While I understand the upside, the reality of why it’s being pursued in the United States is that this is intended to drive academia into an advanced version of a trade school.
If you want more PhD's than that, you have to figure out a place for them to work; industry is a good "pressure relief valve".
I do think it would be good for all levels of academia to be more explicit about the goals of any given program. I think these things are often blurred together to the detriment of both student and staff.
this would hopefully stop departments from over-admitting and encourage less adjunctification.
The problem here -- and why universities even do research at all -- is that industry's support of basic science is not very stable. At least when I was in school, industry research generally was more applied and engineering-focused.
On the other side of things, you have PhDs coming out of the US with too many ideas and the inability to deal with basics such as sprint planning and CI/CD.
Not sure if this will help, but I would love it for the Colleges of Sciences peoples instead of a postdoc.
Get a PhD with years of experience, who knows your company, for the price of a secretary.
No reason why the good plumbers, electricians, or truck drivers of the world ought to look down on academics-- no matter how stuffy or highfalutin or soft-handed they might seem.
Every once in a while, academics come up with something useful. (And in fact, I think that that might just be the whole point).