The reason you go to grad school is because you care about what you're studying in an academic sense. That is, you want to gain knowledge of your field for knowledge's sake.
My interests are in the study of pragmatics, semantics, and computational linguistics. Actually, my pragmatics class gets me excited sometimes. In pragmatics you study how the outside world affects language in terms of context and assumptions and things like that.
I've also started learning Japanese. I have a very good teacher, but I get a little tired(like literally tired) from it because we have it 5 days per week.
I went to a lecture on Monday at Newman Hall(the Catholic Center here). It concerned the harmony between faith and reason. Basically, he was showing a perspective on interpreting scripture that has been forgotten by many people these days.
These days you get many fundamentalists who read scripture first, and then interpret the world through the lens of scripture.
On the other extreme you get scientists who see people doing this and use science to claim that religion/faith is ignorant/non-thinking/obsolete, take your pick.
Before about 300 years ago, interpretation of scripture happened much differently. It was reasoned that scripture is never mistaken, but interpretation of scripture is. Additionally, Christians(particularly, the Catholic Church) took the laws proven by science to be one and the same as God's truth. Thus the pursuit of science in order to discover truth was considered a holy venture.
Given this, interpretation of scripture should be done through the lens of laws founded in science. Scripture should be made to fit science, not the other way around. If a new discovery in science is made that conflicts with a previous theory or a current interpretation of scripture, "proof" must be given for it to be taken seriously. Then interpretation of relevant scripture is changed to fit the best "vision" of the universe that we have.
I hope this explanation has inspired you in some way, because it did for me :-)