I see, that might help explain current students' reactions.
If we were talking I/O, some programs do have a strictly academic focus (Texas A&M comes to mind as an example) and generally only send students into academic positions. Other programs are "scientist/practitioner balanced" and will prep you for either career type (Colorado State and Penn State spring to mind). Some will have website info showing percentages of alumni entering academia versus industry and where those people ended up, others won't be that detailed. We're a lucky sub-area in that regard - there are options.
Other areas of psych (excluding Clinical) tend to be more strictly academic focused. There are always exceptions, but social psych folks tend to hang out in academia (either in psychology or possibly business departments) and you see less of them in industry compared to I/O. They're out there, though. If you are interviewing at/talking to current Social students, that may explain the attitude of "probably an academic position". People are concerned about job prospects for a reason - it's highly competitive. I know much less about psych/law and community psych.
Although frankly, I've never heard of anyone adjuncting and working in industry (sounds like you're talking about applied research?) at the same time. The adjunct-type positions tend to be grossly underpaid and you'd be better off just focusing on your industry job. If teaching is really a passion of yours, why not aim for an academic position at a teaching-oriented institution, like a liberal arts school? Just something to think about.
The reality is though, in a lot of programs, "industry" or anything outside of tenure-track academia is a dirty word. If your ambitions fall outside of there, you may want to consider that when making your decision about where to accept and attend. Personally, I would not want to go to a place where I had to hide my real ambitions or constantly be told they're less-than-noble.