Candidate Evaluation Form (Confidential: Fill & Download for Free

IT IS a very UNPLEASANT experience to have a supervisor who is toxic/abusive, moreover: bully and not supportive. Horrible!If I should give an advice to anybody who is experiencing one - JUST QUIT!It’s not worth the struggle.Remember: you can always find another PhD program, somewhere else, some other time. But, this kind of experience will haunt you and your family for the rest of your life.If you somewhat can’t quit, the best way to deal with such a person is:Minimize contact,Add more parties to be involved in your communications,Talk to as many people as possible, send emails to the faculty and university,Get as much help as possible.Otherwise, you’ll be crushed, alone.Apparently, I know someone who is very close to me who had such a supervisor/advisor. This story is about him, my friend.His supervisor came from a different background than the program. The supervisor was educated from the Industrial engineering department but teaching and supervising students in the Marine Technology.It was very unfortunate for my friend - that he did not get the experience and supports that the other PhD students got (with other supervisors). Some incidents that I remember my friend experiences:He was asked to submit a paper to a journal which was “not so relevant” to his research, but “favorable” to his supervisor. Of course, the paper was then rejected.The supervisor told my friend to go home to his home country, because my friend could not find an apartment to rent for him and his family in the city where they were living in. My friend and his wife with two young children were renting a student apartment from the university. In some parts of Europe, a PhD student was no longer considered as a student. My friend rented the apartment since he was studying for his master degree. After enrolled in a PhD program, he must find alternatives outside the university, - which was difficult at that time. Usually, other “normal” supervisors would help their students to find for accommodation, especially when they are with family.When discussing a paper draft, usually the supervisor focused on the small mistakes that my friend did, and then stopped there. The supervisor would make such a big thing out of such a small case.The supervisor was very sensitive to the information that HE did not understand, and asked my friend to explain it in the paper. Sometimes it was a trivial term that everybody with marine background understand. Unfortunately, if my friend argued he would be doomed, and sent out of the supervisor’s office.Once my friend wrote what he thought in the “Supervisor - PhD student evaluation form” - that sometimes it was difficult to find, to arrange a meeting with his supervisor, and the communication was not so smooth. (In some parts of Europe, it is a customary that both parties, the supervisor and the student fill in evaluation form every year and submit them to the faculty). The evaluation should be “Confidential” to the person of interest, meaning that what my friend wrote in his form should not be read directly by his supervisor, but his boss. In this case, the head of the group purposely showed the supervisor what my friend wrote about him. So, my friend was called in to his supervisor’s office, and fried for almost an hour, - and kicked out of the office without having the chance to defend himself. My friend learned his lessons and never wrote bad things about his supervisor again.- Until he could not stand it anymore. One day, he sent a letter to the faculty and the university telling his problems and asking to change his supervisor. He was granted the 2nd supervisor, but still stuck with the 1st. Ever since he had the 2nd supervisor, every email that he wrote was always sent to both supervisors, and cc to the Head of department.My friend asked for help regarding his research, and his supervisor told him to find it in the university’s website! (it was stated clearly in the PhD Handbook that it was the obligation of the supervisor to assist PhD students especially in their research / study).One day, my friend and his supervisor went together in a “business” trip. His supervisor asked him to sit in his car to the airport and back. But, he was asked to stay away from him in the airport. The supervisor did not want to sit side-by-side with my friend in the waiting room. The supervisor even left my friend in the airport when they were about to take the train. Later after the trip, my friend was asked to fill in the travel expenses form that he was sitting in his supervisor’s car. It seemed that the supervisor was just after the money.My friend was reported to the Head of department by his supervisor due to some findings in his research. My friend did a qualitative research where he interviewed seafarers, and collected information regarding problems that they encountered in their job. My friend wrote his findings in a paper and prepared it for a conference. His supervisor told him to delete some issues that according him was no longer relevant. My friend defended his finding. He ended up in the Head of department office.My friend needed access to a certain database. He sent lots of applications and emails to get access to the database. But, nothing worked. And, his supervisor did not provide any help. Until one day my friend’s email reached a senior Professor who apparently was the Supervisor of his supervisor. Kindly, this senior Professor told my friend that his supervisor should be able to help. He knew for sure that my friend’s supervisor had the access! My friend then forwarded the email to his supervisor who then finally arranged for the access. But, it was like too little too late when he finally got the access.I remember my friend was so down that his supervisor mocking him of not being able to speak the local language: “You’ve been here for seven years, and you can’t speak the language….!?”