Both Deirdre and Susan argue that we owe it to our students to subject
them to pointed criticism, since they will surely need to face it in "the
real world". I feel strongly that the best way to help a student to
prepare for the real world is NOT to demolish their self-assurance in the
protected one. Yes, they need to learn to defend themselves, but I think
that is best done from a feeling of strength -- and one way to get that
feeling of strength is to have a PhD supervisor who you perceive as your
ally.
I can give as example two labs in an unamed institution, headed by famous
and productive professors. In one, students are afraid to appear ignorant
and will not speak unless they are willing to assert themselves. The
agressive/confident students shine here, but others equally talented feel
insecure and tend to have low profiles during graduate school and
afterwards. In the other lab, students feel free to discuss issues as a
way of learning about them. There is no penalty for being unsure of the
truth, as long as you are willing to work your way towards it. Bright
students become brilliant and shy students bloom. Which do you think is a
better way of doing things?
