Should I just stop applying for admission to PhD with my research gap of 8 years?

You can apply to Europe.

There are some EU countries where they don't care about the kind of gap you are talking about as long as you can demonstrate you are involved in science. However, you will have to sit for an entrance exam and an online interview.

Try countries like Lithuania, Czechia, etc.

The good thing is, they offer 4-year programs, which is much better than most Anglophone countries in terms of viability.

By the way, for some reason, these former Warsaw Pact countries maintain high quality in running their PhD programs, and those degrees are very well treated in North America.

Not really an answer but a mind frame challenge (which may or may not be on topic here).

My background: Master's in EE, Ph.D., in EE (5 years), 3 years as postdoc gunning for an academic career. Got tired of it, switched to industry and had a great career there.

If your primary motivation is doing research and expanding your horizon scientifically, going back to academia might be the wrong choice. In my experience academia cares mostly about the quantity of publications and the acquisition of funding. Quality of research takes a very distant 3rd place at best. I still frequently read scientific papers in my field and I'm often very disappointed with the quality of the work. Personally, I found that the scientific work I have done in industry was of much higher quality and impact than what I did in academia.

If your primary goal is the title itself, I would reconsider. Electrical Engineers do just fine without it. At least half of the people I directly worked with had no idea that I have a Ph.D. It has little impact on the actual work and it doesn't come up that often in conversation. The only people who cared were the PR folks when talking to the press.

Please make sure you fully understand your motivation and your goals. Perhaps a more research oriented EE position in industry could be an alternative?

I know someone who got their BSc in 2005 and then worked in school system for many years before starting their PhD in 2014. They now have a research fellowship.

So in theory at least in Europe it is possible if you can demonstrate your expertise.

This is my personal view, more for motivational purposes than an actual answer. Also a warning. I am talking about my personal experience about research in pure mathematics. Other fields may be different.

I also had a gap in my studies (mine occurred at an earlier stage, though). When I went back to studying I faced serious re-entry shock. Today I am a researcher with a PhD in mathematics and I am pretty happy about that.

I am still in my early career phase and I have not advised a PhD student yet. However let me tell you something. If I had to evaluate admission to a PhD, I would evaluate your curriculum MORE FAVOURABLY than the equivalent curriculum from a candidate fresh out of master.

Here in Europe at least, we have really brilliant PhD students and postdocs in mathematics, but you would be surprised at how many of them completely lack experience outside the academic world. As a result, they are ill-equipped to deal with the emotional difficulties that arise in day-to-day life, and academia is no exception. When I deal with them, I very often find myself doing more of a "life-coaching" than scientific supervision. I feel sorry for them. They spent all their life in a classroom, and they are now unable to put things in perspective.

Somebody like you, on the other hand, would surely be better prepared in this sense. You will have to prove that you can handle the inevitable re-entry shock. But after that you have the potential to do great things.

Since my gap was only one and a half years, I mostly based my answer on talking to other researchers in a similar situation. They told me that some EU countries (e.g., Portugal and the UK) might favour you more in this situation than others. It will be more challenging for you than others since supervisors usually look for students fresh out of their master's or bachelor's, but I don't think it will be that much harder.

My recommendations for you would be:

• If it is possible, do research on your own. It doesn't need to be published anywhere fancy or even in any peer-reviewed place. It can help you show that you still have experience in research and will be able to use your job expertise in favour of other much younger students who will struggle with the initial steps of the PhD.
• Contact potential supervisors before the application process. If you apply using the website without prior connections, you are just one of many doing the same. Give them the privilege of knowing you, and showing why you are a good fit.
• Some universities have a more industrial-focused program. When applying to KTH, my PhD interview was like a job interview. I had a programming assignment, an HR interview and a knowledge test. They viewed their PhD as official lab employees (and paid like we are). Programs like these might help you significantly since you have 8 years of industrial experience.

I want to give you more details, but other things might be too area-specific, and my conversations are around computer scientists. I might edit my post later with extra recommendations if you provide more information about your goals.

Best of luck to you!

I think you should probably give up on top-tier universities. They are going to reject alot of people with pretty impressive research records. I would think, though, that surely there are some decent state schools that would take you.

Outside of research, have you taken the GRE recently? If not, I would suggest hitting the books so that you can knock it out of the park, especially in your subject test. I would think that would draw some notice.

Also, I would suggest a risk/reward analysis: What do you lose by continuing to apply? If you stopped would there be a better use of your time and the application fees? Is the disappointment really weighing on you or can you decide to just shrug it off. Whatever you decide, good luck!

Firstly, just keep trying, you will succeed eventually. Selection to Phd is based large number of factors. Many positions are filled by students who are already working with supervisors. Getting selected in top-tier universities is always challenging.

If you want to get into a great school, you would need a good publication in a top journal which is fairly recent.

Also, why are you insisting on control systems and not consider embedded systems? You worked on it for 8 years, it means you like it. Why give up 8 years of amazing experience in R&D? A Phd from a great school in embedded systems could be more satisfying than some industrial PhD from a not so well known university. Consider this unless you are extremely passionate about control systems. In case its the later, do an independent research and get published and then re-apply.

Best of luck!

After your update, it is clear your approach is wrong. This is the reason you haven't been accepted. I.e., answering your question directly: there is, absolutely, no reason to stop applying for Ph.D. programs because you haven't, really, started yet.

To get accepted, here's what you need to do (disclaimer, I copied this approach from another guy, all the credit goes to him Timur Kupaev).

Pick a country. I focused on the USA, because USA is the best and I wanted to be at the fore front of my research area. I put that statement in my SOP.

If it is the USA, decide if you want Fulbright or regular admissions. I tried Fullbright first, but failed (my SOP was wrong). I highly recommend Fulbright. If you pick Fulbright, just go to their website and, very carefully, follow the guidelines to prepare an application. For how to not screw up your SOP, read below.