. (It was the policy from his university not to provide PhD students language courses so they can focus on their study).For the second time, the supervisor told my friend to go home to his country because he could not finish the dissertation on time.No body finished PhD on time in our faculty. All PhD students were always granted extensions. My friend was the first and the only one who was asked to apply for extension, and then rejected by his own supervisor, and left with no solution at all.Burnout. I remember my friend experienced burnout, and must be sent to find help. He could not stand to see his supervisor, and get traumatized. He got help from a psychologist for a couple of months. He went to campus when his supervisor was not there. He avoid looking at his supervisor.I remember, it was not a nice to witness this kind of experience, especially as my friend brought his whole family, the wife could not work, the children kind of knew the struggle the father was experiencing. They were affected and became unhappy. Imagine, they had to move apartments five times during the PhD term of four years.At the end of his PhD term, my friend must struggle for months without income from the university, unclear regarding the continuity of his PhD program, with no valid visa for the whole family, threatened to be sent home, and kicked out of their apartment. Finally, his friend got him a a job offer.He took the job as an engineer, and decided to move to the capital city with the whole family. They started all over; applying for visa, finding a place to live, finding new school for the children, etc. It was one of the happiest and relieving time in his life. He met a lot of new colleagues, nice ones, and most importantly a supporting boss.My friend kept doing his PhD while he was working as an engineer during the day, and wrote his dissertation during the night.Four years after he left, he defended his PhD. (in his university, it is OK to submit the dissertation 2 - 3 years after the PhD term/contract ended).But, the unpleasant experience with his supervisor continued. Just before he came for his defense, he still received unpleasant messages from his supervisor:His supervisor planned to go in a trip outside Norway, just when he was about to defend his PhD. So, he asked my friend to prepare his defense by himself, without his presence.His supervisor wrote that my friend was NOT entitled to a “PhD dinner” after his defense. In this country where he spent his study, a PhD candidate who successfully completed his/her PhD is entitled to have a “nice dinner” to celebrate. And, this is regulated by the law. So, my friend became the first PhD - that we knew until 2016 - who finished a PhD without the dinner.How to cope with such a situationI remember my friend used to keep his problem for himself, until one day he asked one of his friend to read his draft paper. “The friend” was a social researcher, a post doc who did more or less similar research. He could recognize that there was a problem with my friend’s supervisor. He asked: “Is there any problem with your supervisor? Because, I can see that there is something wrong here.” Then, my friend exploded.It was fortunate that my friend was quite active in many different groups; in campus and outside campus; sports, religious activities, social gathering, etc. Sometimes he discussed his problems/issues with them.Some people from those irrelevant groups brought unexpected assistance to him, and helped him to finally completed his PhD.I know that to some extend my friend is proud of his journey and achievement. The family are too. At least 50% of our colleagues do not finish their PhD after leaving.I asked whether it was worth it? The answer is simply: NO!If he should do it again he would have dropped out the 2nd year the latest.It is true that my friend finished his PhD, but he still could not pursue his career in the academia. The role of the supervisor is very important (good or bad) to continue one’s path in the academia. It is the supervisor that other professors would refer to when you apply for a position in the academia. Most of the time actually it is your supervisor that will offer or prepare you a position in the academia. A toxic/abusive supervisor will close at least 80% of your chance to continue.My friend told me that later he was contacted by the other PhD student who had his supervisor as their supervisor, and they were crying (literally) for help. He himself is still traumatized by his supervisor that he could not say his supervisor’s name without being emotionally affected. He has uncomfortable feeling when he visits the city, moreover the university. He is no longer proud of his university nor his alma mater.Later, he read in the newspaper a number of bad cases with similar issues that he experienced back in his university, and he pointed that -‘…. been there, experienced that,… no surprise,…!’A pity; a university with a reputation, pride and long traditions,…** After my friend the faculty granted other PhD students to change supervisor. But, his supervisor keeps sitting in his position, despite almost no PhD student finish afterwards.

