As the Butthole Surfers teach us: "It's better to regret something you have done, than to regret something you haven't done."[1]

Or to put it another way: money comes, money goes - the real opportunity cost here is your time, and the intellectual fire burning obviously burning very deep in you somewhere that propelled you to take the application process as far as you already have.

So with that framework in mind - and since already you already have the opportunity lined up - go ahead and get that PhD. Who knows, you just might learn something, and end up making a dent in the universe. If it doesn't turn out to be to your liking - you can always go back to the fleshpots of FAANG.

[1] https://www.discogs.com/release/1198927-Butthole-Surfers-Loc...

Completely agree. OP you can always leave after a masters and go back to FAANG

I started my PhD in software engineering after 20+ years of industry experience. It was an interesting experience. For me I was able to delve deeply into the area of model based software engineering. (There is far more to it than just UML) By graduating, I ticked off an important (to me) item on my bucket list.

As I see it, there are two ways to engage in research. You either have an area that truly interests you and you are excited to deep dive into it for many years, to write about it and to give talks about it. The other way is to work within a research group on the principal investigator's area of interest and carve out a small niche within that. The former path (the one I chose) is difficult because you might end up with very little outside support. The latter, as I have observed, is optimal for those who have ambitions to forge ahead with a career in research. From what I have seen, it is the latter that gets the bad rap.

From a financial perspective, a PhD is not a good choice. But there are exceptions to that rule. If you are concerned about $1m opportunity cost, then it is a No Go zone.

As an adventure, as a massive self-growth experience, for cerebral persons I can recommend it.

With a MS you expand you knowledge by learning from others. With a PhD you create new knowledge and stake your claim upon it. It might be very narrow and specific, but it is yours. Well at least until others build upon it. That is how science advances.

My instinctual advice is don't do it - the grass is always greener. Most PHDs are never read or cited by anyone and your hard work will collect dust.

My more thoughtful advice is from something Bryan Cranston said. Basically, he said trying to be an actor is ludicrous. You have a high chance of making no money and never getting a break. Because of that, you should only become an actor if, like him, you can't bear to do anything else.

I left Microsoft Research and started a PhD at age 38. I have had a lot of fun and gone a completely different direction than if I had stayed. Certainly I'll never recover those earning years. From an economic perspective it is a ludicrous thing to do. You may recover the direct costs, but the opportunity cost are just gone. But if you need to be on a different path there are worse ways to do it

Depends on which letter of the FAANG pantheon you are in, but my understanding is that it is much harder (and arguably more prestigious) to get into some of the FAANG companies than most PhDs programs.

Personally, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't bother with a PhD unless we are talking about something MIT level.

Also, I don't know your personal situation and capabilities of course. But all of my friends & colleagues at FAANG level companies swear that they would not be able to pass the coding interviews again if they had to redo it, and even if they could, it would only be after many, many months of hardcore grinding (leetcode, etc) that they'd rather not do again.

I do not think this is the right question you should be asking.

Your aim should not be to want to do a Ph.D. Your aim should be to want to get involved in a particular research area that you are already interested in, and you see that opportunities at academic institution are better suited to accomplish this goal.

To me it sounds like you just want to do a Ph.d for the title.

When I was contemplating a Ph.d I started out like you, just wanting to do it for a title. But after spending time as a research assistant in my pre-Ph.d phase I realized that just "doing a Ph.d" is not at all what I wanted. I wanted to work on something I was passionate about. Else it was better not to attempt anything at all.

This is the correct answer. Doing a PhD is about learning how to do solid research, and become a person who can do good research independently.

If you're doing it for any other reason then you're likely going to have a bad time or be disappointed

I attempted something similar and I lasted about a day before it dawned upon me that an MS was really what I was after. A PhD is really a young person's game. Just as you don't attend conservatory later in life to become a performance musician, you don't "catch up" on a PhD to become a research scientist -- that boat has sailed. I know it's not what you want to hear, especially since you're already nontrivially invested.

