So today I was reading the minutes from the last university senate meeting and I was reminded of an exchange that took place during the "open floor" item on the agenda, i.e., when anyone who has anything (important) to say that was not contained in the agenda can raise an issue that can be discussed or put on the table for future discussion.

At this last meeting it was brought up that the university is very highly-ranked for many of its outcomes and mission goals--research, aquisition of grants, teaching--but that in the category of "Doctoral studies" it is consistently ranked 10th or so in Poland. This fact did not provoke a discussion of what we could do to make our graduate studies better, or how to gather data from the doctoral students to find out what is lacking here that is present at other universities. It did not provoke a discussion of the flaws in the existing system that hinder young scientists from fulfilling their potential in these hallowed halls. What it *did* provoke was a short statement from the Rector of Students, followed by assurances from the doctoral students' representative, that we would try to find out what the criteria were for creating this ranking system so that we could pinpoint exactly what the committee was looking for and ensure our higher rank next year. This just makes me so deflated. The goal seems not to be an analysis of the actual feedback we got from doctoral students, but rather an analysis of the committee's standards to see just how we can adjust the data we give them so that they match. Ugh.

When I think about this I can't help but recall the feedback-hungry Koreans, who are eager to hear how they are failing so that they can change and improve.