I'm 26, and have 2 years experience through internships in several market-leading companies (within this highly specific field, too) with outstanding recommendations.
Thanks!
Depending on who I talk to, I say "I found I liked programming better than my research", "I grew distrustful that the simulation methods were meaningful", "I wasn't getting the support I needed from my adviser; I was one of 14 students and he traveled a lot", and "I was doing too much CS for a physics degree, and too much physics for a CS degree. Only in retrospect years later did I realize that I was actually interested in molecular informatics." (I've spent the last 20 years working in structural informatics, bioinformatics, and chemical informatics.)
I don't think you understand the difference between undergraduate and graduate schools. Grad school is more like a job. You don't "drop out" of working for McDonald's, you quit, and explore other interests.
Also, it's not like leaving graduate school is uncommon. Attrition rates in graduate school (math and physical science) are 25% within the first four years. See http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/07/doctoral#sthas... , and after 10 years of graduate school only 57% end up with a degree.
See also http://chronicle.com/article/PhD-Attrition-How-Much-Is/14004... , "She rejects the term "dropout" to describe someone who leaves graduate school. I agree with her that the word "connotes individual failure" when someone may simply be departing for a better opportunity."
From a recruiter's point of view being a PhD dropout might be even better because it could mean that you won't go back and you will stay being productive where they hired you after they invest in training you the first couple of months/a year.
I'd leave it open ended. In practice, it's just your plan, it's not a given, it can change based on many things. If they ask you, you can explain that it wasn't a good match and that you may or may not try again but right now you want industry experience. You could sell it as wanting to do practical, useful, not ivory tower things which could possibly in the longer term give you a better idea what would be worthwhile research if you ever decide to go back.
Not that everyone isn't planning to leave at some point, but it's probably not the best message to send up front.
There is no difference between these two things, unless you're focusing on the not always implied "dropped out before I got kicked out." Realistically, this is not something you can emphasize until the interview. With a completed MSc, assuming you're in a STEM field, it will not be difficult to get to the interview step at least as often as you would without that year of PhD study.
*I just dropped out of grad school, and nobody seemed to mind. Feel free to email me about that if you want.
How to structure your job application depends on so much more than why the PhD didnd't fit you. I would think more about what job you are applying for, and why you think it would be a good experience.
To start with you need to at least have an idea about what you're looking for. That may well be impossible at 26 (it was for me), but you can get a good idea by looking around what's available. It's not the end of the world if you change your mind later.
Given that cheap and disposable trainees — PhD students and postdocs — fuel the entire scientific research enterprise, it is not surprising that few inside the system seem interested in change. A system complicit in this sort of exploitation is at best indifferent and at worst cruel.
Of course, one could see the situation that way, but I see no reason why you couldn't also argue, for instance, that he has proven he's unable to follow any kind of activity that has not been set in a rigid path beforehand. Or that he only went to University to party[1]. I made those up, of course, which is why I wonder if there's a source for any particular line of thinking.
I know there's a slight bias against PhDs in industry[2], but I don't really know anything for this particular case.
(I do think colleges are generally getting better at making sure students have some of these skills, and GitHub's popularity has also helped. So, hopefully this bias becomes obsolete.)
Someone who starts down the Ph.D. path, then says, "you know what? that's not for me right now", has just demonstrated some uncommon wisdom and self-awareness.
In my opinion as soon as you need to "explain" your CV things are getting complicated and you are at an disadvantage over those which have no-explanation necessary CVs.
Of cause the opinion is only valid in situations where you have no previously established relationship with the company/people who are involved in the hiring process.
A typical recruiter is primarily concerned with finding a good match for his client. His role is to quickly ascertain -
1) Can you do the job? 2) Will you enjoy the job? 3) Can we handle working/living with you?
Relative to your PhD program, it's enough to say after several years on the academic track, I've decided it's time to transition into the private sector. No need to dwell on the dead-end or future plans.
Also don't mention dissatisfaction with PhD advisor et al, doesn't sound good. Instead focus on why PhD wasn't in line with your expectations at that point in your life.
