I have no idea how this plays out in the US national lab system being discussed .. but a PhD is literally "my first independent solo original research project obsessed over and submitted to critical peer review".
It's the apprenticeship for doing independant solo research and, in general, makes perfect sense that someone have demonstrated a capability for this work prior to being given the reins to resources on the scale of millions, tens of millions, etc.
It's hardly a "glass ceiling" (ie. we profess equality but don't promote women or people of colour or not our religeon but never say why) when it's a stated requirement to, say, first pass an apprenticeship prior to becoming an certified electrician and hired to wire a nuclear weapon.
It's an actual formal staging in a meritocracy, the only issue would be if those that might gain a PhD are denied the opportunity to do so ... (a somewhat tangential issue that might have more play in various places).
A defining characteristic of a PhD is that the definitive review is from an external examiner who is paid by a different organization than the candidate, and the review is the personal, professional opinion of that researcher, and not that of their organization.
This is definitely not true in the US, at least in physical sciences. Typically your PhD advisor (who is obviously in the same organization and gets paid with the same funding source as the student) has almost entirely all of the say in a PhD defense. There is another faculty or two from the same department on the committee (who work on different stuff, possibly funded from somewhere else). And, IME as a mere formally, there is often another faculty from a separate academic unit (department) who's just along for the ride to give the appearance of oversight but doesn't really know what's going on. They'll ask a softball question to remind everyone they are there.
Sure, anyone in the committee can grill you as a sort of hazing ritual, but the reality is that your PhD advisor won't let you stand for defense unless you are almost 100% sure to pass it.
Source: have attended probably a dozen thesis defenses (including my own).
In the UK you can normally submit without your supervisor's approval if you insist (and have survived the programme long enough to actually have a thesis written). The actual viva will most likely be one internal academic (not your supervisor) and one external and your supervisor won't be present.
That said, it's a pretty crappy idea under nearly all circumstances -- if your supervisor doesn't think the thesis is passable and discourages you from submitting it then it's quite likely the examiners will agree with them. And getting a terminal MPhil isn't exactly a badge of honour...
So there’s no external examiner? That’s very surprising to me, but it certainly refutes my claim.
I agree the supervisor should almost never allow a defense to take place that you won’t pass. But I can’t imagine a school passing a candidate if the external gives an unfavorable report.
I’ve also been involved in many PhD defenses, every one of which had an independent external examiner. Computer Science or closely related, not physical sciences.
Counter-counter-point that poorly paid five year review doesn't have to be poorly paid or take five years - that's a function of countries and their approach to education etc.
Notwithstanding both degree inflation and the notion that "the exception proves the rule" -- a system that would rule out someone like Freeman Dyson would seem flawed.
In that NYPost article Dr Natalie Gosnell isn't discussing the PhD requirement for advancement within the US National Labs .. so you may have to expand your point if you want to make one.
MIT-LL is way more stringent on degrees no matter what your experience is. B.S is relegated to technician work for upwards of 90%+ of your time no matter how long you have been there. Masters is generally a step up from that, and in the engineering that could mean middle of the road in the hierarchy. But PhD is the only way to really move up beyond that except in the rare cases of the fabrication group.
MIT main campus is slowly heading in the same direction over the past decade, at least in the science staff positions. There are three major titles, research specialist (B.S.), research engineer ( masters), and research scientist ( PhD). Unfortunately in the past 5 years, they changed the requirements of research engineer to require a PhD. And honestly, I have more recently been involved in the HR/hiring side of main campus, and though with the right department there is some wiggle room... There isn't that much you can do when the office of the VP of research says otherwise.
So unfortunately to move up with Anything but a PhD, you need to shift into some type of admin or adjacent role.
To exemplify this, I had a coworker who had worked in a research group as a research specialist for half a decade, coauthored like 15 papers while there, and had a BS in physics. And said he couldn't get a promotion no matter what he tried because VPR wouldn't let his boss do it without an advanced degree (PhD). So he left for a different department as some kind of lab manager of a large research group. Which to me is crazy, you have a dedicated and knowledgeable worker, who wants to stay and advanced the research and group... But because they didn't spend 6-8 years on a PhD, their only way to advance their career is to go into management of a lab - giving up on any research work...
FWIW, I was a Research Scientist there, a bit over a decade ago, despite having only MS degrees, no PhD.
I knew of a few Research Scientists there who didn't have PhDs, so I didn't think it that unusual at the time I was hired. At one point shortly after arriving, I did suddenly wonder whether some rule had been bent, or there was a hiccup in some process that was supposed to block that, but I still got an appointment renewal after a year.
As the recipient of getting to work for a great PI, and of a title that sounded impressive to my parents, I can't complain about that.
(I might've been lucky that time. I'm not a fan of degree/class/caste ceilings. For one one of many reasons... There's the tragic story of a dear friend, who was a lab tech at another research university, in a field that had a degree glass ceiling among the technician ranks. Her supervisor and lab director sounded very supportive, and said she was the best technician in the lab, but their hands were tied on promoting her to a higher technician rank. She couldn't stomach the doctorate-level degree debt load that the supervisor was encouraging (she was poor, already had debt, and no family safety net), though it would've leapfrogged her over the role she sought. So she tried earning affordable transferable credits, for the gatekeeping for the next rank for which she was already qualified, while working full-time and living in lousy conditions. It killed her at around 30. Her lab did a memorial service. I got invited, but I didn't go. Besides being devastated myself, I was sure the supervisor and director already felt awful, and I had nothing to say in a memorial service context to certain cliquish technicians who bullied her for being meticulous about science protocols, and perhaps for aspiring above her station.)
It's the apprenticeship for doing independant solo research and, in general, makes perfect sense that someone have demonstrated a capability for this work prior to being given the reins to resources on the scale of millions, tens of millions, etc.
It's hardly a "glass ceiling" (ie. we profess equality but don't promote women or people of colour or not our religeon but never say why) when it's a stated requirement to, say, first pass an apprenticeship prior to becoming an certified electrician and hired to wire a nuclear weapon.
It's an actual formal staging in a meritocracy, the only issue would be if those that might gain a PhD are denied the opportunity to do so ... (a somewhat tangential issue that might have more play in various places).