As the husband of a PhD (in the U.S.), I agree with many of the OP's points. It was an arduous process with little in the way of internal controls or milestones

As the husband of a PhD (in the U.S.), I agree with many of the OP's points. It was an arduous process with little in the way of internal controls or milestones and subject to the whims of her adviser. I was struck at how academia lacks the people and project management concepts that I've taken for granted; it really is a fiefdom ("deeply dysfunctional training system"). She made the choice to move into industry and not academia a year before graduation (because the concept of a post-doc, nontenured professorship, and continued toiling at below-market rates [and other reasons] was... unappetizing), and at that point was sort of sidelined. She made it out in 4.5 years, where many of her peers are still in the program. Which brings me to my main point of contention with the article: "it's because you're brilliant that you're contemplating doing a PhD in the first place". Not all PhDs are brilliant any more so than every brilliant person considers doing one. As the OP points out, the key to PhD success is self-motivation and a dedication to the field ("appetite for pain") rather than any particular cognitive blessing. As in all things, whether it's a PhD or the decision to go work in finance (for a great salary but no personal life for several years) or doing a start-up, you need to weigh your personal goals and limitations with the expectations of your environment.