Sour Grapes?

In thinking about graduate schools and reading tips about applying, I often read some recommended requirement that I don't fulfill and that I don't really like. For example, one philosophy page preaches that "breadth is as important as depth" for philosophy course background. One should not just specialize in, say, philosophy of mind while having taken some logic, epistemology, and psychology courses only. One would also have to take moral or political philosophy.

That advice may be good for a lot of schools, but I keep thinking, why would I want to go to a school that would take "breadth is as important as depth" that seriously? It would be silly to assume that programs all equally weight it, therefore there is a difference among schools, so I want the ones that weight it less.

How little do some schools weight this? UC-Irvine has a Logic and Philosophy of Science department for which the "most natural undergraduate majors for graduate students [...] would be philosophy, mathematics, or the sciences." Carnegie Mellon has a Logic and Computation PhD program that barely offers moral or political philosophy at all. For these schools (and probably others), the popular advice is not true.

Sour grapes is deciding, in the event that you realize you can't have something, you don't really want it anyway. I hope I'm not doing that.