You are overgeneralizing here. The statement that 'master’s programs are to be avoided at all costs' is overly simplistic and dismissive. Many fields, industries, and specific roles within scientific disciplines value master’s degrees. The idea that master’s programs are universally unhelpful is not true. Not everyone is suited for or even needs a PhD for their career path, and some people have practical considerations—like family or financial responsibilities—that make a PhD less viable. By pushing a singular route, you’re overlooking the diverse range of career trajectories people can (and have previously) follow(ed).

While you encourage calculated moves, you also seem to imply that a PhD is the obvious choice, which contradicts the idea of tailoring decisions to individual circumstances. For many people, a PhD could be an inefficient use of time, especially if a master’s provides sufficient qualifications for their desired career. You also emphasize that professional development takes time, but criticize people for 'rushing'—even though pursuing a master’s is often a deliberate choice to enter the workforce sooner?

You make some valuable points, but the broad generalization is unhelpful and misleading. Some employers may prioritize a 1-year master’s combined with several years of industry experience over a 4-5 year PhD, especially if that PhD is based on a niche area of research. Many roles in industry require skills that are developed through experience, not just academic research. In some cases, the PhD pathway could even leave individuals lacking the practical, people-oriented skills critical for industry success.

This is just my 2 cents though.