[shou4577]

I think that I'm one of those elitist attitude people. I apologize for this, I don't mean to sound elitist (I certainly don't think of myself as elite). I agree with you that we are just skilled laborers.

What I mean to say is that graduate students are adults. Let us decide for ourselves what is important. I agree that hyper-specialization is probably not best for humanity, and that interdisciplinary work can really crack open some unsolved problems. And there are jobs that want people to have these skills. I think that a grad student is much more hire-able (for many positions) if he/she has some broad skills. But why should getting a PhD require this? Shouldn't it be up to the person doing the work to decide whether or not the work they are doing will help themselves/the world?

I simply don't think that we should alter our degrees to match requirements for job openings. We certainly should alter our skill sets, but a PhD should be a certification that you are knowledgeable and capable of research. It's not (and I don't think that it should be) a certification that you are ready for a job (regardless of what that job is).

In my opinion, "Getting a PhD" and "Getting a Job" should be as disjoint as possible. Otherwise people who want one will do the other simply because they have to, and this is good for nobody.

I think that a Master's degree is more the type of degree that this is suited for. Most people that I know who are getting Master's degrees are getting them for the express purpose of getting a specific job. This is fine. Most people I know who are getting PhD's are getting them for the purpose of learning their subject, not to get a job. Sure, they need a job after they graduate, but this is tangential in their motivations, and should therefore be tangential in degree program as well. At least, that's my opinion.