriving new equations during the PhD studies, and in his/her free time after getting the PhD degree, he/she will come back to these equations and think again about those obstacles in order to find ways not to meet them in his/her future career. This is what I am doing in parallel with my job.
Yes indeed PhD holders always tend to look for the best solution(s) to a given problem. This is not an indication that he/she will take time to do the job in industry. No, the PhD holder has developed his/her own toolbox as I said before and will be very efficient at finding the best solution(s) in a reasonable amount of time since he/she knows which method works and which does not. It is true though that PhD holders will tend to be accurate and reluctant to use faster algorithms that are not robust. Whom do you trust: A PhD degree who will make the right calculations though perhaps taking a bit longer or the one without the PhD degree making the calculations really fast and present the results to you using fancy colours?
When starting the PhD studies, a PhD student will have to sort of see everything around him/her with new eyes. Anyone who has read The Loss of the Creature from The message in the Bottle: How Queer Man is, How Language is, and What One Has to Do with the Other by Percy Walker  will get the point. The PhD student at the beginning of the studies has to unscrew his/her brain and put it aside in order to get rid of any preconceived ideas and replace with an empty brain that is ready to let the PhD holder see beyond the tip of his/her nose so as to make independent progress in a field.
Remember that a PhD holder is a systematic person who does not run from a difficult problem. If the research that he/she had been doing in the PhD studies was not difficult, then the PhD project would not have existed in the first place. Most PhD projects are open. This implies that the PhD student is given a field to work but outputs and outcomes of the work are yet to be known. It is up to the PhD student to think about the strategy to adopt and which path to follow after consultation with the supervisor. After a few years of hard work, the outcomes and results obtained may be very different from what were expected in the beginning of the project. When the research is taking a different direction, sources of funding may change. It is up to the PhD student and to the supervisor to motivate for the change so as to convince the funders of their new research direction that could bring better insights about the original problem. In contrast during a normal MSc thesis project of about six months duration, the project is well structured by the supervisor so that the MSc student is able to finish the work in a timely manner. The MSc holder is working along a well-structured path and is most of the times sure to succeed in the thesis work. But such is not the case for the PhD student. There is no guarantee of success in the PhD studies. So we see that a PhD holder is someone who is very mature and who can embrace failures and successes equally.
A PhD holder is someone modest enough to know that the path of learning has just begun. To get a PhD degree is to have been able to reach the top of the mountain, and realise that there is still much to see and learn. It is thus obvious that persons with MSc degrees who haven't been at the top of the mountain do not recognise how much PhD holders know. So the best prospects of securing a job in industry is to make sure that your future boss also has a PhD degree.
To answer the question about potential pitfalls of having a PhD, I would say none. A PhD holder knows where he/she stands in life and he/she knows what it takes to succeed. He/she is not afraid of failures and of setbacks as he/she has been used to them a lot during the PhD studies. The only mistake is to work in industry under a boss who is not a PhD degree holder; The boss will not recognise the strength and value as well as will not understand the mindset of the PhD holder. Where the boss can only see one or two problems in a given situation, a PhD holder will see many. Communication between the PhD holder and such a boss will hence suffer.
Work experience cannot replace educational qualification. At a job interview with an interviewer holding a PhD degree, you will be asked if you know or do not know something. You will be asked about future changes that you consider might take place in your field of expertise. You will share valuable experiences and talk about limitations of existing tools, algorithms and software. It is only those interviewers with less educational qualifications who will lay emphasis on previous job experience.
And always remember that today most PhD works are applied research; This means that PhD projects are created in order to solve problems that industry face. If industry would have had the necessary skills to solve all their problems, then PhD projects would only be started by Universities alone and the projects would all be dealing with fundamental research. But this is not the case. Doing a PhD degree these days means that the PhD student is gaining much industrial experience as he/she is acting like a bridge between academia and industry and he/she is reinforcing the link between the two. He/she is pinpointing out the obsolete methods that industry is clinging to and is helping industry adopting more reliable methods as a result of the PhD work. What is important is that the PhD work is original. This word "original" has changed meaning over time. Centuries ago, it meant to have a PhD work that builds upon some original concepts which are firmly rooted in place whereas nowadays "original" implies that your PhD work is not someone's else work.
Doing a Ph.D. degree is not for the faint-hearted; You need nerves of steel and you really learn how to manage the vast amount of information that you gather in your research. The successful Ph.D. student is the one who can recover the knowledge already out there and make improvements for the betterment of the society. Doing a Ph.D. degree requires great sacrifice and commitment. This is why it is appropriate for a Ph.D. holder to work with people who also have earned one. But I agree that the level of Ph.D. degrees do vary around the world; A Ph.D. degree spanning over a five-year period with advanced courses to read and with teaching activities should be the norm.

TL;DR: PhDs are better than everyone else at everything. At least that's how this answer reads ...

PhDs are ubermensch and "an MSc degree is limited in his/her own thinking"

I have a PhD in pure mathematics, and the only employers that were interested in me were Epic Healthcare (desperate for anyone they can get a hold of with the affordable care act changes) and universities offering postdocs. Other positions, such as a Boy Scouts position I applied to, told me I was overqualified or misqualified. I programmed video games as a teenager; a lot of companies were willing to interview me based on that alone, but I would be forced to start from the bottom and work my way up, which isn't bad, but you're asking whether a PhD is worth it, and in such a situation, it would certainly not be worth it.
On the other hand, my time studying for my PhD seriously improved my writing skills and analytical thinking skills, and I think that that would help me as a programmer to learn quickly and get promoted. But there's no point in a math PhD for any job besides teaching or a focused job at a national lab/NSA.

I can sympathize and understand where you are coming from, but you are very, very mistaken with your last comment about no point to a math PhD for a job outside of teaching or national lab/NSA.  Math PhDs are looked upon very favorably in some corners of Wall Street, but you will have to compete with others, including other types of PhDs to get the jobs.

"But there's no point in a math PhD for any job besides teaching or a focused job at a national lab/NSA", I don't think this is necessarily true. There are several industry jobs that require maths PhD-admittedly, there will be more jobs for applied mathematicians compared to pure mathematicians.

