11–19 of 19 posts
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.
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.
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.
There's probably a bias towards hiring a Ph.D. dropout than an actual Ph.D.--you've just demonstrated the ability to be pragmatic, which industry prizes. Don't stress about it.
I'd like to see a source that grounds that line of thinking in the real world. 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…
(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.