... and is neither better nor worse than experience.

Many here seem to think that a Ph.D. is simply a continuation of regular education, albeit a bit more specialized. They think you read more books, harder books, and can spout off all kinds of book-facts. It's as if you are rewarded for going 4 (more or less) years past your B.S., which is awarded for going 4 (more or less) years past a 12th grade diploma. This is not true, but leads to the question/idea: Is experience better or worse than a Ph.D.

A Ph.D. demonstrates the ability to create NEW knowledge, and by definition means you could not have read it in a book or article. Of course, in order to do so, one reads a lot, especially in the first couple of years. But after that you have to do research to create a novel work, i.e. your dissertation.

To do the research for around a year or two is a kind of experience (e.g. for CS it may include lots of programming, but maybe alone, not in a team), that some employers may consider as a substitute for "real world" experience. But really the goals are different (working to produce a product vs. to produce new info). Some employers may also like that it shows perserverence, an ability to push through huge frustration and barriers.

But a Ph.D. should not be a career advancing move, it should be a step toward a career in research (either at a uni. or in industry-they do research too!)

My $0.02