I am not surprised that it is competitive (PhD's in general are kind of oversupplied), but the form the competition takes:
"Maybe you didn't publish as an undergraduate.... Maybe you can't even write a very compelling research statement yet."
When I was applying, no undergraduates had published research. And the "research statement" could hardly be described as "compelling"; that was one of the points of the breadth requirements for the graduate program---my eventual research topic was completely unrelated to my interests or knowledge coming out of my undergraduate program.
It's a positive development that admission into a decent PhD program requires research experience. Some people somehow cannot make the jump from classroom exercises to production work, and you would rather that they don't get accepted, instead of having to throw them out a year later.
Besides, a research lab is a workplace after all, and some kids are completely missing the social skills that are needed in a working environment. You can't have that sort in a PhD program either.
> It's a positive development that admission into a decent PhD program requires research experience.
No, it really really isn't. The vast majority of undergraduates have no effective access to research experience, even many that are fairly inquisitive and are receiving a pretty good education. This is especially true of undergraduates who are unable to afford tuition at top institutions (and increasingly even in-state public university tuition is unaffordable for the flagship universities that would be considered "top institutions).
Requiring research experience in advance of grad school turns grad schools into an elitist echo chamber.
I have to say, I agree with this. You risk optimizing to early around a local max, not a global one. Primarily due to lack of priors. However, I will be the first to admit true research is seriously a different aptitude than acing a lecture course. Advanced degree candidates should certainly be screened somehow for the latter. But my gut is that this is just optimizing for grant extraction. Truly powerful work is always second fiddle to the "more money" hampster-wheel that is peer-reviewed academic research.
I would argue that it isn't, because it simply pushes the boundary back, and possibly making it even less appropriate.
I can't see having valid or "compelling" research experience as an undergraduate while taking a full load of classes (ok, so you have to take advanced placement courses in high school, which my school did not offer even if my school district did; I'm not sure one way or the other about that) and possibly working to support yourself (I'll leave the alternatives as an exercise to the reader).
At this point, you're filtering on many criteria that have absolutely nothing to do with successful research.
"Maybe you didn't publish as an undergraduate.... Maybe you can't even write a very compelling research statement yet."
When I was applying, no undergraduates had published research. And the "research statement" could hardly be described as "compelling"; that was one of the points of the breadth requirements for the graduate program---my eventual research topic was completely unrelated to my interests or knowledge coming out of my undergraduate program.