Project Management

Yesterday we had a "Project Supervision" workshop: to ensure consistency of supervision across 4 different (business-related) Schools. I came in all gung-ho and with lots of questions (as usual).

Only to be told AT THE VERY BEGINNING, that I should support the supervisees, I am the leader that ensures that the FYP is a success, that I should listen and take leadership, that I should check and schedule appointments (with the supervisees) early on, that I am responsible in following up if the students 'disappear'.. and the sad thing was, at the end of the session it was mentioned that "we should not be too hard on the students, they are trying their best, they do not know research very well (not like 'our' level), and that they have been given a 'cookie-cutter' sample to follow for certain chapters.

For academic decorum I did not say anything. But in my heart I feel that this is a load of BS.

Firstly the supervisor is expected to support, nurture, follow up, plan and once the product is submitted we are expected to be 'lenient'. Our students expect "A"s and "B"s on a cookie cutter model and we accept mediocre work sitting down. This will blow up in our faces very very soon. Or the more unfortunate thing is: supervisors like me who appear to be more 'strict' on good work will be driven out or become unpopular. Because we are making things difficult (or are we? I get confused sometimes).

We are missing the forest for the trees:

FOREST: students need to elevate their FYP standard

TREES: we will support as much as we can, short of doing the work ourselves

I am saying this because I had the misfortune of a mediocre student who did last-minute botched work yet operated in an illusion of grandeur that he ultimately & unequivocally is an A student. Within the context of "student-oriented" supervision, I was deemed the wrong party. Sad but true. We are creating a generation of entitled spoilt brats.