One of the potential pitfalls of having a PhD (or indeed any exceptional qualification) is that many managers, being insecure in their positions, will not hire someone whom they perceive may be capable of under-mining their authority and usurping their own position.  For a well-managed post-PhD career, unless you are a star in your field and with wise, benevolent guides, it is important to understand about people and power in organisations.  I strongly recommend reading a serious academic book on the subject such as, for example, Organisational Behavior by "Huck and Buck".  Such a book will provide a more objective overview of social reality than a collection of personal anecdotal musings.  That is not to say that the latter are without value as food for thought and context-specific indicators.

Irwin's answer is good, but there is also the pitfall:
Getting Ph.D. is an education for research(/academia). Industry needs them as R&D specialists. Your Ph.D. is useless for any company not requiring that special knowledge you have. Ph.D. only shows devotion to that special knowledge. It signals for them that you may be unmotivated to do their monotonic day-to-day business.
Thus it depends on the Ph.D. you have. If it is not business/operations research/industrial engineering/etc. generalistic, there is a high change that your Ph.D. is worth only for a few companies in R&D (but for those companies, your knowledge can be vital).

PhDs, although highly educated, are not suitable for most of the commercial and non-research related jobs. Not because they can't do those jobs, but those jobs can also be done by someone else without a Phd.
Furthermore, if the management have no Phd themselves, they wouldn't believe in the importance of the Phd title.

It's probably a unique problem and not related to the industries in which you're referring but:
In my field (clinicians - PAs, NPs, their international equivalents), a master's degree is considered the terminal degree one needs. While a few PhD programs exist, graduates from them generally get the eye roll. This is one of the potential pitfalls of having a PhD.
The title afforded by the degree (Dr.) puts the holder in a position at odds with the jargon of the industry. Using your title identifies you (in the minds of patients and other providers) as a physician (MD/DO), when in reality you are a clinician. This creates numerous issues of misrepresentation, litigation, etc.
It is a similar problem created by clinicians who pursue doctorates in public health, health administration, etc. While they've rightly earned their title, it can create (sometimes deadly) consequences.
It's a similar problem to that which arises with MD/PhD holders. The MD/PhD holder is generally more PhD than MD in terms of their capabilities as a healthcare provider. If you want to practice medicine, holding a PhD is not the way to do it.
If you don't need the degree to do the job, then you don't need the degree for the job. That's the line of thinking.

I've attempted to add MUCH more context to the answer. Thank you for drawing this to my attention.

Thanks for clarifying. I think it's not that those in your particular field don't "need" a PhD - in most fields, practitioners don't "need" a PhD. A PhD is generally meant for those hoping to find academic or research positions, or sometimes certain leadership positions, in whatever field they happen to be in.

(But still, interesting to note the ambiguity that can arise from having a PhD in a clinical setting, so +1 from me.)

From a non PhD perspective, in some fields PhDs are percieved as theorethical entities, far removed from the gross practicalities of thereal world, who sit in cushy ivory towers and try to answer essential and fundamental questions like the ubiquitous : "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

From my own experience this is mostly true.
I have a PhD in Environmental Engineering.  I tried to find a job in the industry doing process design for water treatment coupled with R&D.  Interviewed a few companies and nobody wanted me.  I did my homework, worked with a career coach with interview preparation, and had an internship with a local utility to gain experience (after I finished school, $20/hr).  They simply did not want me.  One of the interviewers hinted "we want blank paper", at which point I knew this interview was fried. Similar jobs went to MS's of my friends, who got multiple offers from consulting companies as well.  I also connected with a few veteran professionals in the field and they admitted this industry usually reject PhDs unless they have a remarkable connection / already did stuff with the hiring managers.  At the end of the day I landed a government job which had a strict scoring system in their interview process and PhD happened to be a plus, not minus.

You open with the statement that "this is mostly true"—but what is "this"?

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


text:
Do US universities offer Graduate Paid Internship programs in CS/CSE?
Do US universities offer Graduate Paid Internship programs in CS/CSE?
That is, studying MS in CSE while working as a paid intern in a company, which is arranged by the university itself?
If yes, do they have any age limit?

Age discrimination is illegal in the US.

Yes, US Universities do offer Graduate paid internship programs in CS/CSE.
It is called Curricular Practical Training/Optional Practical Training.
But each university is different in accepting your CPT/OPT.
You need to have a job offer in hand, check with the DSO of the university for the dates within which you need to apply for your CPT/OPT.
You need to be atleast 18 years i guess.
For more information you can look this up : http://www.ice.gov/sevis/practical-training/

However, internships supported by CPT/OPT are usually not "arranged by the university itself".  If you want an internship, you have to hunt it down and kill it.

You are right @JeffE
That is why i mentioned we need to have a job offer in hand which means we need to hunt for jobs :)

Just clarifying for the OP.

Yes.
Yes.
I don't know but I don't think so.

Remember though that such "internships" are also known as "research assistantships" or "summer research assistantships" and will generally not be advertised outside the university or department because there are usually more than enough ready and available folks.
I have done something similar in the past but only because I know the professor personally and he offered me the position after a few conversations with him.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Strategies to overcome "academic-apathy" in the final stages of the PhD?
Background - I am doing my PhD in atmospheric physics/photobiology.
Here is a scenario:

The experiments are complete - the results are far better than expected
Successfully got the computer program to work properly and have developed another
Papers are published
Much of the thesis is drafted

The light at the end of the tunnel is most definitely no longer an oncoming train.
But, at this stage, you just don't feel like working on the thesis, you do other things like cleaning, reading, watching movies - procrastination gets worse, and worse despite the submission deadline coming closer.
The procrastination resulting in more apathy towards the project, despite being fully aware of how much work has been put into the project, how much has been achieved and how little, comparatively, needs to be done.
What strategies are there to overcome this academic-apathy, particularly in this late stage of the thesis?

Sounds like its time for your supervisor to stop paying you.

@DaveClarke I am not paid.

Then think about the nice meals, the relaxing holidays, and the wonderful treasures available to you when you finish and get a job.

