The problem starts often with professors who don't want to be teaching, or at least not teaching to anyone who disagrees with them. I was quite frustrated at the tendency to try to pigeon hole my position and put a nice label on it instead of actually grappling with my arguments. (And this is at an Ivy League graduate school.)
I'd say less than half of the professors were willing to really engage in anything that wasn't squarely in the specialty. Also they seemed actively hostile to cross-subject questions like post-modernism's impact on self understanding in a psychology class discussion. That disdain of learning about multiple subjects is modeled by their undergraduate and graduate students. It sets boundaries in their thinking and in their willingness to discuss, when they see others mocked. This overall trend is the majority of the reason I decided not to continue past a master's.
Mentat, to your second point, I have had the same experience.
Even in classes and curricula that are supposed to be interdisciplinary, the boundaries are still rigid and the connections superficial. That compromises learning. And, I think one of the reasons for that is professors are afraid of being wrong and they're not trained to travel outside their domain of expertise. The ivory tower thrives on specialization. If the gatekeepers are not bold enough to cross-pollinate ideas, students are disadvantaged.
I'd say less than half of the professors were willing to really engage in anything that wasn't squarely in the specialty. Also they seemed actively hostile to cross-subject questions like post-modernism's impact on self understanding in a psychology class discussion. That disdain of learning about multiple subjects is modeled by their undergraduate and graduate students. It sets boundaries in their thinking and in their willingness to discuss, when they see others mocked. This overall trend is the majority of the reason I decided not to continue past a master's.