It's sad because I probably stole a slot from some poor, smart kid from Nepal.

I have a co-worker who worked many many years in Research. He is currently the oldest or second oldest employee of a large research organisation. He finished his PhD a few years ago when he was 60+ years old.

I had a friend in grad school who entered the Ph.D. program after spending four years in industry. He was very passionate about his research area, persistent, a fountain of ideas, and wonderful to talk with. He ended up winning the ACM doctoral dissertation award for his thesis, did research and teaching at a university, and has since returned to industry.

This may be the exception that proves the rule. However I just wanted to point out that there is at least one person who did catch up to become a research scientist, however rare that career path might be.

I noticed my colleagues that started the PhD with industry experience were often more focused with their goals.

That proves the point he was only mid-twenties so still young

Agreed. Just trying to help OP, who also appears to be young ("I graduated with a CS bachelors degree a few years ago").

I have a PhD in the social sciences, now work as a data scientist/PI in industry.

1. I agree with hideo, though they have sort of a maximally negative take here. This perspective is good to entertain however, as there will be weeks/months where it sucks as bad as they say. Other times, it will be fine/much better. Of course you will need to be prepared for the worst to make it.

2. Much of the PhD angst for me derived from financial stress. This won't be an issue for you, which is an interesting comparative advantage.

3. Many programs allow you to bail after two years with a masters. There is no shame in this, and sometimes I wonder why I didn't do this (despite the PhD being an unmitigated, if unbelievably stressful, success for me personally).

4. Speaking for myself, a doctorate has opened doors I never imagined would be possible for me. It also almost drove me insane multiple times. Get a group meeting through the student health center (I did a men's group, and it got me over the line).

5. I agree with vanusa that you basically don't want to leave anything on the table in life. If this is in your belly, it is. If having the biggest 401k possible is in your belly, I'd avoid it or get a masters. As others have said, FAANG isn't going anywhere (despite rebrands and name changes), and from my experience you will command a higher salary if/when you want to go back.

A doctorate is a nice personal achievement, but the opportunity cost is more than money. A PhD is a ticket that opens opportunities for teaching and research. (Mostly teaching.) You can do research on your own, without the costs of a PhD. You can strike up intellectual relationships with other researchers today. You can invent things and file your own patents. You can create your own businesses, selling products or services. You can deep dive into any subject on your own, today, and build yourself into a world-class expert.

> I’ve heard horror stories about abusive advisors, mental health struggles, low stipends, burnout, and lack of support systems.

Yes, it's a marathon. Some people really want to win that race. It is an accomplishment. A PhD might make a nice trophy, but tread cautiously down that road unless you very much want to slide into academia.

> You can deep dive into any subject on your own, today, and build yourself into a world-class expert

The down sides are significant and should be considered very carefully.

However, universities can sometimes be attractive and motivating work environments, especially if you are tired of tech companies and startups and don't need or care about the money you'd get from working there. As noted, you can try an MS (ideally completing a master's thesis which is something like a mini-dissertation) and see if it's something you like.

And I don't know how it is in your company, but sometimes interesting research jobs in industry are easier to get if you have a graduate degree.

> You can do research on your own, without the costs of a PhD.

You can, but not if you want to get paid. A PhD is still the union card for research scientists.

I was not at a FAANG but I did attempt the same thing as you. I left with a Masters for a variety of reasons but my thoughts are that it’s less the financial opportunity cost that’s the problem. It’s the mental health toll that will really get you.

A PhD is for you if you really enjoy academic style work. If you thrived in high school/college, are innately mathematical, and care a lot about pushing the boundaries of knowledge.

You need to be ok with _not_ focusing on building things but instead focusing purely on understanding things. For me that last part was almost impossible.

You need to be ok with rejection and failure. You’ll try a lot of things and fail and get nothing for the effort. You’ll also have to constantly keep dealing with getting rejected for things like fellowships, journal papers, grants, conferences, awards and such.

