are there good advisers? or just good students?
Recently, the topic of quality advising has come up in conversation. The question is: are there actually good advisers? Or is it mainly a selection effect? A related question: do star advisers make star students? I’d be interested if readers know if there is a literature on this question. Here are some hypotheses:
- It is easy to be a good adviser by simply not being a bad adviser. A lot of advisers undermine students by either being negligent/non-responsive or overly aggressive and stressing students out. Even if you don’t have any special advice for students, you can probably increase your student outcomes by actually meeting with students, not being a jerk, and doing paper work on time.
- Having a star adviser is probably neutral on the average. My hypothesis is that some academics are very good at multitasking. When they become famous, they can keep up the work and help students. Others disappear into a world of committees and administrative posts and abandon the student.
- Advisers with a long string of strong placements tend to be at top schools, which suggests a selection effect. Most employ the “reliable/stable/nice model” and attract good students. A few employ “survival of the fittest” – they only take students who are capable of high quality work and weed out the rest. The Indiana model (support students at all skill levels) seems to be very rare.
Add your own ideas in the comments.