Dear Rosan,
You are very kind. Even so, I know that I would not be a good person to
address the complexities of inadequate supervision. But there is one
possible contribution I can offer that might be helpful concerning
self-supervision and why I don't think it would often be a viable route.
My thinking goes back to the idea of strengths and weaknesses. A good
advisor won't just point out weaknesses in the work, such as claims without
adequate proofs. He or she won't just be able to suggest timely readings.
That advisor is also likely to identify strengths in the work that are not
yet apparent to the student. I have heard students, including myself, talk
about how interesting it was that ideas, which we had thrown out in
passing, were carried further by the advisor. Our knowledge of the
discipline was not yet developed to the point where we could identify
certain promising directions. Had we gone it alone, those ideas might not
have been pursued.
Finding that advisor is the trick, I know. I wish I could be more useful
there.
My best,
Susan
--On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 12:07 AM +0200 Rosan Chow
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Susan
>
> I am happy that you have received very good supervision. Since you are a
> good-supervised Ph.D. According to some, you are the most capable to
> teach, research and supervise and contribute to the field in general. So
> you must be able to make contribution to solving the problem of bad
> supervision!? We rely on people like you!
>
> All the best
> Rosan
>
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
Postdoctoral Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213
v. 412.268.2072
f. 412.268.7989
|