This. Most grad school classes are poorly taught and the professors indifferent or discouraging to actually helping you learn. PhD students are assumed to be capable of learning these things on their own or already knowing them. If you are encountering things for the first time, you'll likely be behind.
In contrast, if you come in mostly ready to go and these classes are just refreshers, you can spend time in that class working on actual research and impressing the prof as well as not panicking if/when you realize you don't understand what's going on.
I actually really like the analogy. You are running a "business" of ideas. You are competing against a lot of other very smart people who are also trying to start their own ideas business and competing for a very limited pool of support (funding, postdocs, tenure-track jobs, etc.). The professors you are trying to impress in grad school are "investors" and having their imprimatur on your business will help in both advice and in obtaining more funding and convincing others that your business is worth supporting.
If you can run a successful ideas business for 10+ years in multiple locations and convince several gauntlets of committees to keep supporting you, then there's a great deal at the end for choosing this education route--your business gets a significant degree of permanent support and protection (tenure)! But to get to that point, you have to sell your ideas and develop a product that will get buy-in and support from others in your field.
There are no limits on how hard or how much you can work. There are also no guarantees that working hard will pay off either. There's a lot of luck and sometimes the market just isn't buying what you're selling at that time, even if your product is great.
I'm not sure the salaries are better. Most R1s are now offering 90-120k starting in my field, but regional teaching Us start around 50-60k, with liberal arts colleges in the 50-80k range.
The point about the lack of opportunities for advancement/moving due to the course preps and teaching taking up your time is very true. While your friends at R1s are on pre-tenure sabbaticals, getting course buyouts, and teaching a nice grad seminar for a semester, you might be doing 3-4 new preps a year and likely getting piled with service work.
Generally, the focus here should be on:
1) Not bombing any classes (i.e. A/A- in all, maybe a B+ in one; a B or below is failing)
2) Doing very good work and trying to write an original paper for professors that you want to work with while doing just enough to get by in other classes [this is in part how you figure out who you want to work with]
3) Being good enough with the literature to pass the comprehensive exams (or, as another comment points out, have some kind of protection from a sponsor; it is not uncommon to have profs use comps as a chance to take out students they don't like for various reasons, even as small as "they do X field, which I don't like" or "they work with Y, who really gets on my nerves).
Of course there's plenty of additional ways to derail this as well, including advisor moving, advisor getting into a fight with the rest of the department, advisor giving poor advice, advisor deciding that they don't like you, etc.
It really makes you wonder if the university should just have a mechanism to "fire" a grad student rather than pretending that these events aren't simply a mechanism to "fire" someone because they didn't pass X hurdle.
If the advisors can vouch for, or strike a student regardless of their qual performance - then why not simply have an end of year performance review?
For many schools that’s basically their qualifying exam. Normally multiple professors are involved so that your advisor can’t fire you unjustly, but if you don’t demonstrate you are up to standards on the exam and your advisor doesn’t go to bat for you in their deliberations, you will fail. Normally you have a chance to retake the exam, but two strikes and you’re out.
In my program we had annual committee reviews as well as a review submitted to the program chair and graduate school of the student by their advisor (with the student providing both a self-review and review of their advisor). Ultimately, unless you’re in a sub-field with many faculty, it is hard to get an accurate evaluation from three professors. My other committee members could understand the big picture of my work but they weren’t experts on the specifics, and they were the best equipped faculty in the department to be on my committee besides my advisor. The goal is to make sure that there is a paper trail and multiple professors aware of your progress (or lack thereof), so your advisor can’t just give you the boot for something tertiary like not watching his dog during a holiday weekend.
Professors are aware of their problematic peers in the department. Even if they can’t fire them outright (tenure has pros and cons), they can steer students away from them to more supportive professors (or give you a hint that maybe you should consider a different school during your visit day). Our program chair was very good at helping relocating students who initially started in the lab of one or two bad actors.
Most depts do have some kind of official review, but it's more of a formality. I think they're also concerned about how students would react if they suggest that academia isn't for them directly. So instead they resort to more passive-aggressive or arbitrary measures.
On the other hand, not all departments are good fits with students and there's a very wide asymmetry in information between many new students and programs, even if you "do your research" beforehand, given just how specialized these disciplines are at a high level. It would be nice if transferring programs was made easier and if more departments would just agree to help students "master out" and look for jobs rather than discard them like roadkill.
"Honestly it really just seems like the world’s PhD programs are designed to ritually haze students and sort them into academic society based on unsustainable and barely acceptable expectations."
This is accurate. It's very hard to explain to people who haven't been through a PhD program the kinds of expectations that are placed on students (example: highly influential profs telling an incoming cohort that their expectations were "all of you should get a top-20 job"). Those who do not "make it" are spoken of in hushed tones as if they died and even those who go on to great industry jobs are considered failures of some degree.
Many of those who "make it" and get those vaunted prestigious TT jobs are also desperately depressed in many cases (at least up through getting tenure, but even afterward the whole experience seems scarring). This seems to select for incredibly dedicated and usually quite intelligent, but also very obsessive and emotionally fragile people to finally make it through into permanent employment in academia. They then often have similar expectations for their grad students to do the same as they did, even if they claim on social media to be "caring" and such.
Yeah, such is the effect of "jigsaw puzzling" hundreds of papers to get a feel for a field. One had better be really interested to come into dialogue with others' observations, and not have it be trite. Philosophically, scientific idealism instead of materialism is one possible way forward as the sense/relationship of self-other evolves.
I keep seeing people swear by the NY Times' Wirecutter and they do have a much more upfront set of standards for reviewing products, but I've actually been pretty underwhelmed by the recommended buys from them. Still, I respect that they're trying. Wish that Consumer Reports was more easily available now too.
My unscientific feeling is that Wirecutter's gotten worse: less rigorous testing (particularly for reliability), more arbitrary reasoning behind their choices and what things are dealbreakers, more products excluded. A lot of things they seem to basically just pick some popular brands, talk about Amazon reviews, etc.
They also seem to have a much broader range of things covered now, so I think the strategy was to go cheaper, faster, wider.
I agree, though the other issue for smaller places is that they are more susceptible to review-bombing by one disgruntled party (do we really need 6 reviews from 6 different people about how the same table had to wait an hour to get the check one time?) or "5 stars for 30% off" incentives (which I have unfortunately seen a number of, especially at small businesses trying to distinguish themselves).
Google Maps I still don't understand where they get a lot of reviews from in the first place. While some look like normal reviews, there's a lot that have no comments at all or comments completely unrelated to the place ostensibly being reviewed (or just cryptic things like "not good" or "good"). It's not a bad comparison to use alongside Yelp, but it's definitely led to more clunkers, especially for places with n<20 reviews.
The professor who wrote that book, interestingly, ended up being denied tenure and was subsequently unable to get another academic job despite years of trying. Here's a recent podcast with him: https://www.persuasion.community/p/deresiewicz
It may not be the best thing in the world to be an "excellent sheep," but perhaps it's better than being a lone ram.
All it takes is one or two very angry people to start a mob online and destroy someone's entire career. I'm not surprised that authors, especially in a field as precarious as writing, are more than willing to follow what is deemed to be "safe" language, though it's definitely a loss for society as a whole and indirectly works to undermine writing as an art.
In contrast, if you come in mostly ready to go and these classes are just refreshers, you can spend time in that class working on actual research and impressing the prof as well as not panicking if/when you realize you don't understand what's going on.