I think I disagree with you and OP, but for different reasons. In R&D, it's a matter of career path. A PhD is expected to become a lead, someone to guide a res

I think I disagree with you and OP, but for different reasons. In R&D, it's a matter of career path. A PhD is expected to become a lead, someone to guide a research program. A Master's degree holder will be closer to the action and likely develop technical skills that make them an asset lower on the org chart. The problem, I think, stems from the fact that PhDs are also expected to master their techniques and to perform well as a requirement for advancement. They have a career path that extends to management, but are using mostly technical skills at the beginning. The Master's degree holder does not have this difference. I think "PhD is a poor predictor of how well a person might function in industry R&D" is spot on. PhD is a poor predictor of most things that hiring managers are looking for, I might say!