In other cases, I've just not been familiar with "the way they do things," which isn't a knock against the student or the department, but I have on occasion been surprised or had a mismatch in expectations (e.g., what constitutes a thesis with distinction, etc. - hard to know as an outsider!).

Also, what is expectation for travel, etc., related to this - presumably departments have options to Zoom/Teams/etc., for meetings or defenses, but that's good to check.

I do think there is some value for *you* to suss out departmental culture. I have had overall good experiences as an external member, but the hard experiences have been when I unknowingly stepped into departmental politics and/or personalities.

In a second case, I was a primary partner in the thesis, and so it was more appropriate for me to see earlier drafts (and it had been very clear from the outset). I also didn't mind as much, because the main advisor was also involved in early comments.

In one case, the advisor was not at all involved, & I got very very rough drafts that in my opinion should have been flagged by the advisor first; it put the student in a very bad spot, and put me in a bad spot to have to be the "bad guy" in saying the writing needed major work.

E.g., I think it's important to set expectations on the sequence of events in sharing drafts of chapters. Should the advisor see it first (I would argue that is the default)? I have had highly variable experiences with this.

This is great overall! I might suggest adding a section directed at the primary advisors for the students, too. E.g., that the primary advisor is the primary advisor, etc. This can be important especially if you are not familiar with the institutional or departmental culture at a place.

It’s true, since we put up that giant cat skeleton, 407,013 people went full anti-vax, 1103 kindergarteners embraced fasting diets for longevity, 79,406 science majors dropped out of college, & 5 archaeology programs had to close because students could no longer discern reality from fiction.

It fascinates me how many of "us" (paleontologists) are unwilling to admit that multiple factors can be at play here - the paper today *can* be excellent, *and* past pro-Nano work published valid points, *and* some past pro-Nano work wasn't convincing or had an agenda, *and* elitism is a real thing.

This is admittedly an obscure reference for most, but it gave me some entertainment today.

That last part nails it, I think!