> Too often, grad school applicants are just kids that have overachieved in academic settings and think to themselves “I’ve been good at school my whole life, why not just do school forever?

Anecdotally, I did not observe this during my PhD studies (theorerical CS) in Central Europe. I think this might be due to the separate 3 year Bachelor track, then a 2 year Master track, and only then 4 year PhD studies.

Sure enough, a lot of applicants faced tough career decisions after graduating, but whoever started the PhD usually knew what research is about and that it's going to be work first and foremost, not just "more school".

> I also think that there needs to be a “non-professor” track in grad school.

There is, it's called getting a master's degree. Typically, the first two years of a US CS PhD are a mix of research and classes, and the remaining few years are pure research. Students that are good at classes but bad at research should be able to walk away with a master's degree after two years, whose requirements they have should be at least close to meeting. I'm sure this varies a bit between schools, though I hope not too much because it's an essential escape valve.

Students that know up front that they just want to continue to be students should go for a master's degree, and one without a research requirement if possible.

("Bad at research" meaning "bad at research in combination with their advisor", which can be due to the student, or the advisor, or the way they interact.)

the master "release valve" is important, but it's an early escape rather than a parallel non-prof phd path.

the non-prof path isn't for people that are 'bad at research', its for people that want to do research outside of universities. so their theses wouldn't be crafted around"what will get grants/be publishable" but instead focus on "what would an R&D department in my field find interesting/valuable".

This is just getting a PhD at a less prestigious school. Advisors there know most of their students won't stay in academia and mentor them accordingly.

Ultimately I don't think there is a need for something between a masters and a PhD. Any attempt to make an alternative PhD will just become "PhD-lite", and the best students (whether they want to stay in academia or not) will still funnel into the more prestigious traditional PhD program and will be more desirable hires in industry because they come from a more elite pedigree.

As a completed CS PhD I would not claim incoming PhDs are that naive. It's quite common for a PhD to have no interest in becoming a prof or staying in academia. I, too, made it clear to my advisor that I absolutely do not want to become a professor.

Many begin a PhD because they want to avoid becoming a code monkey at some company. They hope that the PhD opens doors to intellectually engaging work. And it often does. If you check the graduates of CS advisors, they often end up at prestigious, well-paid research labs. Or they simply start their own company based on work done in the PhD.

I am not sure if the non-professor track would change anything. Most schools already do not require teaching because they want their CS PhDs to focus on research.

This calculus might of course be completely different for other disciplines.