The job versus student comment is really about discussions I've had with a group of PhD students in the UK. They were almost all from overseas and some had experience of university systems in multiple countries.
The gist of the conversation was that in some countries they were employed by the University with the employment rights that entailed. Things like pension contributions, employment rights, etc. PhD students in the UK are given a stipend not employed so they have less rights. The point of employment versus studentship is as a research assistant or post doc. At that point you get employed, albeit into fixed term contracts until you become a lecturer.
It is clear that both the UK and those European universities expect their PhD students to do a similar function within academia but they're treated differently. Not saying one is better than the other just wondering why. They are both in a training position which tbh is no different to any graduate at the start of their post graduation career. A graduate civil engineer for example spends 3 years minimum training in their role, it usually takes 4 or more years. At the end of that you're considered a civil engineer competent to do that job. You get a chartered engineer status and letters after your name and your uni degree letters (e.g. BEng, CEng, MICE). There's parallels with a PhD student there I think, except in the UK they're still students in every sense without the rights wrt employment and benefits that entails.
I've been reading up on doing PhDs but tbh I know a lot about the day to day aspects already. A PhD student is a workaholic. I've more experience of humanities than science or engineering due to friends doing humanities. A year of reading and a few written reports. In that year they've finally worked out their argument direction. Then 2 or more years expanding on their argument and writing it up. Bouts of further reading, conferences, internships and out in the public research / surveys. Then if you're ambitious and want a career in academia you get something published. More articles, book chapters and credits (first or second name a must) you get the more likely you'll get a career.
As a chemist friend moaned to me once. "I did a better PhD than my mate but he got an industry research job. I worked very hard on it but he was always out to conferences." Truth was his friend got his name and research noticed. Networking was his success. My mate had the reward of filling in someone else's spreadsheets recording waste materials. A job a graduate or even A level student could do.
It's a gamble I know and 3 years later I could be unemployed with no better prospects. The difference is the potential and the success of getting a PhD. I'm in a job without challenge, sense of achievement or prospects. Pay isn't great but it's the challenge and achievement aspects I hate not having. It leaves me with needing a change whether PhD or career change. The PhD has its appeal right now.
In the US there's a higher rate of failure in PhDs. The research I've seen on that indicates that supervision has a great influence on success rates. The EU / uk system there's likely to be more supervision. Although from the PhD students I know that's not always present even when the system has it supposedly in place. Some very hands off supervisors out there.
The other aspect is post PhD success in academia or industry. Things I've read seem to say best departments in the best universities aren't always the most important factor. More important is the reputation of your supervisors. They're the one giving out your references. If they're well known in academia or industry or both then you're better off even if in a least institute. I know oxbridge PhD graduates who aren't doing any better than PhD graduates from Plymouth University.
It's as complex as the normal employment scene I think, especially if you're changing careers. Not easy to know what is for the best. All I know is I like to learn and discover new things. Doesn't matter what. I like to have a messy 3 project I can sink my teeth into. A challenge or something that gives a sense of achievement. Whether that translates well into being a PhD student I don't know.
In the past writing things up was less important to me than learning any something or finding something out. Now I like the writing aspect too it's a function of age perhaps but it does bode well, at least in the past a PhD would never have suited, now it's a possibility.