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.
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.
this would hopefully stop departments from over-admitting and encourage less adjunctification.
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).