I need some of my readers to weigh in on this: In terms of the academic recognition system, how much weight is given to being an official, on-the-record co-advisor as opposed to just being on the committee and/or co-authoring publications with a student?
I thought the publications were more important than the title, but I think I might be wrong about this. Perspectives?
5 comments:
I see faculty listing names of advisees in a separate section of their CV. Although I supposed this could be said for being on a committee as well. But I would say either or both of those are ranked separately from simply co-authoring with a student. And I would think that actually advising would be worth more than just serving on a committee. Perhaps is depends on the focus of the school.
On a side note: did you receive my comments re: your committee mtg? I think they may have been eaten by the internet. I have thoughts on your situation, but don't want to repost annoyingly.
Thanks gigirose. I was slow to approve your last comment on the committee post but it's up now.
I think being on the record is considered "more" - that being said, at my university having grad students actually counts no where... I'm expected to have them, but I don't get any teaching "points" etc. for having them
I think you'd get more credit for being a co-advisor than just another committee member. I agree with gigirose that the focus of the particular school would effect who co-author is perceived, although career stage may matter there to (for the faculty). I would also expect any advisor (or co-advisor) to be an author on a majority of my publications. The committee member whose lab I work in (and who therefore mentors me in that area) will be on any publication resulting from that work. That is considered the "reward" for serving that role for me (and I'm quite happy with the arrangement, that committee member is awesome).
At some institutions I've worked at being a co-advisor is bigger responsibility because they are also then financially responsible for you as well and the relationship is intended to benefit you both. For instance they might provide you with an RA if your main advisor is in a pinch.
On the record committee members get recognition from the university, it goes into their tenure packages, evaluations etc. I had signatory members on my masters thesis. Professors I worked with at other institutions whose contributions to my thesis and intellectual upbringing were recognized by my home university. I don't remember why anymore, but my advisor said it was good for me, though not necessary for my degree. We coauthored papers together, so maybe that was why?
Post a Comment