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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
It's not just academia, it's the modern "meritocracy" more broadly. When getting into a campus club at a top college requires four rounds of interviews, you look for easy ways to signal your eliteness and being hip to the new verbal trends is a great way for the well-heeled to extend their advantage over the less-enlightened.
This also applies to jobs whose occupants need to justify their own existence, which they can do so be seeking to remake language in an organization and launch a few fun purges to boot. These new terms are basically a new form of arcane knowledge that allows those who chant these magical new incantations social and professional prestige in the modern meritocracy rat race.
Many codes of conduct and various other speech codes do, in fact, violate freedom of speech and have often been struck down as violations of freedom of expression. Appeals to "courtesy" and "civility" tend to be used selectively. I agree that it would be ideal if people debated courteously, but "civility" is far too often only desired in one direction (and employed as such in practice).
There are plenty of ways for an outnumbered group to still have its voice heard, from speaking at public meetings to writing opinion columns to being active on social media. Or in academia, they can start their own journals, organize their own conferences, etc. Dissenting opinions in court rulings are excellent examples of including the minority opinion as well.
If anything, supporting freedom of speech and expression protects those who are in the minority more than adding more restrictions on speech (since, as other comments have pointed out, who gets to decide what speech to censor? it's those with the power on campus).
And in other contexts, you can imagine supporting the right of Communists to speak and organize even if you find Communism abhorrent and misguided.
Note too the benefits of allowing/supporting the right of [insert disliked political group] to speak:
1) You find out who is in that group when they speak (as opposed to them remaining anonymous/hidden online) and potentially address them directly
2) You might be able to question them to find out what led them to that position to prevent more people from going in that direction
3) You can be aware of the message that they are trying to send and counter it with more speech
In contrast, doing something like banning support for the Communist party is likely to lead to 1) more sympathy for Communism as an oppressed outgroup; 2) a lack of understanding of how extensive support for Communism is and what might be causing it; 3) the use of "Communism" as something that people can use to denounce each other as part of petty/unrelated feuds.
1. There are already pretty good definitions out there for speech that rises to the level of "harassment" if it is severe, pervasive, and/or repeated. There are also ways to restrict speech in a content-neutral way (i.e. no bullhorns at 11 PM for anyone). Those can definitely still be used. And, of course, physical harm is not the same as words and should never be confused with that.
2. You balance it by allowing free speech and encouraging robust debate rather than demanding loyalty tests or speech codes. Restricting speech or telling people that they "can't say that" is an excellent way to result in groupthink; encouraging free speech and especially a culture of free speech that respects differences is the best way to prevent one-sided groupthink. Such one-sidedness has many negative consequences, including (but not limited to) ineffective actions, alienating wider groups of people, supporting bad science, and limiting the scope of discovery and study.
I once met a local winemaker from a tiny winery in a foreign country who was proud to say that their wine was being served a restaurant in the US. I asked them how much they thought the wine would be priced at given that it was their entry-level wine. The winemaker estimated $20-25. We looked it up--it was $60.
I really wonder how much of the suspicion of wine comes from the class-conflict accoutrements and marketing.
I used to be a big wine skeptic. It seemed pretentious, overpriced, and boring. The people who liked it were the kind of people I disliked. Most of the places in the town I grew up in all had the same "big reds" at ridiculous prices. Wine was the thing that cost $12 that you paid $60 for at the local steakhouse to look important.
Then, I moved to a lesser-known wine-producing state and started actually trying wine. It took some time--and there were more than a few encounters with snobs and commercial puffery that made me want to rethink it--but it soon opened up into a huge world that I had no idea about before. It was far more fascinating and enduring than previous interests in whiskey or craft beer.
It's a pity that wine gets such a pretentious reputation. It's a fascinating blend of chemistry, geology, geography, and culture that at its heart is an agricultural enterprise.
I don't think that you are truly "in charge of your own destiny" at many programs. I get the comparison, but it's more like you're a startup in an oversaturated market with funders who have very little invested in you (and may not even know/care about you) and constantly demand that you perform circus acts to keep them funding you (sometimes in very paltry amounts) for just a bit longer. They will also be very disappointed if you turn out to be anything other than a unicorn.
And on top of all this, you could just be out of luck due to factors outside your control. I've seen multiple cases of well-published researchers with excellent teaching records, good social skills, and prestigious postdocs spend 2-3 years on the market and get nothing. It's a random roll of the dice, and I would discourage most people from trying it.
Wow, Pine Bluff is quite a place to move to out the blue. Still, there's good interstate access and a local state U. Curious why the city is so reluctant to support new businesses.
You might try Jonesboro, Fort Smith, or Hot Springs if you're looking for cheap nearby places. North Little Rock or someplace in NW Arkansas too would have more nearby amenities, albeit at higher (though still quite affordable nationally) prices.
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.