Variable Quality Standards: Navigating Inconsistent Faculty Expectations

You speak with a classmate who submitted an ILE document similar to yours in scope and format. Their advisor approved it with minor revisions. Your advisor requests a complete rewrite. This scenario illustrates one of the most frustrating aspects of the practicum experience: variable quality standards among faculty members.

Understanding this variability and developing strategies to navigate it can save you significant time and emotional energy.

Why Standards Vary

Faculty members bring different backgrounds, priorities, and expectations to the advising relationship. A professor trained in epidemiology may prioritize methodological rigor and statistical precision. A faculty member from health promotion may emphasize community engagement and cultural responsiveness. Someone with practice experience may focus on real-world applicability while an academic researcher may value theoretical grounding.

These differences are not necessarily problematic—they reflect the multidisciplinary nature of public health. However, they create challenges for students who may receive conflicting guidance or struggle to understand what their specific committee values.

Additionally, some faculty members have extensive experience advising ILE students and have developed clear rubrics and expectations. Others may be newer to advising or work with fewer students, leading to less standardized approaches.

Getting Clarity Early

The most effective strategy is aggressive information gathering at the beginning of your ILE process. During your first committee meeting, ask direct questions: What does an excellent ILE look like to you? What are the most common weaknesses you see in student submissions? What would cause you to require major revisions?

Request examples of successful ILE documents, ideally from students your specific committee members have advised. These examples reveal unwritten expectations that formal guidelines may not capture. Pay attention to length, depth of analysis, citation density, formatting choices, and tone.

If your committee includes multiple faculty members, identify potential areas of disagreement early. Ask all members the same questions and note where their answers diverge. Address these differences proactively rather than discovering them during your defense.

Navigating Committee Dynamics

When committee members have different standards, your primary advisor's expectations typically take precedence, but not always. Understanding the power dynamics within your committee helps you prioritize feedback appropriately.

Some programs designate a single faculty member as the primary evaluator whose judgment determines outcomes. Others use consensus models where all committee members must agree. Clarify your program's structure and act accordingly.

When you receive conflicting feedback from different committee members, do not attempt to resolve it silently. Bring the conflict to your committee's attention: "I received guidance to expand this section from Professor Smith and guidance to condense it from Professor Jones. How would you like me to proceed?" This approach prevents you from making decisions that inadvertently alienate one evaluator.

Calibrating Your Work

Before investing extensive time in any section, submit a brief outline or sample paragraph to your advisor for calibration. This small investment reveals their expectations before you write thousands of words in the wrong direction.

Pay attention to the types of feedback you receive. If comments focus primarily on formatting and grammar, your content is likely acceptable and your advisor has high standards for presentation. If comments challenge your arguments, evidence, or analysis, you may need to strengthen your conceptual work before worrying about polish.

Track patterns across feedback cycles. If your advisor consistently requests more evidence, build evidence gathering into your writing process. If they regularly ask for clearer connections to public health theory, incorporate theoretical framing from the start.

When Standards Seem Unreasonable

Occasionally, students encounter expectations that feel genuinely unreasonable—demands for perfection, constantly shifting criteria, or standards that exceed what peers face. These situations require careful navigation.

First, verify that your perception is accurate. Speak confidentially with other students who have worked with the same advisor. Consult program documentation about expected scope and quality. Your frustration may be legitimate, or you may be underestimating standard expectations.

If standards genuinely appear inconsistent with program norms, raise the issue professionally. Start with your advisor directly: "I want to make sure I understand expectations correctly. The level of detail you are requesting seems more extensive than what I've seen in other approved ILEs. Can you help me understand what I'm missing?"

If direct conversation does not resolve the issue, consult your program coordinator. They can mediate expectations and ensure you are being held to reasonable standards.

Protecting Your Investment

Document all guidance you receive, including dates and sources. When your advisor approves an outline or approach, save that email. This documentation protects you if expectations shift later and provides evidence that you followed guidance provided.

Complete smaller sections before larger ones and seek feedback iteratively. This approach prevents you from writing an entire document only to discover fundamental misalignment with expectations.

Variable standards are frustrating but manageable. The students who navigate them most successfully are those who clarify expectations early, communicate proactively, and document agreements carefully.