From career uncertainty to missing mentorship, graduate students are navigating a silent syllabus that leaves many overwhelmed and under-supported. It’s time we start talking about it.

Graduate school is often framed as a linear path: enroll, do research, publish, defend, graduate. But for many students, it doesn’t feel linear at all. Instead, it feels like a maze of expectations, unspoken rules, unclear goals, and invisible pressures. The courses are listed. The experiments are designed. But the most important learning often happens off the syllabus.

This is the hidden curriculum of graduate research, which includes the skills, supports, and guidance students need but are rarely taught explicitly.1 Our recent PositionScale research experience survey shed light on this reality. When asked what support they most wanted from their principal investigators (PIs), students didn’t just ask for better research training. They asked for help planning their careers, hands-on mentorship, mental health support, reduced micromanagement, and encouragement.

It’s time to treat the hidden curriculum not as an extra, but as essential. In this article, we break down the pillars of that hidden curriculum and why it’s time for academia to stop pretending students will figure it out on their own.

Career Advice Shouldn’t Be Left to Chance

What was the main type of support that students said they wanted from PIs? Career development.

Yet, career conversations are often vague, reactive, or nonexistent. Some students only receive advice tailored to the PI’s own path. Some are met with hesitation or bias when they express interest in careers beyond academia. Others aren’t sure who to turn to or how to even start the conversation.

In an increasingly competitive academic landscape, students can’t afford to wait until their final year to plan next steps. They need mentorship that treats career development as a parallel process, not a post-thesis panic. That means:

  • Introducing Individual Development Plans (IDPs) early in graduate training
  • Talking openly about both academic and non-academic career paths
  • Connecting students to professionals outside the lab for informational interviews
  • Encouraging conference attendance not just for papers but for networking

Career planning should be built into the rhythm of graduate training, not tacked on when students are burned out and unsure.

When graduate students begin their programs, many are unsure where their path will lead. The assumption that everyone is striving toward a tenure-track role is outdated and yet the academic system continues to perpetuate this one-track definition of success. But career exploration shouldn’t feel taboo. In fact, when institutions promote a culture of open inquiry into diverse careers, students are more engaged, motivated, and better prepared.2

This cultural shift starts with faculty. PIs can foster healthier environments by showing curiosity about students’ interests, whether they lie in industry, policy, entrepreneurship, consulting, education, or nonprofit work. Inviting alumni to speak about their careers, facilitating connections with non-academic professionals, and incorporating transferable skills into lab work all help bridge the gap between academia and the outside world.3 When PIs recognize that their role is not just to train researchers but to mentor professionals in progress, the impact is lasting.

Research Guidance Is More Than Weekly Meetings

Yes, students want research guidance, but not in the form of micromanagement. They want mentorship that helps them see the big picture: how to define a research question, troubleshoot when things go wrong, and pivot without panic.

Too often, students are either given total autonomy before they’re ready or so tightly managed that they don’t develop their own scientific instincts. Both extremes are damaging. Autonomy without scaffolding creates confusion, and hyper-control crushes confidence. What students are really asking for is clarity, collaboration, and the freedom to grow into independent thinkers.

Better research guidance includes:

  • Setting clear expectations for what “progress” looks like
  • Co-creating timelines and project milestones
  • Normalizing failure as part of the process
  • Giving constructive feedback early and often

Clarity in research guidance begins with open communication. Labs that use onboarding documents, shared protocols, or even collaborative lab handbooks can create shared understanding from day one.4 Additionally, research has shown that clear, formative feedback improves student confidence, retention, and project outcomes across disciplines.5

Another overlooked piece of guidance is failure literacy. Students need to be taught how to handle failed experiments, unexpected data, or critical peer review. That begins with PIs modeling how they themselves cope with setbacks. Sharing stories of experiments gone wrong or grants rejected can normalize and reduce fear around making mistakes.

Finally, research guidance should adapt over time. A first-year master’s student and a fifth-year PhD candidate have vastly different needs. Effective supervisors know how to shift from directing to coaching to sponsoring, depending on the stage and independence of the student. Thus, mentorship is about walking beside students, helping them learn how to think, plan, and adapt.

Mentorship Is Not the Same as Management

Graduate programs often assume that being a PI means being a mentor. But mentoring is a skill set of its own, and unfortunately, one that most faculty are never trained in.

Students crave mentorship that is personal, responsive, and hands-on, not just technical supervision. They want someone who sees them as more than a research output. Someone who:

  • Checks in about progress and well-being
  • Offers guidance without controlling every decision
  • Knows how to challenge without shaming

One common request from trainees is more exposure to skills beyond the scope of their thesis. Learning how to operate different instruments, assist with experiments outside their domain, or understand workflows from other lab members broadens their horizons and enhances their scientific literacy. Being trained in a wide range of techniques doesn’t just increase employability; it fosters curiosity and prepares students to work across disciplines, industries, and research environments.

Strong mentorship builds confidence, not just competence. It helps students take risks, recover from setbacks, and develop a sense of ownership over their work.

Feedback, Encouragement, and the Power of Feeling Seen

Nearly 1 in 3 students in our survey said they wanted more encouragement and recognition from their PIs. It’s a simple ask but a powerful one.

Graduate students spend years working on complex, often lonely research. Without regular validation, even high-performing students can begin to question their competence, their value, or whether they belong in research at all.6 In high-stakes academic environments, the absence of feedback can be just as damaging as negative feedback.