@DaveClarke actually, I do have a job - I am a full time teacher as well as PhD student.

OK. I can't help you, Non-Dr Damien.

@DaveClarke Not-yet-Dr Damien...

My reverse psychology motivation technique is working already! Good luck.

Go to this site and ponder how lucky you are. http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php

@bills - yes, those comics both scare and reassure me.

May sound like a burnout; see: What can I do to recover from a short term burnout?.

Although I realize people "get tired", just try to visualize that there's a train/plane that's leaving at some point, and you can either be on it or not. If it doesn't matter to you, that's fine, too... but only if it's really fine, as opposed to your being in a comfortable-enough situation for the moment, and in fact failing to visualize the consequences of failure. Like not paying the mortgage? Not paying the electric bill?

My suggestion would be to set minor distinct goals for each day but not overdo them, make them manageable. Mix boring chores with more fun ones so that the fun ones become a reward. This may seem a bit vague or even wooly. The problem I think you are experiencing is that while working on a PhD you get accustomed to stress and like many (myself included) a certain stress is needed to get something, and really the best, out of oneself. This phenomena, in my case, has only gotten worse, and I simply have a hard time getting anything done unless there is some pressure that gets stress levels up. But, with certain tasks it is possible to get stuff done by breaking it down into smaller pieces because if there is no overview or goals are too nebulous then it is not easy to focus on what to do in detail.

That is a very good point, as on reflection, I got the program fixed while under pressure.

This is an excellent idea. I'm a big fan of lists, as there's a distinct jolt of pleasure from simply checking an item off a list. Even something as minor as that can be a pretty nice motivator.

@eykanal that is a good point and I get the same feeling when I check things of my list.  My home-office has 3 lists on the wall - 1. PhD, 2. New years resolutions (all broken - achievement!!) and 3. for work.

Here is what kept me motivated and got me through the last year of my PhD:

A comment from a professor that the best dissertation is the one that is written.
My advisor kept pushing me to get her chapters.  I'm not sure where you stand with your advisor, but if he/she (and your committee as a whole) wants you to finish up, that can be motivating.  If you want to push this angle, send out an email to your advisor and committee with your plan to finish -- that will help keep you working!
I had set a deadline for myself (as mentioned in point 2), and backed all my planning up to make sure I met the deadline.  It sounds like you've gotten to the point where it is just the writing you have left, and I suggest setting up a schedule of when you will complete each chapter.
My deadline revolved around the job market -- I knew I needed to be ready to start at a job in August, so I knew I needed to be completely done by then.
I took breaks when I needed to.  I treated myself to a day off when I got a chapter completed and sent to my advisor, and I had one weekly TV program that I watched religiously.  Finishing a PhD is a lot of work, but it doesn't need to be soul-crushing (and soul-crushing work is bad for you, anyway!).
I really wanted to see the finished product -- I thought it was cool to have this giant, polished document, and that kept me tinkering on it.

Good luck!

Very good points - and yes, I do have a TV show I watch each night (Time Team), and have set a deadline for the a planned change in career (December-January).

Looks like a clear burnout sign. Instead of watching movies and cleaning. Get on a train and do something totally different. I think you are in this loophole and won't be getting out of it by doing the same stuff over and over (remember Einstein's quote). Normally you'll need just 3 days to reset your motivation. Things you can do:

visit new places
see new faces
talk about anything else but your PhD
rearrange your furniture (believe me, it helps. Your brain needs to forget old patterns)
don't read, watch movies or focus on anything more than 15 minutes
go shopping. Ladies do this all the time to get that confidence kick

Good luck.

ladies do this all the time — Also women.  And men.

@JeffE But perhaps not husbands (at least I know a few that try every trick to avoid a shopping mall:)

I am completing my PhD in 2 months, and had my own revelation on this subject last week, which is helping me.
My own procrastination is the result of a fear of failure and a fear of being mediocre. If I procrastinate, and don't do as well as I hope, I've then got the excuse that "I didn't really try". It was a revelation for me, because this is the very thing I've been telling myself most of my life after I don't do as well as I think I could do.
I have thus been able to accept myself, and my shortcomings, more readily now... which has removed a lot of the internal pressure to perform well. As a result I have found that I am able to work steadily. I will try my best to do as well as I can without too much pressure, and whatever the result, that will be okay.
The revelation in itself did not help so much... it was really the acceptance of myself as I am now that has allowed me to move forward.
A side benefit to this will be better performance, but that is no longer the goal.
If you can relate to this, then I suggest reading up on "Fear of Failure" on wikipedia.
Good luck!

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


text:
Do Chinese universities offer CS/CSE Masters programs taught in English?
Do Chinese (PRC) universities offer CS/CSE Masters programs taught in English?
If yes, do these programs require mandatory HSK scores to enroll?

If you just search for the universities, you will see that each of them has specific guidelines regarding your proficiency in Chinese.
For Tsinghua university, here is what I find : http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/publish/then/5975/index.html , but I can't find anything about HSK requirements. My guess is that if the courses are taught in English, you are more likely to be asked to provided your TOEFL scores instead.
Now you might want to look at other universities, you should get all the information you need on their websites.
So, yes, Chinese universites do have CS Masters programs in English, and it appears that they don't required HSK (but you should contact the International Office of each university to be sure of that).


text:
Do "Online" CS/CSE masters programs add any value when applying for doctoral/PhD study?
How much value do I acquire if I complete an online master's degree in CS and I plan to apply for doctoral study?
For example, Georgia Tech seems to offer an online master's program. Does this type program puts up anything to apply for a Doctoral program?
In short, if somebody wants to get a PhD degree in Computer Science, do Online Master's degrees aid in their ambition?