You also need to be someone who is OK without a traditional social life and be ok to put in insane hours. Plan on 70-100 hour weeks up until you get tenure. Having a relationship with someone who is not in the system is going to be tough. You absolutely will lose touch with some friends and some family faster than the regular process.

There will be no system to help you. It wasn’t my case but I will warn you that there are many awful advisors. Unlike in the industry there are zero checks and balances and basically no incentives for advisors to keep their students mental health in mind. Your graduate advisor may care but probably won’t. And once you’re about 3-4 years in you can’t get out and I know tons of folks who were basically stuck in sand and spinning their tires.

You will see people who are your peers moving up traditional career ladders. You will see people starting companies. You will see people doing cooler things.

On the other end of all this a lucky 1% or so of people I know who entered the system ended up in a tenured faculty position doing research.

If you do decide to go ahead my suggestion is to find a good advisor who has funding. That is almost impossible to do but that’s all that matters.

Do it...you can easily switch back to industry if you're not enjoying the phd. It'll be an opportunity to hang out with a whole set of new people.

I think it's a great idea to do a Ph.D. for fun after you are financially independent - not to mention having technical skills and real-world experience.

There are some things which are hard to do outside a PhD. I knew that I would be better off working in industry after graduating (though I'm in a country where I earn no where near a FAANG salary) but I still cherish the time I spent doing physics research. The cadence, experience and sense of achievement that a PhD can give are hard to find outside of Academia. That said it's always a bit of luck, I know brilliant people that just had bad luck with their research subject or their advisors, so as always there's no guarantee.

I'm not sure about the $1 Million opportunity cost, do you really need that much money? If you can earn that much in a couple of years you will be extremely well off regardless of whether you do a PhD or not. Certain things in life can be bought with money, but time spent can't be bought back with money. Personally I wouldn't trade my PhD time for money even retroactively. The PhD gave me a chance to live abroad, meet many interesting people and mostly set my own agenda.

A research based PhD is a personal quest to learn deeply about a particular topic and even more about yourself.

Talk to others who have taken that route and see if it's for you -- especially ask about the effort needed especially in the last six months.

Don't do it for the title because you are likely to fail. Also, given your current position it should not be about current or future earnings.

Do you have a PhD in you?

I am not a FAANG engineer but I hold a Ph.D. (computer science). I completed my Ph.D. in 8 years while I was working in the private industry. During this time frame; in my private life, I became a father ;) And, at work, my responsibilities grew - from being a developer to being a manager. I came close to quitting my Ph.D. many times and many of the fellows - who were also working in private industry and doing Ph.D. - quit in a couple of years.

I know the problems you mentioned are not the same as the ones I mentioned. What I am trying to say is; if you have some kind of stubbornness - and also you like to research, you just start and stick.

I don't think there is a clear-cut answer, but rather some pros and cons, which you're already weighing. I'll just pass on some helpful advice that I got, and some of the things I learned while doing a Ph.D.

- A Ph.D. opens up two things: (1) ability to do research, and (2) ability to teach at a university. A Ph.D. makes more sense if you really want one or both of those things. If you're already involved in research at your company, and want to go into the same research area, what a Ph.D. offers is the ability to continue doing research in an academic context. There are a lot of benefits to working at a university (the profs I know really appreciate academic freedom), but I also hear persistent complaints about funding and how difficult it can be to find.

- Choice of advisor matters a lot. A great advisor is a very influential mentor, who will help you grow intellectually in very many ways, and help you make connections to other researchers. A bad advisor can be really destructive. You need to put a lot of effort into evaluating your top several possible advisors. Which of them do you like? What are their former students doing now? (All of their students, not just the most successful.) What are their research groups like? What can you learn about the advisor from their students? If you were as successful as their median student, would you be happy?

- Some departments have more cooperation, some are more competitive. One of my friends ended up in a department that was ridiculously competitive, to the point of students excluding and undermining each other when studying for qualifying exams. She didn't like it and left after getting a master's degree.

