{life.academic} Scientific maturity

For many years, I was a firm believer of the disadvantage of long post-graduate programs, but I think otherwise at the moment. Am I being brain-washed or am I simply getting mature in the graduate school?

I believe that a PhD student sould remain in the program until he/she reaches scientific maturity, in a broad sense. One shall not be granted a doctorate until a committee of professors aprove to his/her maturity in science. Even when you attend a class as a student, you are able to judge the professor for his scientific maturity. How can a committee of high-profile scientific figures be wrong in what you, in your undergraduate years, felt right?

I can probably tell you stories of my acquaintences with immature professors, when they made you wish you were never born, but I am sure that you have had similar experiences yourself. Interestingly, in my case, the immature professors spent fewer years in graduate school (as a student), than the mature professors whom I respect more.

I appreciate hard work; the kind of hard work that is meant for scientific or even social maturity, as opposed to the kind that targets descruction of enthusiasm and lowers one's motivation.