No.
Online MS degrees are necessarily course-based "professional" master's degrees, otherwise known as terminal master's degrees.
If you want to apply to a PhD program, you need to provide strong evidence of research potential.  If you are applying with an MS, you will be competing with applicants in research MS programs, who almost certainly have more research experience than anyone with a professional MS.
It is nearly impossible to get that research experience without direct face-to-face contact with more experienced researchers.  Even if you somehow learn to do research on your own, you still need recommendation letters that describe your research potential in specific and personal detail, and such letters are impossible to get without direct face-to-face contact with their authors.  If you want to become a researcher, you have to do it in person.


text:
What is the correct protocol for including peer reviews that I have done in a CV?
I have been advised that I should include the peer reviews in my CV, particularly when I am applying for academic/research positions.  I am not too sure how to go about this, thus my questions:

Is it ethical to include the full details?  I would imagine that as reviews are anonymous, this would be a no-no.
Should I just say something along the lines "Reviewer: Journal name"?

Also, what section of the CV should this information be included under?

I believe you may get some tips from the answers to a question of mine on this very site: “Do you list journals you have reviewed for on your CV?”
As for myself, I list the peer-reviews I have done in a “Administrative and collective duties” or “Community involvement”. Or, in a short CV which doesn't have such divisions, I put it with the broader “Other skills and activities” section (i.e. not teaching, not research projects).
What I include is:

list of journals for which I act as reviewer (“Regular reviewer for many chemistry journals, including …”)
funding bodies (NSF, private trusts, etc.) for which I act as expert (including, e.g., NSF division, but not the exact programs)
evaluation committees on which I sit

It feels obvious, but it's always worth repeating: do not include any confidential information, such as titles or author lists for reviewer papers or projects. I think it's safe to list the number of reviews performed for each outlet if you want (but I don't do it).

excellent advice, and that is definitely an important piece of advice to repeat.  Thank you also for sharing how you set out the relevant section of the CV.  Thank you for the link, also!

As I see it the reviews are, unless explicitly stated otherwise, a communication between you and the editor and authors. If you make the reviews public you probably need to ask the other parties for permission, if nothing else so for politeness. I therefore suggest anonymous listing.
I personally have an entry in my CV which tells how many reviews I have made since (in my case) 1995 and then lists the journals for which I have made such reviews. As a side-point, I do the same for reviews of proposals I make for large granting organisations such as NERC (UK) and NSF (US). I do not see any point in, say, providing details on suggestions for reject/revisoions/accept. In the end the number of reviews (also per year) is what shows your experience and provides credit.
You should also look at the question Can I publish the reviews I write? and Ethics of publishing received peer reviews [duplicate] for different views on making public reviews in different ways.

Thank you for this, particularly for your account of what you do - which makes good sense.

If you are compiling a CV for a job at a University you should make sure to include whether or not your journal entry was refereed. This adds weight to the entry.

Are you sure you got the question right? It's about including the peer reviews performed for a journal, so it's obviously refereed - by the OP. Or are you talking about a review of a review (how would that even make sense...)? Please clarify you answer.

In what context would a journal article not be peer-reviewed?


text:
Impact on transferring and graduating early for graduate school admissions
I'm an uprising sophomore, majoring in science.  I just transferred out of a public university, to another public university.  I'm just wondering, what's the impact of transferring between schools to graduate school admissions?  Taking into account that I don't have a great GPA from the previous school (like a low 3), even though I get a 4.0 GPA from my current school, how hard would the low GPA from my previous school affect my graduate school admissions?  Do graduate schools look into freshman year GPA that heavily?
Since I have an amount of AP credits, I can graduate in 3 years.  Is it really a good idea to do so, if I wanted to go to graduate school?  Since I don't have a really high GPA from my previous school, should I just do 4 years instead?
Also, as a add-on question: I'm not sure what field or career I should go into, how do you know that you want to go into academia? Or is it a little too early for me to decide?
Thanks for the advices and opinions in advanced!

There are 2 separate questions here I think. 1. Impact of transferring and graduate early and 2. How does a person know which field he wants to get into for graduate school?

Disclaimer: I am a PhD student with some outside knowledge (as an applicant) and some inside knowledge (admissions committee student member) on an average doctoral admissions process.
There are a number of factors which affect a candidates acceptance (or conversely, rejection) into a PhD program. They are standardized test scores, GPA, research experience, publications, letters of recommendation and the personal statement.
In my opinion, from what I have seen your numbers (GRE and GPA) don't do a good job of getting you in but can keep you out. What this means is that you have to clear whatever internal cut-offs there are. This can be subjective or objective depending upon the department, the field and the university. For instance, this could be 3.5 in one department in one field or could be 3.8 in another department in another field in another university. Standards can also be relaxed for candidates with exceptional research records and letters of recommendation written by trusted researchers.
The most important factors which matter are previous, relevant research experience, letters of recommendation, personal statement and publications. Some optimum combination of this must convince the admissions committee that you are worth admitting.
In fact, I would venture to say that there isn't much of an impact in graduating early or transferring to and from different programs. Focus on selecting whether a research career is right for you and what field you actually want to get into for graduate school.
The second part of your question is a little broad as I have noted in a comment. If you search this platform, you will find numerous relevant advice from folks much more knowledgeable than me. There are different approaches here. Some people just know what field they want to get into from the very outset. Others (like me) bounce around in different fields until one feels very right to them. Yet others get into a masters degree program to try out a discipline in terms of exploring research before committing to a full time PhD program.

Thanks for the advices!  I'm also wondering, does it help if I get a high GPA in my current school, like say a high 3.9?  Since the GPA from the previous doesn't transfer, how would the graduate school look at this?

This will differ, as I pointed out previously from department to department. Basically, try to get the highest GPA that you can but if you are serious about graduate school, then select a field and get some good research experience in it. That will help you more in the long run than a 0.2 increase in GPA.

Alright, sounds good! Thanks for the expertise!


text:
Advisor dies suddenly, advice needed for research students
This has not happened to me, but to a friend in the final stages of her PhD, she and the rest of the research group are understandably devastated, as the advisor was not only (in my friend's words), brilliant, but very kind and approachable.
My friend and all the research students are also worried about their research projects, as the advisor was one of the top researchers in that field and apparently, the only researcher in that university.  The associate advisors have indeed stepped up, but as good as they are, they do not have the insight that the late advisor had.
What is a bit of advice that people may have for this situation?
One suggestion is that the research group (students, co-authors etc) band together to help each other out, with the guidance of the associate advisors.
I have looked over this question and the posted answers, but I feel that this situation is considerably different as there is the ever-present aspect of the feelings of loss, that are present and should not be ignored.

