“We owe our doctoral candidates a dialogue”
The annual status conversations are still not taken seriously enough in doctoral studies, says Ulrike Lohmann, Vice President for Doctoral Studies, with reference to the survey of mid-career faculty. Overall, however, she gives a positive interim assessment of the implementation of the new doctoral regulations.
Ulrike Lohmann, the new Ordinance on the Doctorate has been in force since 2022. You have been responsible for its implementation as Vice-Rector since 2023. What is your interim conclusion?
A lot is going well. The latest available survey of mid-level faculty from 2024 shows that doctoral candidates are generally quite satisfied with their supervision.
Where is there room for improvement?
The status conversations, which should take place at least once a year. During these conversations, doctoral candidates discuss the progress of their research and their work situation with their supervisors. Unfortunately, the survey shows that these conversations still take place too infrequently.
Why is that a problem?
Doctoral candidates should know where they stand. But the meetings also serve as a safety valve: they reveal early on if performance is not up to par or if there are interpersonal problems. We owe this dialogue to our doctoral candidates! We introduced the meetings to prevent unpleasant situations from dragging on and ultimately leading to a no-show. This is often a drastic step for doctoral candidates and sometimes a loss of face.
Why aren't the conversations taking place consistently?
I'm looking into that. Perhaps it has to do with a lack of habit: the status conversations are not as established as the employee reviews – and they are spread out over the year. I assume that this is not intentional. But that's no excuse. We have to find solutions to change this.
What impact has the doctoral reform had on success rates and the duration of doctorates?
The success rates were already encouraging before the reform, with around 90% of doctoral candidates successfully completing their studies for many years.
A 90% success rate also means that 10% do not complete their studies. Why is that?
Not everyone who drops out has failed. Often there are other reasons behind the decision, such as a change of career or attractive job offers outside academia. It is normal that not everyone completes their studies, and it is good that a certain degree of selection remains.
Are there differences between the sexes?
The duration differs only minimally between the sexes, with women graduating slightly faster. The success rate varies from year to year, sometimes higher for men, sometimes higher for women. However, I don't see any bias or trends – the figures are publicly available, by the way.
If the success rate hasn't changed, was the reform still a success?
Absolutely. The reform was not about the success rate, but about individual situations. The reform has improved the position of doctoral candidates and reduced their direct dependence on their supervisors.
Since 2022, doctoral candidates have had the right to a second advisor by ordinance. How has this change affected things?
There is no question in my mind that second advisors have proven their worth. They formalize what was already happening in many groups: in practice, doctoral candidates are never supervised by their supervisors alone. They have always sought help from various people in the group. Nevertheless, making second advisors official was an important step.
Who normally takes on the role of second advisor?
The person can come from the research group or from outside; the ordinance leaves this open. It is important that the person is available and has time to take care of the doctoral candidates' concerns. Often, people from within the group are best suited to do this.
Which changes have proven particularly effective?
The aptitude colloquium, in which doctoral candidates must present and defend their research project in their first year. This aptitude test has proven its worth; it provides security for both the doctoral candidates and their supervisors. It is important and beneficial that doctoral candidates are able to assess themselves well from the outset. However, it is even more important that this evaluation is followed up with status conversations.
Status conversations should be a dialogue
Because topics such as personal development and career planning often received too little attention in status conversations, VPPL has created new guidelines. According to these guidelines, status conversations should be based on the newly created “dialogue” staff appraisal system, create more space for open student exchange, and take into account the individual needs of both parties.
Further information can be found in the Doctoral Navigator.
Note on the translation
This text has been translated for your convenience using a machine translation tool. Although reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation, it may not be perfect. If in doubt, please refer to the German version.
Should you come upon significant translation mistakes, please send a short message to so that we can correct them. Thank you very much.
Always up to date
Would you like to always receive the most important internal information and news from ETH Zurich? Then subscribe to the "internal news" newsletter and visit Staffnet, the information portal for ETH employees.