[claystu]

In reality, we're moving them from academia into the commercial world.

As for being unequipped, while in the short term they might lack the experience, over the long run, we're betting that educational depth will operate as leverage, which is why we have education in the first place--so that people can stand on the shoulders of prior giants.

[001sky]

we're betting that educational depth will operate as leverage

How? That is an assumption, but why to you think it is a good one? That seems to be te question put to you by the PP. It is the micro-analytics of leverage that are in doubt.

[dnautics]

that's ideally why we have education, yes, and 10-20 years ago I would have applauded your efforts.

However, this has become severely distorted as countries have gone on a major [insert perjorative anatomy] measuring contest to create PhDs, and have pumped effort and money into increasing STEM for its own sake.

IF indeed that is true (I may be being overly cynical), then the "reason why we have education" has shifted from "so people can stand on the shoulders of prior giants" to "because it makes our country look good". How does that affect your analysis?

[claystu]

Short answer: it doesn't impact my analysis at all.

Long answer: Even if it's true that countries are funding PhD programs for national status, that doesn't imply that the programs, themselves, are compromised. The programs should still produce educated individuals.