>I joined a really cool team

Don't underestimate the satisfaction that can come working as part of a great team. There are no guarantees that you'll be able to recreate that on demand at a later point, or that the research group you end up joining will be as good (though who knows? it could be better).

Also, I'm sure you've looked into this, but is there a possibility of doing formal research work at your company (taking classes towards a Ph.D., finding an advisor at a university to oversee the academic side of your research, etc.)?

I'm actually very surprised FAANG doesn't sponsor the PhD, and I'd be surprised if they don't take you back after quitting. Talent is clearly valuable to tech companies.

In my experience universities seek industry-academia collaborations. You appear to be in a good position to create such a collaborative project which would be a mutual win-win for all involved, including yourself.

You'll hear lots of glib remarks that doing a PhD "sacrifices earnings potential today, in order to have less earnings tomorrow". My wife did one after five years working in a telecoms multinational, and it was a marathon with lots of ups and downs along the way.

The main thing, w.r.t. tech roles is that a lot of the more advanced, and possibly higher paying, ML roles require a PhD in a related field. So if that's what you want to do afterwards it's an option.

Is the PhD worth it?

A million is a million.

Do you think you'd be able to recoup it in quicker time then the sunk cost in education?

I personally am not a fan of academia, but many on HN news are and believe the accreditation will lead you to go far. I personally believe it's up to your skills and network - what do you know and who do you know? You already are at a FAANG.

So it comes round to what's the point? Are you ready to forgo revenue for a PhD?

Another aspect to it, you can actually start a research focussed startup. If you are taking a huge hit on income, and the PhD pays basically nothing anyways, you can absolutely start a company where your research will be at the core. Of course this depends on what you want to study.

There is precedent, IBM was pretty glad in hindsight that Codd got a PhD. I remember the anecdode only vaguely though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_F._Codd

How are your soft skills? If you’re suitable, in those 5 years you can easily climb to the next level at FAANG, which is way more prestigious than a PhD, and includes all that money you mentioned. Very clear mistake to do the PhD.

I think the question really is what makes you want to go for PhD in Com Sci? Why not masters program? Why PhD? Why Com Sci? Suppose you get your PhD, what’s next for you? Does a PhD help you get there?

A masters program isn’t typically focused on research. I don’t actually care about taking classes; I just want to do research. A thesis-based masters is just training for a PhD, so I would rather do the PhD.

I don’t know what’s next after the PhD. It could be another FAANG job, founding a startup, or really anything. A PhD definitely does not help get me there. It’s just a personal goal

If you're already in an R&D position, what kind of research do you think you can do in a PhD setting that you can't do now?

A whole lot of comp sci research doesn't need a lot of resources, so you can do that anywhere, it's just a question of time.

Some research needs lots of computer time and/or lots of real world data. You likely have access to more advanced computers/more computer time at a FAANG, at least in theory (getting to use it is something else) as well as real world data.

What does a credential do for you here that FAANG on your resume doesn't?

Why do you need to be in a program to do research? Are you looking for access to some mentioning that you can’t get by other means.

There are two benefits in doing research at an academic institution:

1. You have access to paywalled papers. The majority of leading edge research is published in high subscription fee journals.

2. You gain a great deal of knowledge and build international network of contacts by attending conferences and collaborating with others. Sabbaticals are another form of leverage.

The paywall can be bypassed by just going to the library or enrollment in a single class. You could probably even buy/rent a students account and use that for remote login.

The latter though you really have to figure out if that’s worth doing unpaid labor for. Seems like you could leverage your existing industry position to network with professors better then you could as a phd student. You could reach out to professors of interest and offer to mentor their phd student in the ways of industry or help them find jobs and use that as leverage to get access to folks you are interested in

Why don't you just do it part-time few extra years but no pay cut and you still learn about whatever interests you. PhD is mostly learning/researching by yourself anyway.

If "worth" is a financial question, the answer is a clear no. In your situation, it would be a huge financial blunder.

You don’t need the Ph.D is what I’m hearing.