Sounds really hard. I would recommend reaching out to the advisor's collaborators, and/or others at other universities working on related topics. Under the circumstances, I imagine some of them would be willing to pitch in some effort helping out the stranded students. Best wishes to your friend.

Not an answer and I am not being insensitive. You must realise that research does not stop if one person passes away. Its not the same though. Seek another expert from another university. Many will be glad to help in your case.

@JaveerBaker, no, you're not being insensitive, that is the same pragmatism my friend has.

We had a similar situation at my university when a professor running a large group with millions of research dollars passed away. There are a few issues that have to be dealt with, and usually the department chair and/or the dean play a major role in this

research funding: often this can be transferred (in consultation with program managers) to faculty in related areas who (depending on the degree of involvement in the research) either merely manage the money for the students involved, or might play a more active role in spending it.
students: students need committees and replacement advisors. Again, the department chair, in consultation with the students and related faculty, might be able to assign faculty as caretakers for the students.
teaching/committees: while there are likely significant teaching/committee disruptions, these don't affect the former students of the researcher, so I'll ignore this component.

My view is that students that are close to graduating need someone who can sign off on their thesis work (hopefully without too much modification). They hopefully already have a few other people who can write letters for them for jobs, and can mention the advisor's demise in their letters to explain the absence.
Students earlier in the Ph.D program (say just post-qualifying) are in the biggest bind: they've spent enough time in their research area to have committed to a topic, but now they have no one to guide them. They are the ones who probably need the most help from senior students, other faculty and the department.
Students early in the program have the option of switching advisors, or even schools if there's no one else in the department who can advise them/fund them/works in their areas of interest. Again, the department is usually sympathetic and might be able to provide such students with short term funding via TAships if that's an issue.
None of this of course addresses the feelings of grief and loss

+1, the main player will be the department chair and/or the dean; he's the person in charge at that point

great advice, according to my friend, this is pretty much what is starting to happen.

This is without doubt a tragic situation. However, it is not an insurmountable problem.
As you suggested, the important thing is to allow both the grieving process and the research to continue at their appropriate paces. Without the room to understand and deal with what's happened, the research can't really go as it's supposed to, and the work is needed to provide a focus so that grief doesn't completely bring the group to a standstill.
From an emotional perspective, I'd certainly recommend that the department make a counselor available to the group members, and to encourage them to talk about things, rather than to shove them aside.
With respect to the research, there really isn't a completely satisfactory solution. It really does need to be a group-wide effort, as you've suggested, with collaborators and co-advisors stepping up to take a senior role. Another idea might be to reach out to former group members who are still active in academia to help with mentoring the group members. Note that this is not the same thing as being a full-fledged advisor; this is more of having an extra person to talk to when needed.
(This is also why good short-, mid- and long-range planning is essential for everybody, and why thesis committees and planning meetings with the advisor are so important for graduate students. If appropriate plans-to-finish and related strategies are in place, then it should be largely a matter of executing those plans, rather than trying to devise something new without the advisor's help.)

Yes, good advice, my friend and her colleagues are seeing a counsellor, they are truly banding together.


text:
How to figure out whether a Masters degree is a "Professional" or "Research" degree?
How to figure out whether a university-program is offering Professional Masters degree  or "Research" Masters degree?
Are all taught Masters degree programs professional programs?

You've got at least three questions there. You've been on StackExchange long enough to know that the etiquette is to ask one question at a time.

Actually, there are really only two questions: the first two could be considered one related question, while the second two are related. Still one too many, but not as bad as you think.

The main difference is that research MS degrees require a thesis, which describes the student's research, while professional/taught MS degrees do not.
There are several secondary differences as well.  Professional/taught MS programs are cash cows; their enrollments are generally higher, their admissions criteria are generally lower, they almost never offer financial support, and students are generally treated like cattle.  Research MS programs generally have smaller enrollment, because the students require more individual attention, and therefore higher admission standards; some research MS programs offer financial support in the form of assistantships or even fellowships.  In many departments, there is an easy transition from a research MS program into the PhD program; transitioning from a professional/taught MS program into a PhD program is almost impossible.
Of course, these answers are very crude approximations.  The actual difference will vary significantly between departments.


text:
What are effective strategies to work through 'drafting fatigue'?
Similar to my previous question "Strategies to overcome “academic-apathy” in the final stages of the PhD?", one thing I am noticing as I am drafting papers and the thesis, I seem to becoming overcome by 'drafting fatigue' - where things that usually don't bother me, for example:

Punctuation and grammar fixups
especially when my supervisor (advisor) suggests a change, I make the change, then he suggests changing it back on the next draft.
wanting to add additional figures

and all things like this.  After the 2nd draft, I find I am getting 'over it' (for want of a better term).  So, this leads to my question - what practical effective strategies are there to overcome this 'drafting fatigue'?

Having similar experiences, the only approach I have found effective is to leave it alone for an extended period (week to a month typically - with fresher eyes the longer I wait). You can dig into another project for that amount of time, so it isn't wasted doing nothing.
The bullet points jive with my experience as well, e.g. reading the same draft over and over again makes one less likely to see grammer mistakes, minor supervisor input is annoying, and you always want to do alittle more (like add in another figure).
For copy-editing sometimes I will ask my wife or a friend for a look over, which is nice because it gives you alittle respite from the draft as well.

Tackle one aspect at a time. For example, on one pass, concentrate on fixing punctuation and make a conscious effort not to do anything about the other things that will inevitable jump out at you. (You can flag them for later attention if you're afraid you'll forget, but it is important not do too many things per pass.)
Vary your focus. Shift from looking at the big picture to looking at the details. One on pass, evaluate each paragraph in light of the entire paper. On the next, evaluate each sentence or phrase in light of the paragraph; you don't necessarily lose sight of the larger structure, but it is less important on this pass.
Ask others for help. This may mean asking your advisor to critique for you and/or have friends and family members proofread. Another set of eyes is invaluable; I am indebted to those friends and colleagues who have patiently answered my demands for feedback and blunt criticism!
Leave it for a while. To echo the thought of Andy W above, there are times when stepping away from a paper is the surest cure for drafting fatigue. One caveat; don't stay away too long! When you put the paper away, have a clear idea of how long you will be away, what you will do during that time, and what needs to be done on the manuscript when you come back. (Attach a note as a reminder for yourself!)

