Should Ph.D. Advisors Be Evaluated Based on Graduate Students' Experiences?

The evaluation of Ph.D. advisors has been a topic of much discussion in academic circles. While official evaluations have been considered to be a part of a professor's yearly assessment, the challenges associated with such evaluations often overshadow their benefits. This article explores whether Ph.D. advisors should be evaluated based on the experiences of their graduate students, both officially and unofficially, and the potential implications for both students and advisors.

Official Evaluation: Potential Problems

While official evaluations of Ph.D. advisors are officially not part of the academic process in many institutions, the idea often comes up as a should do rather than a must. The introduction of official evaluations might seem like a logical step towards improving the quality of Ph.D. programs, but there are several issues that arise from such an approach.

Polling of Students: Students who have completed their Ph.D. may be asked to provide feedback on their advisors. However, this approach could lead to an unequal power balance. Advisors might feel pressured to provide favorable assessments to secure good letters of recommendation for their students, which could be seen as unfair. Pressure on Advisors: Advisors might also feel pressured to keep their students happy to avoid negative assessments. This could extend the pressure beyond the thesis submission and create a stressful environment for young advisors striving to establish themselves in their field. Biased Feedback: The quality of an assessment might be influenced by the student's career prospects post-Ph.D. A student who gets an excellent job might write a positive review, while a student who struggles might write a negative one. This creates an unfair narrative and might extend the pressure on the advisor to influence the student's career path.

Unofficial Evaluation: A More Flexibile Approach

Unofficial evaluations, on the other hand, offer a more flexible and less intrusive approach. These evaluations can be sought discreetly and in confidence, making it easier for students to provide honest feedback without additional pressure. This method serves the goal of helping students make informed decisions about their future advisors while protecting the advisors from public shaming.

Data Transparency: A Compulsory Requirement?

While unofficial evaluations are beneficial, some mandatory data could be made available to students and the academic community. This data should include the name of the advisor and student, the date the student joined the Ph.D. program, the date they joined the advisor, and the date the Ph.D. thesis was submitted. Making this data available would ensure transparency and help in evaluating the advisor's performance.

Many academic institutions do not currently record and share this data, which can be particularly problematic when comparing the performance of advisors. To address this issue, students in my own institution informally gather this data and maintain a database. The database is moderated by graduating students, who fact-check the data before uploading it. This ensures that the information provided is accurate and reliable. Creating such a system, where facts are shared and verified, can be a valuable resource for both students and advisors.

Conclusion

The evaluation of Ph.D. advisors is a complex issue that requires a balanced approach. While official evaluations could be useful, they must be handled with caution to prevent unequal treatment of students and advisors. Unofficial evaluations, on the other hand, provide a more flexible and honest approach that can help students make informed decisions. Additionally, mandatory sharing of basic data can ensure transparency and promote accountability. Ultimately, the goal is to create an environment where both students and advisors can thrive.