Re:Why I left Academia: Part I
by upvotinglurker on Monday August 07, 2017 @03:47PM
(#14950642)
Yes, the sentence can be read either way (as "the advisor" and "Dr. Mao" both referring to the same person, who had not read the dissertation, or two different people). Dr. Mao's role seems to be kept almost deliberately vague - possibly in response to her lawyer's advice as stated in Part III?
She does seem to state that her defense was conducted by three people - Dr. Mao, Dr. Hortense (who she did "go to" and got an unhelpful response), and "The third person in the room, another professor on my committee" who appeared surprised by the proceedings.
> kept almost deliberately vague
I think it's a mix of lawyer advice and a disavowal of Dr. Mao as her advisor -- a way to maintain some dignity. The member of the dissertation committee who is most likely to be "impossible" to remove is the chair. More evidence for the roles: "I told Dr. Hortense in this November email that I was worried about my ability to pass my defense, especially if Dr. Mao was not going to read it prior to sending it out to the entire committee."
Yes, I now agree with you and upvotinglurker. That also explains the mystery, and the hidden horror: her advisor plagiarized her.
She also mentioned that she would have been elated if Dr. Mao had just credited her in a footnote when he published her work. I imagine that this is shitty, but common in student-adviser relationships.
I took that to mean that since her advisor told her that her committee was unlikely to read her dissertation before the defense, she took comfort in believing Dr. Mao - a member of the committee but a separate person from her advisor - would also not read it.