One final note: YMMV. Every author works differently, and what works for me may not work for you. While I struggle with trying to do everything on one pass, I have worked with others who were fine with the minutiae, but absolutely could not see the problems with the big picture except with help from friendly critics. The tips above work for me,and I offer them in the hope that others may learn from my success without needing to endure my failures! :)


text:
Importance of degree and publication vs. degree alone
I'm going to be starting graduate school next week with a major in Mathematics. I've started working on some research in mathematical biology this summer. It's applied mathematics linked with computational biology.
What is the tangible advantage of getting a research publication along with my masters degree vs. just getting a masters degree?
What are the benefits for a math major, for future job prospects?
Also, if I want to apply for another masters degree later, how much will getting a publication help me?

A tangible advantage can only be measured for an agreed upon measure (or "utility function" if you prefer).  This is a classic misstep in attempts at persuasion.  I can't convince you to do anything (or appreciate anything) if I don't know your core values and phrase my arguments in terms of those values.  Unfortunately, the phrase "future job prospects" is rather vague, so I will guess a bit at what you're hoping to pursue and accomplish.
First suppose that you're considering getting a PhD in the future.  This one is easy.  If you do go for a PhD, a large chunk of your time will be spent on research and publishing.  What exactly this looks like varies significantly even within math, depending on how applied your subfield is.  However, if you stick with the same subfield (or even one nearby), then publishing a paper during your masters will often give you a reasonable sense of what you'll be doing during your PhD.  This will help you to know whether you want to get a PhD or not.  Having published a paper during your masters will also help convince the admissions committee that you are likely to succeed in a PhD program, and improve your chance of being admitted to a PhD program.
Suppose instead that you plan to pursue a job that requires technical writing skills.  This one is pretty obvious too.  Writing (as with most things) is a skill that you acquire only by doing.  Many (most?) journals require a higher quality of writing than is typically needed in your masters thesis.  They also require you to write in a certain style, to a certain audience, etc.  Being forced to do this will make your writing better.
Finally, suppose that you want to convince someone that you take initiative or that you conceive a project and see it through.  In either case, having published a paper can serve as good evidence.  Like most things, after you've published multiple papers, the process will get faster (though not likely fast).
But the first time you do it, you'll invest a lot of time, and often not know quite what is needed.  This can be frustrating, but also rewarding when you succeed.  The ability to teach yourself new skills is far more marketable than anything you will learn in grad school.


text:
Are there benefits to taking a year off before entering academia after completion of the PhD?
I am submitting my PhD for assessment in the next fortnight, by the end of the year, it will be complete.  Currently, while studying (and to pay the bills), I am a high school teacher.  Getting into a postdoc or lecturing tenure is quite difficult in Australia (particularly in my field - Physics).  So, what is likely to happen is that I'll be high school teaching next year as well.
However, while teaching, I intend writing more papers (3 already published, 4th submitted) - my current supervisor (=advisor) has indicated that he is more than happy to collaborate on these ongoing projects, post-PhD (but is not in a position to offer a postdoc position).
So, generally speaking, beyond writing more papers and building up the research profile, what other benefits are there to stalling entering academia by a year?
In my case, it would be almost like an academic-gap-year except, I will need to be still full time employed.

I hope you don't believe you need to default into teaching. This is completely false.

@Jase I don't, I have been a teacher for far longer (14 years) than I have been studying my PhD (2.5 years)

I would say that this is one time when taking a year off is not recommended. You are at your peak right now in a number of ways:

You have very recent publications and just received your degree. Both have a discernible half-life when it comes to being hired in academia (particularly for the first time).
You know the most people in your field, including your advisor and other professors who can write you up-to-date recommendation letters.
You have the most current knowledge of your field, and although it sounds like you're going to continue to publish, you won't be as able to actively learn (then again, I know from your previous posts that you were full-time employed during your PhD, so that may not be an issue).

I'm assuming that the timing is different in Australia, but in the U.S. there are generally key times of the year that academic hiring happens -- you put together applications in Nov-Jan and hope to land interviews and talks in the Feb-April time frame. If there is a similar time-frame in Australia, I would make sure you have the time available to put together applications and go on interviews, whether it is this year or after another year.
I assume you'll still be allowed to publish under your previous school's affiliation post-PhD defense, but if that isn't the case, I would urge you to figure out a way to work that out.
Finally (and I'm not really in a position to comment directly on this) is the question about how your job applications will be received with a year gap from academia. My feeling is that an extra paper will help you but that the time away won't help you (even though it isn't technically away it will be noticeable that you got your PhD a year prior), and it may be a wash. You'll have to consider this when you write your cover letters and research statement. I would think about how (if at all) you justify the extra year of high school teaching post-PhD in a cover letter. You've already got plenty of teaching experience under your belt to prove your teaching credentials, so an extra year in the classroom won't be beneficial from that standpoint.

Good points, in Australia - the new academic year starts in January - so, I am applying already for jobs in academia.

Got it -- good luck with the applications! Here's to hoping that this thread is overcome by events soon!

My CV is nicely polished and several applications have already been sent.


text:
What happens if the editor cannot find reviewers?
I submitted to a journal a couple of months ago. The editorial flow is somehow quick and very transparent. I receive notifications for all events happening to the manuscript.
Unfortunately, the managing editor contacted me three weeks ago. They informed me that the assigned editor could not commit to the job and left. Another editor was immediately assigned.
However, I was contacted today by the new assigned editor. I was informed that all the contacted reviewers so far either refused to review the manuscript or did not respond to the invitation. They are now looking for other reviewers.
Despite the bad luck surrounding the manuscript, all of this happened in a reasonable time and I am satisfied with how quickly they react.
Nevertheless, these events made me reflect. Even if an editorial board possesses a fair network of reviewers, there is still a little risk that all the contacted reviewers either refuse or do not reply.
What happens if no reviewers could be found for a submitted manuscript? Is the journal going to reject the manuscript because of a lack of reviewers?

