I do not completely deny author's idea. I do understand there is an enormous amount of effort that goes in PhD. ( and thats why it is also called Permanent Head Damage :) ).
The only point in the favor of author that I have is what if a PhD is not so active 10 yrs after he receives it in his field. There are woman who receive PhDs but end up being house wives. Just because they have PhDs their opinion cannot be taken for granted even if they are not active in their field.
Another point in favor of those who oppose this article and my earlier point. If someone is inactive in his field they today's industry may not reward him either. One has to keep abreast of changes otherwise (s)he may not be position to give value added inputs. The system will itself fail the individual.
I can forsee that this idea may not die as number of PhDs are increasing and at some point where there is a competition, one may even have to prove that (s)he is competitive even 15 yrs after receiving the PhD. Thats my $0.02
