I agree with this to a point, but I also think it sets up a pretty unforgiving expectation of new faculty that can quickly lead to burnout, particularly in female and underrepresented faculty who are more likely to be expected to be extremely 'nurturing' mentors. If I as a junior faculty have received the message that I need to be capable of being a good mentor to every single kind of student, and I then optimistically take on a student who needs a ton of hands on training in the basic skills of my discipline, I might literally not have enough hours in the day to meet those needs. Or after spending the hours I'm required to spend in the classroom and other such responsibilities, I might basically have to choose between pulling out all the stops to give the student everything I have versus writing the grants I need to get to eventually get tenure and live to become a more experienced and effective mentor to more students in the future. Or maybe I'll be able to do the bare minimum amount of publishing and grantsmanship that's expected of me, but will end up with a less conventionally successful lab than the white guys in the department who encounter fewer internal and external expectations to be the perfect mentor and allocate their time accordingly. I'm not saying that the white guy in this scenario has objectively better priorities, but I do think this expectation that you should spend unlimited time and resources on any student who ends up needing them ends up landing harder on professors with certain identities and leading to inequities at the faculty level. It seems only realistic to accurately size up the bandwidth you have, decide how you ideally want to allocate it among students with different kinds of needs, and then make your best effort to adjust when students' needs are different when you budgeted for. If in your inexperience you take on a student whose needs are just not anywhere near the scope of your own time and energy budget, it seems smart to come up with an exit strategy that will land you both in a better position.
I guess what I'm advocating for is viewing mentorship failures as akin to declaring bankruptcy: it's not an honorable thing, and it shouldn't happen often, but it's a necessary stopgap to have when the individual faculty has made a bad choice and taken on a student whose needs they don't have the capacity to meet within the context of their particular ecosystem. And when such a failure happens, it's a systemic failure at least as much as the individual faculty member being a bad mentor. Within this framework, I saw the message of this article as something akin to 'it's your responsibility to be responsible with your money and go to any lengths required to never declare bankruptcy,' which is a viewpoint that lots of people have but that we'd probably all agree has some problems.
I couldn’t agree more. Like you, I had some spectacular failings as an advisor, especially at the beginning. It took me a while to figure out how to meet each student where they are, etc. Like you, I take full responsibility for it. AND, I think the arrangement where young advisors rely on the productivity of their advisees for their own career advancement (tenure) puts a lot of pressure on the relationship. It’s on the advisor to handle it, but it can be A LOT.
I agree with this to a point, but I also think it sets up a pretty unforgiving expectation of new faculty that can quickly lead to burnout, particularly in female and underrepresented faculty who are more likely to be expected to be extremely 'nurturing' mentors. If I as a junior faculty have received the message that I need to be capable of being a good mentor to every single kind of student, and I then optimistically take on a student who needs a ton of hands on training in the basic skills of my discipline, I might literally not have enough hours in the day to meet those needs. Or after spending the hours I'm required to spend in the classroom and other such responsibilities, I might basically have to choose between pulling out all the stops to give the student everything I have versus writing the grants I need to get to eventually get tenure and live to become a more experienced and effective mentor to more students in the future. Or maybe I'll be able to do the bare minimum amount of publishing and grantsmanship that's expected of me, but will end up with a less conventionally successful lab than the white guys in the department who encounter fewer internal and external expectations to be the perfect mentor and allocate their time accordingly. I'm not saying that the white guy in this scenario has objectively better priorities, but I do think this expectation that you should spend unlimited time and resources on any student who ends up needing them ends up landing harder on professors with certain identities and leading to inequities at the faculty level. It seems only realistic to accurately size up the bandwidth you have, decide how you ideally want to allocate it among students with different kinds of needs, and then make your best effort to adjust when students' needs are different when you budgeted for. If in your inexperience you take on a student whose needs are just not anywhere near the scope of your own time and energy budget, it seems smart to come up with an exit strategy that will land you both in a better position.
I guess what I'm advocating for is viewing mentorship failures as akin to declaring bankruptcy: it's not an honorable thing, and it shouldn't happen often, but it's a necessary stopgap to have when the individual faculty has made a bad choice and taken on a student whose needs they don't have the capacity to meet within the context of their particular ecosystem. And when such a failure happens, it's a systemic failure at least as much as the individual faculty member being a bad mentor. Within this framework, I saw the message of this article as something akin to 'it's your responsibility to be responsible with your money and go to any lengths required to never declare bankruptcy,' which is a viewpoint that lots of people have but that we'd probably all agree has some problems.
(I didn’t mean to suggest that you had spectacular failings, only me!)
oh, I have, though.
I couldn’t agree more. Like you, I had some spectacular failings as an advisor, especially at the beginning. It took me a while to figure out how to meet each student where they are, etc. Like you, I take full responsibility for it. AND, I think the arrangement where young advisors rely on the productivity of their advisees for their own career advancement (tenure) puts a lot of pressure on the relationship. It’s on the advisor to handle it, but it can be A LOT.