Author-guided, journal-independent peer review is a new concept in scholarly communication that can address this problem among many others. Check out http://www.openscholar.org.uk and http://www.libreapp.org

Did you really mean to write "assigned editor" or rather "assigned reviewer"?

Short answer: the editor will continue to try and find other suitable reviewers, sending them invitations and waiting for replies. At some point, they may come back to you and ask you to suggest names (additional names, if you had already given some when you originally submitted the paper).

It can happen that an editor has a hard time finding suitable reviewers that accept to review a manuscript. There are a few factors in play, such as:

the journal is not well-know;
the editor is new, or not well-know in the field, or does not have a very good network;
the research reported is atypical, in a very narrow subfield, or joins different areas (so that no one reviewer feels confident in accepting)
the elements sent by the editor (title and abstract) are rather boring or tend to confuse the potential reviewers

Note that most of these factors do not reflect badly on the manuscript, so there is no need to feel bad about it. The editor is likely to continue his search of reviewers. I see two other options that the editor could choose from, but I judge them as rather unlikely:

Evaluate the manuscript himself, and make a decision based on his own review. After all, it's his job, and the reviewers' role is only to help the editor reach a decision.
Refer the manuscript to another editor, or to the editorial board, so they can make a decision on it.

Finally, note that it may take quite some time to find suitable (and willing) reviewers. In the case of one paper of mine, it took the editor 3 months to find adequate reviewers, and that was actually for a prestigious journal. However, the paper was atypical enough (and the research was quite novel) that many potential reviewers did not feel able to review it adequately. (And in case you wonder, it was accepted on the first try, once the editor found reviewers.)

Edit (regarding your comment): my advice is don't retract your submission, unless you think it's the journal's fault (unwilling editor or unknown journal). I know it's tempting! But especially if your work is multidisciplinary, it will take time to find reviewers, even if you submit it to another journal. Thus, better let the current submission process go to its end.

So is it also unlikely that the journal will reject because of absence of reviewers?
Thank you for reassuring me that a lack of reviewers does not necessarily mean that the manuscript is bad :-)

@dgraziotin I don't think the editor will reject it based on the lack of reviewers…

F'x was very fast to edit the answer, even if I deleted my comment after less than a minute. So here is the part of the comment, which brought F'x to edit the answer:
---BEGIN:
So is this what happens? Is the journal going to loop up to the point that either they find the reviewers or I retract the submission? Well, it seems reasonable. Acceptance without review is bad as well as rejection without review.
END---
I am not thinking to retract my submission. I am just wondering at how things work in this case. Thank you for your answer!

If enough people refuse to review a paper, the editor can legitimately reject it.  Whether they're likely to reject on those grounds depends on the journal's editorial policies and the individual editor.  But I agree with @F'x: You should not retract your submission.

@JeffE. If the editors legitimately reject a paper because of the refuse of the people to review a paper, what should authors do with their multidisciplinary paper? Because when one/two reputable journal cannot find enough reviewers, it is possible that no journal be able to do that. But many novelties can arise in  multidisciplinary fields in which there are simultaneously a few people working. Any advice for these situations?

F'x's answer looks right to me, but since this actually happened to me once, I'll add some extra commentary which doesn't sound like it applies to your situation, but might apply to similar ones.
Many journals (at least in math) have a de facto policy that every paper which even plausibly might get published has to go to a referee before a decision can be made.  Therefore an article which has problems which make it very unlikely to get accepted---being difficult to read, or highly specialized, or involving multiple areas with few potential referees---but which doesn't have obvious flaws which make it an easy rejection might have trouble getting through the process.  The editor keeps asking people to review it, and it looks like a hard job, and the paper isn't so interesting to be worth it, so they keep turning it down.  An editor can eventually break this loop by asking a reviewer in a way which implies that the reviewer has permission to give a more cursory rejection for the reasons the editor has identified (perhaps based on comments made by other people when turning down the review).
Once an editor has decided to start nudging potential reviewers in this direction, it becomes faster for everyone if the editor politely suggests that the paper should just be withdrawn.
This (I think---I can't say for sure what the editor was thinking) is what happened to me.  I submitted a paper involving two different areas to a journal specializing in one of them.  After several months I got back a letter from the editor stating that several people had turned down the paper with negative impressions; the editor offered to look for more referees, but before doing so, wanted to know if I would like to withdraw the paper rather than continue to wait when it wasn't clear the paper would be accepted.  I (and people I consulted with) interpreted this as a polite indication that at this point the editor would primarily be looking for an excuse to reject the paper, and therefore that it would speed things up for me if I withdrew it.  (And, indeed, the next journal accepted it.)
So a notification that the editor can't find reviewers could be a hint that the editor wants you to withdraw it, but isn't necessarily.

“Many journals have a policy that every paper has to go to a referee” — possibly field dependent, then, because this is not the case in physics or chemistry… could you add a link documenting such policy, for example?

@F'x: I've clarified that statement a bit.  I didn't mean that they have a formal written editorial policy (I don't think most journals have much in the way of public, formal editorial policies anyway).  Perhaps it's different in other fields, but at least in math, journals seem to feel obligated to send out even borderline-crankery to get an opinion from a referee on it.

I didn't have the impression it was so different in other fields.  Editors might summarily reject nonsense, or articles well below the threshold of the journal or way outside their topic, and I gather high-profile journals which get a lot of junk submissions get strict about that, but I had the impression that it would be highly unusual for an editor at a typical (not top-tier) journal to reject a borderline article without the opinion of a referee.

It happened to me once that the editor sent my submitted paper to 5 reviewers (all of them were in my references) and all of them rejected the invitation to review the paper. The editor took this as a sign that my paper was not suitable for publication in that journal and rejected the paper. So, yes, a rejection can actually happen but it is not the rule. As usual, publshing is a combination of good content, a bit of politics, and luck.

