Recently, a colleague share an article published in Nature (May 16, 2018), and I thought this group might be interested in it as well. You can read the full article here, posted as a Comment: https://www.nature.com/article...

Go beyond bias training

Ambiguity in expectations and evaluations harms progress, say Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton and colleagues. Authors: Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, Colette Patt & Mark Richards

One of the issues: 

Graduate students regularly receive minimal guidance. The underlying supposition is that the path to success will reveal itself if the student ‘has what it takes’. 

A solution: The authors identified "three hallmarks" of programs that successfully supported women and minorities: 

Advancement processes and procedures are clearly defined and systematically applied.
Student progress is overseen by multiple faculty members. 
There is department-wide agreement about expectations for advancement. 

What do you think, would you like to see these practices more widely adopted on university campuses? Is it practical to clearly define expectations? How wide-spread are these multiple faculty mentor teams? Are career discussions ever part of the mentoring process (and how productive are those conversations)?

I look forward to your comments!