Janet Egan's paper has two major values, which put us deeply in her debt. First, she points out the diversity of effects on students resulting from institutional arrangements developed for graduate education. In doing so, she does not merely identify the latent consequences of the structure of graduate education; she pinpoints specific subgroups for whom the standard arrangements may not be felicitous. Specifically, she mentions those students who are not yet ready for the level of independence required in graduate school, those who have a deep need to control their own destiny, and those who have family responsibilities to which they must devote considerable time, energy and emotional commitment. Though she does not use Lew Coser's felicitous phrase, essentially she argues in the last case that graduate education is a greedy institution. In effect, Egan points out that the structure of graduate education presents students with a paradox: they are expected to perform as mature, independent (though fledgling) scholars while still in a dependent and subordinate position. For the first group of students (those who are not ready to function independently), she argues that the expectations simply cannot be met. For those who have learned to function independently and to value their autonomy, being placed in a dependent or subordinate position is not commensurate with their image of themselves. Those with family responsibilities (mainly women, Egan argues) may have difficulty juggling the demands of multiple roles and hence may be regarded as less than committed graduate students. In all of these cases, the student's intellectual development and self-image are likely to be affected adversely. Although I disagree with some of Egan's basic assumptions about the nature of graduate education (which I shall discuss presently), I think it is important to appreciate her warning that structures which in general may be useful may also have strongly negative effects for particular subpopulations. The second value of this paper is the application of a socialization/resocialization framework to the analysis of the graduate school experience. Although this is not the first time this stance has been adopted for this purpose, Egan's use of it provides considerable insight into some potential problems of graduate training programs. Here too I have a different view of the situation, which I will detail later in this paper. In short, Egan points out several problems in the structure of graduate education. She challenges us to rethink what we do in order to ameliorate, if not to eliminate, what she identifies as latent dysfunctions for particular kinds of students.