That's pity. I feel bad for you. No papers deserve a rejection because no reviewers can be found. At least in my field, editors do not hesitate to desk-reject a paper if it is deemed to be of low quality.

Well, this happened to me recently. After 2.5 months of reviewer hunting, the editor-in-chief failed to find any reviewer and rejected my manuscript. The funny thing is that during this last 2.5 months, I inquired about the status of the manuscript thrice through the manuscript submission system and also emailed the editor-in-chief at his persona email. I never got back any reply from him. Finally, I emailed Elsevier complaining about lack of enthusiasm of the editor-in-chief and voila, after few days the paper was rejected!

In my experience, as long as one tries long enough, hard enough, one can always find reviewers. It's just a question of how long it takes. After all, performing literature reviews is standard Masters-level work, and it's a small step from that to finding researchers working in the area. In other words, if the first few sets of invited reviewers decline to review or do not respond, one of these things happen:

The authors lose patience and withdraw the manuscript.
The editor loses patience and rejects the paper due to "unable to find reviewers".
Nothing, and the editor keeps trying to find reviewers.

It takes a motivated editor to keep trying, though. Even if the editor doesn't lose patience, it's possible he'll decide the paper can't be very good because otherwise reviewers would be jumping at the chance to review it.


text:
PhD approved by advisor, rejected by examiners
This has recently happened to an acquaintance of mine.  A bit of background, in Australia, we do not 'defend' the thesis, we submit it to be examined by, usually, 3 academics (in the country or overseas).
The situation is, the thesis was approved by the advisor, after several drafts and some feedback.  However, when it has come back from the examiners, it has come back as 'failed'.  Some of the errors detected are ones that the advisor should have picked up on (as they are within their field of research).
Asides from the appeals procedure (dependent on the policies of the University), what are some practical options?  Should they start again? Take her research elsewhere?
Edit for clarification:

This has not happened to me, it has happened to an acquaintance (as said above).
My acquaintance submitted her thesis well within time and underwent several drafts (as said above).
The advisor is young/new to the academic scene.

Don't you have PhD committees? They are supposed to follow your progression and prevent exactly this kind of scenario.

@Bitwise not really, the primary advisor keeps track on that, although there are semester evaluations filled in by the student and advisor.

The thesis didn't come back as "Fundamental revisions required." (more primary research, serious interpretive or theoretical issues) or "Major Revisions required." but as "Failed"?  Correct?

@SamuelRussell, apparently, 2 came back as failed and one as Fundamental revisions required

@SamuelRussell: In my university (not in Australia), the external thesis examiner of has only two options: pass or fail.

It can happen in the UK. An acquaintance of mine at Oxford had his thesis failed, very hard to understand how, it was published and accepted for a PhD at a Bonn university in Germany (the guy was American the thesis was in English lit). The problem was some ego fight between supervisors. Similar thing happened to my friend at Cambridge, but he was passed after revising it for a whole year. When I went to my viva, I  was scared to death. The committee didn't care, had read it on the train from London and passed me. It's messed up.

It is difficult to answer the question without also judging the supervision and other aspects of the student-advisor "relationship". I have been involved in a case which also resulted in a fail. I, being non-Australian) got the impression the thesis was done either by meeting a time deadline or by the student "deciding" so. I cannot imagine any advisor would recommend the thesis as completed in the shape it was. I could not, as examiner, figure out what rules made the thesis judged as competed, it would simply not go in my own system.
In my case we bring in an examination committee from other universities and mostly from abroad. The thesis must stand an international scrutiny. This also means the advisors and students are aware of this requirement. In your case, as well as the one I experienced, I ask myself what sort of system is in palce to safekeep the general scientific standard?
As you can see there are many open questions which makes a simple answer difficult to provide. In some cases it might be possible to use the feedback to improve a thesis. In the US system it is common that a thesis is given revisions to complete. In my system (Sweden) all this quality work has to be made before time, there is no recouperation after a fail. Hence, the options depend on what is possible within the Australian system. If it is possible to revise and re-defend? then that is one way. Tpo take the work elsewhere might be possible but if the work does not stand international scrutiny then that option does not look bright. If there are deeper misunderstandings that lead to the verdict then it might be possible to claim a "mistrial" but failinga PhD thesis is not a good thing under any circumstances. I am just left wondering why it happened, not so much to put blaim but it seems something(s) must have failed in the process and finding out the reasons may provide a better view of possibilities to go forward.
finally, start again? another 3-5 years ona different project will require both a strong interest and financing (I would presume). It is possible but usually, I do not think anyone would subject themselves to another PhD period lightheartedly.
EDIT:
An example that just occurred.

"I cannot imagine any advisor would recommend the thesis as completed in the shape it was." I can. There is a similar external review procedure in Canada and, violating a few written rules in favor of common sense, I managed to figure out how a completely hopeless dissertation could get recommended by the adviser. I'll offer no disclosures however, just the confirmation that such things do happen. I agree with the rest you said.

"it seems something(s) must have failed in the process" - This is so true that I would think someone higher would get involved. How could the adviser recommend a dissertation when it was of so poor quality? Were they just hoping to 'sneak something by' the examiners or were they trying to torpedo the candidate?

@earthling that is what my acquaintance and myself are wondering also.

I have a PhD from Oxford, there is no process whatsoever, the supervisor gets bored of you, asks someone to be on the committee and you'd better get someone nice. One brilliant American chap was failed without rational reason (it was English lit, so I suppose rationality is not necessary)...

This type of thing is one reason that many graduate colleges or departments will not allow an assistant professor (or other non-tenured new academic regardless of formal title) to be the sole/primary advisor for a Ph.D. student.
Other than the obvious ill effects on the poor doctoral candidate, this also reflects extremely badly on, and could hurt, the advisor also (e.g., during tenure review), and even shows the department in poor light.  I hope your friend is able to salvage things, but in my opinion this is at least as much the advisor's and department's problem as the candidate's, and they should be actively working to find a proper solution.  If they're not, then I regard that as a bigger problem than the thesis rejection itself.

+1 for reflecting badly on the advisor and the department!