If you want regular admissions, keep reading.

Open ARWU website. Pick the universities you like. Minimum 15. I picked only 15 because I wasn't aware of the application deadlines and, by the time I started doing all this, I was able to find only 15 universities for which I, still, had time to apply. Be aware that in the USA, you can be accepted twice a year in many universities: starting January and starting September. To be accepted in September, the deadline for application is, normally, 15th of December of the previous year (but it varies).

Pick as many universities as you, possibly, can. Obviously you pick them using two guidelines: if they have your specialty and if you are on time to submit the application before their deadlines. Create a new Excel file. Put the names of the universities you picked in the first column. The second column is for the application deadlines. The third column is for required TOEFL/IELTS score. The fourth column is for required GRE modules and scores. And so on. Create as many columns as there are requirements put forward by each university. Color-code them.

Start working on each of the required items for each university. Once the item is ready, mark that Excel cell with a color of your choice (the color you chose means "completed"). Avery single requirement is equally important. Remember that. I'm going to concentrate on the most time consuming ones: TOEFL/IELTS, GRE, SOP.

TOEFL/IELTS: some universities accept only one of them, some accept both. You mentioned you have IELTS with a pretty good score. Make sure, it is not expired and that it is accepted in all the universities you picked. If some of the universities that you picked accept only TOEFL, take TOEFL - do not drop that university out of your list. I took both of the exams. If you are unsure about the English proficiency requirements of the given university, email the admissions (it is normal and expected in the USA).

GRE: make sure you known whether you have to take only the general GRE or subject GREs are required as well (if not sure, email admissions).

SOP: this is a special kind of hell. You've got to make it right. After, I failed my Fulbright SOP, I did very thorough research on what the USA admissions want from SOP. Unfortunately, I don't remember all the details. I can tell you the following. It is a mistake to think that SOP is a nice cute little essay where you pour all you unsual/special/extravagant thoughts onto the admissions committee (like I did for Fulbright). It is not. It must be concise, yet descriptive. It must be formal, yet not dry. It must follow a specific structure: first passage - what makes you who you are, second passage - what you studied, what you want to study and why, third passage - why you want to study at this particular university.

Regarding the first passage. Universities usually post the questions that must be addressed in the SOP. Some of the questions fall under the first passage requirements. E.g., in my case the university wanted to know if I could work in a team and teach others. I made very concrete and concise examples from the days at my Russian university that I could (without bragging). All that stuff about so called "soft skills" and bla-bla-bla that you mentioned in your post go into the first passage. But cut the BS, don't concentrate too much on it and make concise descriptive solid examples.

Regarding the second passage: do not use stock words like "I chose my specialty because I'm passionate about it". Again, cut the BS and get straight to the point. If you love something you can always list the exact reasons why you love it (don't believe people who say otherwise - they are wrong). So, list the reasons why you get to your specialty in your Pakistan university in the first place. Write in such a manner that the reader will feel that you truly love your specialty. Then tell a very brief tear-squeezing story about what a fool you were to quit academia for industry, that you wasted your 8 years, that you realized your true love has been and always will be your specialty and that you want a fighting chance to get back to academia and prove that you will became a Nobel laureate in your area. I can tell you that I had the same reason for returning to academy as you do: I just loved my specialty and, simply, wanted to keep doing academical work in my area.

Third passage: this is the passage you tailor to a specific university. In my case, I maintained the same line that the USA is at the fore front of science and that's why I want to be in the USA. Then, I narrowed that down a bit. I went through the personal pages and publications of every single professor in my area working at the given university. I identified their narrow areas of expertise. I assessed their standings in the scientific communities (i.e., are they the leaders, very famous, famous or just starting). Then I picked several professors I wanted to work with and gave exact reasons why I wanted to work with them. For instance, I could write something along these lines: "I want to work at your university specifically, because professor A has 1) lab equipment that I need, 2) is a leader in his area (explain why), professor B 1) does research aligned with my master's dissertation, 2) has a solid publication record related to my master's dissertation, professor C ... etc."

This entire process is very time consuming and tedious. Prepare yourself for it. I spent two months on it (and I was in great hurry).

Then submit the applications to all your universities and wait. I received my first response within a month. The rest of the universities responded to me within 2 months. Out of 15 universities I applied to, I get offers of admission from 5 universities: 2 from the top ten in the ARWU rating (one was the Ivy), the 3rd one from the top 100, the 4th and the 5th ones from the top 150.

Remember the most important thing: you need money to study in the USA. You could qualify for a teaching assistant or a research assistant position. Those positions give you full tuition waiver and pay you a salary. Teaching assistant is when you help professor grade the homeworks, exams and hold office hours. Research assistant is when you just do your Ph.D. and get paid. Do not count on getting any of these. The chances are low. Prepare to pay for your education. It means that, normally, you must show the university a proof that you can fund yourself through the first year. Only in this case the university will send you a visa invitation. The proof includes the money to pay for tuition, the money to pay for housing, the money to pay for food and the money to pay for books. You do not do these estimates yourself. Your university published these estimates and you, simply, have to show that you have enough money on your or your sponsor's bank account. Finding the money to pay for your tuition is the most difficult thing (unless you're rich). Remember, there are a few options in the USA that allow international students to get a student's loan to pay for tuition. It is difficult, but feasible. I took the loan to pay for my first year.

Once all that is covered and you have your airplane ticket, prepare yourself for kind of a suffering you have never experienced before. Ph.D. is very difficult. It is the utmost test of your love to your specialty, your dedication, your stamina, your character. Take no vacations, no weekends off, never go home for Christmas, no birthday parties - just bite the bullet, forget about anything except for research and push yourself through this.