That’s why intentional recognition matters. Praise isn’t about ego, it’s about motivation, retention, and belonging. In fact, studies show that when students feel seen and valued, they are more likely to persist in research, demonstrate initiative, and show resilience in the face of setbacks.7

Examples that go a long way:

  • Recognizing effort publicly in group meetings
  • Thanking students in presentations or papers
  • Celebrating milestones like passed comps, abstracts accepted, or even surviving a tough week in the lab

Validation should be woven into lab culture, not reserved only for major wins. Ultimately, feedback and encouragement are not bonuses. When done well, they help students grow not only as researchers but as self-assured professionals who are confident.

Micromanagement and the Need for Trust

Some PIs micromanage out of fear. Others were never taught how to lead any other way. But for students, the effects are the same: a lack of trust, crushed autonomy, and slower growth. Over time, it can erode motivation, increase stress, and ultimately stall a student’s development as an independent researcher. Students grow best when they’re trusted to take the lead, with support.

This doesn’t mean removing structure altogether. It means:

  • Setting clear goals and letting students define the “how”
  • Being available, but not overbearing
  • Offering feedback as a checkpoint, not a control tool

Trust also requires letting go of perfection. Research environments are full of uncertainty, and students, especially newer ones, will make mistakes. But errors are not evidence of incompetence. They’re opportunities for learning, problem-solving, and reflection. When PIs step in too early or too often, they rob students of the chance to build those skills.

One strategy to counter this is building a culture of mutual trust, where students also have opportunities to offer feedback to their mentors. Anonymous lab health surveys, co-developed lab values, or open conversations can surface trust issues before they escalate. Trust is not given once; it’s maintained through consistency, transparency, and respect.

Mental Health Is an Academic Issue

Let’s be clear: it’s not your PI’s job to be your therapist. But they do shape the culture you work in, and that culture has direct effects on your mental health.

24% of students in our survey said they wanted more mental health support from their labs. But we know the number is higher. Many students stay silent out of fear or shame. The reality is sobering: studies have shown that graduate students are six times more likely to experience depression and anxiety than the general population.8 And yet, mental health is still treated as a personal issue, rather than a systemic concern tied to the way academic environments are structured.

Lab leaders can’t solve every mental health challenge, but they can:

  • Normalize conversations about stress, burnout, and boundaries. When PIs talk openly about their own challenges or model asking for help, they signal to students that vulnerability is not weakness, it’s human.
  • Avoid glamorizing overwork. The all-nighter culture may be deeply ingrained in academia, but it’s neither sustainable nor noble. Labs that celebrate rest and balance tend to see higher retention and better performance in the long run.
  • Make clear that flexibility and self-care are allowed. Simple acts like honoring vacation time, supporting mental health days, or respecting non-lab commitments can go a long way in making students feel like whole people.
  • Proactively refer students to university mental health services. Don’t wait for a crisis. Include mental health resource links in onboarding materials, lab handbooks, and welcome emails. Make it normal, not reactive to ask for support.

Mental health isn’t separate from academic success. It’s foundational to it. When students are struggling emotionally, their cognitive capacity, creativity, motivation, and engagement all suffer. It all starts with compassion, communication, and a willingness to model the balance you hope your students will carry into the future.

Conclusion

Graduate students are not just researchers in training. They are people navigating a complex system full of invisible expectations, power dynamics, and pressures they were never prepared for.

The hidden curriculum doesn’t have to stay hidden. PIs, departments, and institutions can make it visible, by naming it, supporting it, and designing systems around it.

Students want more than survival. They want mentorship, direction, recognition, and clear growth pathways. It’s not just about what they learn in the lab. It’s about how those skills translate beyond it. The years spent in graduate school should prepare students to thrive in the realities of the job market and life beyond academia. Let’s prepare them not just to operate research machines, but to grow as adaptable, fulfilled humans capable of navigating diverse professional environments.

References

  1. Rossouw, N., & Frick, L. (2023). A conceptual framework for uncovering the hidden curriculum in private higher education. Cogent Education, 10(1).
  2. Fuhrmann, C. N. (2016). Enhancing graduate and postdoctoral education to create a sustainable biomedical workforce. Human Gene Therapy, 27(11), 871.
  3. Sinche, M., Layton, R. L., Brandt, P. D., O’Connell, A. B., Hall, J. D., Freeman, A. M., Harrell, J. R., Gowen Cook, J., & Brennwald, P. J. (2017). An evidence-based evaluation of transferrable skills and job satisfaction for science PhDs. PloS One, 12(9), e0185023.
  4. Lee, A., Dennis, C., & Campbell, P. (2007). Nature’s guide for mentors. Nature, 447(7146), 791-797.
  5. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325.
  6. Woolston, C. (2019). PhDs: The tortuous truth. Nature (London), 575(7782), 403-406.
  7. Carter-Veale, W., Rutledge, J., Joseph, L., & Tull, R. (2016). The dissertation house model: Doctoral student experiences coping and writing in a shared knowledge community. CBE: Life Sciences Education, 15(3).
  8. Evans, T. M., Bira, L., Gastelum, J. B., Weiss, L. T., & Vanderford, N. L. (2018). Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nature Biotechnology, 36(3), 282–284.