Even if the paper isn't accepted, you get the experience of conducting adequate background research and literature surveys, writing your own work up in a clear and coherent manner, and receiving feedback, some of which may be valuable. You also get used to rejection (and sometimes very harsh and dismissive criticism) as something that happens but isn't the end of the world. Eventually you get published, which in some sense proves the value of your work because it has been peer reviewed and identified as something worth publishing (and has arguably met the often nebulous "novelty" requirement as well.)
Sometimes innovative work just gets rejected for publication because it goes against the status quo, and that's perhaps another good lesson to learn (as well as how to get around such bias if you need to.)
There are two and only two situations [0]: 1) The company requires your specific expertise and won't care about the title as you are the one with the knowledge 2) The company does not require your specific expertise at which point they care about the PhD as a marker of "can do stuff autonomously", which has nothing to do with the title.
On the other hand: (that is an assumption that may be wrong) You are miserable! That is time and joy that you won't get back. Academia will not be thankful for your sacrifice! And besides: I highly doubt that you would have to work for less pay if you quit.
[0] well there is a third one: Someone wants someone with a title for title slides and reports. But I _really_ don't want to work for these people, so I'm discarding it.
This is bad advice. The sheepskin effect is real and a company that "cares about the PhD as a marker" is not being petty or superficial in using this as a screening mechanism. Unless you're truly looking to enter a field where having a PhD would be of no value on your resume, just finish your PhD if you're 6 years in and can do so without too much additional distraction.
I was given this advice when I was wavering on whether to finish my Ph.D. In fact, a guy who had finished his Ph.D. told me don't bother, nothing changed from before or after he got it.
Then I went to his wedding and he had the DJ refer to him as "Dr." the entire night in front of his entire family, and by God did they care. They were so proud of him for that title and that degree. After seeing that, I immediately went and applied to defend my dissertation.
And here's the other thing -- even if you work in an industry like CS that has more egalitarian views on credentials like a Ph.D., the whole world is not like that. The actual piece of paper opens up several opportunities not available otherwise:
- Some jobs require a Ph.D. All the experience in the world won't qualify you for that kind of role without the piece of paper.
- You can get jobs as an "expert" easily, where the piece of paper reifies your expertise to your clients (think expert witness or consultant). It's difficult to explain "Yes, I'm at the top of my field except I don't have the same credentials as those other people who also claim they are at the top". The credentials are more convincing to a lot of people.
- It's easier to emigrate to various places. Having a Ph.D. could help you qualify for a O1 visa in the US, and other countries have special carve outs in their immigration codes for Ph.D.s. You don't get any special treatment for being ABD, no matter how much you insist it wasn't worth your time.
etc.
So having completed the Ph.D., it was by far the right choice for me.
I find it generally bad advice to chase after something when the main driver is social prestige. For one, by definition, you hinging your esteem to the (possibly fickle) opinion of somebody else and two, the people who are in fields for status rather than because of intrinsic joy of the work itself are often not the most productive or ethical.
For example, the surgeons I know who are in the field mainly due to the status it confers seem to be quite miserable.
Anecdotally, I have seen phds create expectation vs reality mismatches for some. The degree can easily become an anchor which holds someone to problems that they no longer care about, or provides false belief in one’s credentials.
I literally know somebody who went through surgery residency and decided to walk away from the field. They are not in financial ruin.
Medical school is also a "one time expense", so I'm not convinced of the distinction. The opportunity cost of a PhD, especially in a field of engineering or CS is probably on similar par. The difference between a TA salary and someone in industry, over the course of 6-7 years to complete a PhD, can easily approach or exceed $500k. While the debt load between the two may be different, the actual opportunity cost is similar.
>The degree can easily become an anchor which holds someone to problems that they no longer care about, or provides false belief in one’s credentials.
Completely agree.
On the other hand, I've found that people who convince themselves that they are pursing a path based on intrinsic joy of the work itself quickly lose interest when they hit a wall and the work becomes not fun at all but a slog.
Think about somebody who grinds out of a sense of duty (high on the "conscientiousness" scale of personality traits). They may not be motivated by the task itself, but are still able to continue the effort because of it's intrinsic rewards (for fueling their identity as a dutiful person, for example).
A parent may not feel motivated all the time regarding doing "silly" activities with their children. But they can push forward anyways, because the idea of "being a good parent" is intrinsically rewarding.
Now from your post it sounds like you don't work in the natural sciences (apologies if I assumed wrong) so you might not have publications (in many natural sciences it's very common to have multiple publications before the defence, in many humanities the thesis is the publication), if you don't be prepared to send that person some condensed work (they likely don't have time to read a whole thesis) or if you have a publication. However only do that after starting a dialogue and after they have agreed to look at some of your work.