Tenure decisions can make or break a career and affect the course of an academic department for decades. They are not taken lightly.The “tenure clock” is ticking for five, six, or seven years. During this time, the candidate is expected to build up a record of research, teaching, and service.Special circumstances, such as the birth of a child, may warrant an extension. Other circumstances (a tenured offer to the candidate from elsewhere or outstanding achievements) may lead to an early tenure evaluation. Most candidates, however, prefer to take as much time as possible to build up a strong record. It is better to be granted tenure late than to be denied early.The tenure review itself can take a year or longer. The candidate is usually asked to prepare a CV, a list of publications, and a self-statement about their achievements. The department will invite a number (often ten or more) of confidential external evaluations, usually from renowned colleagues in a related research area. The candidate may be asked to suggest or exclude a few referees, but the majority will have to be chosen by the department.The department will form an ad-hoc committee, which will evaluate the candidate’s entire record and present its findings in a report. The entire faculty of the candidate’s department will then be invited to look at the report, the external evaluations, the candidate’s published work, etc (often hundreds of pages). The faculty will debate the tenure case in a special meeting (sometimes several meetings) and vote.The vote will often agree with the recommendation of the ad hoc committee. This, however, is by no means certain, especially if the case is borderline or if the ad-hoc committee did not justify its recommendation well.Up to this point, the review may already have taken four months. It takes time for the external letters to come in, the ad hoc committee needs to meet (often several times), and the rest of the faculty needs time to read the extensive materials.The decision is usually based on consensus, rather than a simple majority vote. The idea is that the faculty will discuss the case until almost all members agree. A 60/40 vote for you means that your case wasn’t strong enough to generate consensus in your favor and will usually not get you tenure. Something like a 90/10 vote is a strong outcome.The department chair will then forward all materials, along with a summary of the discussion, the outcome of the vote, and their own evaluation, to the next higher authority, such as the dean. The dean reviews the case, adds their recommendation in the form of a letter, and forwards the case for campus review.The campus has a special committee for such purposes; that review can be as thorough as the department review, with another ad-hoc committee, external letters, and a debate followed by another (independent) vote. The provost sums up the campus review and adds their recommendation.Finally, the case goes to the highest authority on campus, such as the Chancellor, President, or Board of Trustees. This authority makes the final determination based on, but not bound by, all input.Every university and every country has different procedures, but this is a general outline for U.S. institutions.

I’ll answer this from the perspective of hiring a developer online.Here are some hiring practices to follow especially if you’re looking to hire developersTest their programming skills using codility/HackerRank: Platforms likeCodility and HackerRank offer coding challenges in the form of tests. In Codility and HackerRank, you can create innovative challenges, rank tech candidates through objective programming tasks and automate a lot of your recruiting. More than anything, it helps you save time.Other tools that you can use to test programming skills are:Coderpad: Used by AirBnb, Quora, Hired, Lyft.Code Interview: Core service + IDE plugins free, pay for premium features.Interview Zen: Watch them solve problems real time, can be done remotely.Start with referrals: Referrals are the best way to hire. Good developers usually know other good developers and the word usually spreads quicker. It’s also easier to tap into inactive job seekers who may join your company with encouragement of a friend or a trusted networking contact. According to a study by JobVite, it takes 29 days to hire a referred candidate, compared to 39 days to hire a candidate through a job posting or 55 days to hire a candidate through a career site.10 most innovative referral campaignsThe top 20 employee referral program best practicesAsk for code samples of previous work: It’s quite normal to ask for code samples of developers you’re looking to hire. Reviewing code samples immediately helps you gauge someone’s ability to code and it’s also a great way to filter out candidates based on actual skill early in the process. Good code is easy to read, has good semantic markup and have their basic syntax highlighted. Usually developers refrain from sharing code from their current work as it’s confidential but any previous written code helps. Avoid asking them to write code in an interview situation as it’s usually too short a time and unnecessarily stressful.Best practices for code samples for developersWhy are you being asked for code sampleStructured phone interviews: If your initial impression of them is positive, invite them for a phone screening. In the call, ask a few non-technical questions, followed by a few technical questions and try to simulate a scrum meeting if possible. You’ll be able to gauge their communication skills, their know-how of agile, its tools and how they estimate development time.Check out Top 50 Programmer phone interview questionsAsk them to build something related to your product: Another best practice is to ask them to work on a piece that is currently applicable to your project. Can they develop a small piece of your website, build a bare boned product, prototype something over a few days that would validate their skill set. Questions to ask a developer if they’re building your mobile app:Ask for the list of previous/current clients: Ask for a list of all clients they have worked with in the past and references of their work. Candidates usually provide references of people who have a favorable opinion of them but checking with other clients helps you gauge the exact piece they worked on and their attitude towards work.Have a trial or condition period: If you’re hiring full time, have at least a one month trial period where you can evaluate a developer’s performance, be a little more hands on with their work. Based on their performance, you can determine whether you want to keep working with them.Other practices: 15 best practices to hiring developers in a startup