Rethinking Academic "Rigor" in Graduate Education

When graduate school is hard simply for the sake of being hard

Photo by Carolina on Unsplash

Writing a good multiple-choice question for an exam is truly an art if you want to make it challenging, clear, and fair. During my time as a teaching assistant, I can't count how many times I saw instructors create exams that not only tested students' knowledge but also their ability to solve complex logic puzzles in the process. Does an exam on interpersonal communication really need to assess whether you can navigate the Rubik’s Cube that is your professor’s logic?

As an instructor, I worked diligently to ensure that my multiple-choice questions were clear and that each had only one viable answer—an answer that was clear to me, my teaching assistants, and ultimately, the students themselves, once I reviewed the difficulty statistics. I never wanted a question to be difficult due to confusing wording. If it was going to be challenging, it had to be because of the actual content being tested, not because of how the question was phrased.

Lately, I've been reflecting a lot on how we often make academia difficult for the sake of difficulty itself. Throughout my time in academia, I've witnessed countless instances where those in positions of power set up bars and hurdles for graduate students that didn’t really serve any educational purpose. Instead, they simply made things hard for the sake of being hard.

When it’s hard without a sound pedagogical purpose

Take, for example, the concept of a timed comprehensive exam. When, in the real world, are we ever required to write non-stop for eight hours without the opportunity to pause, read something more thoroughly, or reflect on what we don’t fully understand? Wouldn't it be more realistic—and more conducive to producing thoughtful work—to give students a few weeks to develop their ideas? Instead, we surprise them with questions they haven't seen before, just to prove they've read enough to answer on the spot.

What is the pedagogical value of this hazing ritual?

Who is it hard for?

It is also critical to recognize who graduate school is difficult for.

I’m reminded of Holly Genovese’s incredible essay for PNP reflecting on their experience as “a trans, non-binary queer, fat, mad, neurodivergent, disabled, chronically ill, and lower middle-class graduate student. ” In the essay, they question how, why, and for whom graduate school is supposed to be difficult.

Genovese poignantly writes,

Graduate school is hard. But it shouldn’t be difficult for difficulty’s sake. And it should be accessible for those of us with disabilities, who, after all, have a whole different set of knowledges. Rigor, for rigor’s sake, is used to exclude and to isolate. To make competitors out of potential friends. Sometimes, it is used to weed people out. 

So perhaps, in the future, with your own graduate students or when reflecting on academia in general, ask yourself, “Who does this rigor serve?” Is it for “the work” or is it because it is expected? Because it is supposed to be hard? Because it was hard for you? 

When I have questioned these "rigor for rigor's sake" practices and pointed out that a student was struggling because of a specific policy or expectation, the response has frequently been, "Graduate school is hard. If they can’t handle it, they should not be here."

Testing the ability to conform

Making graduate school arbitrarily difficult serves no real purpose other than to test whether students can endure and conform to a system that values rigidity over creativity. We're not fostering innovation or encouraging original thought. Instead, we're reinforcing hegemonic standards that were established long before we arrived.

This approach not only stifles creativity but also perpetuates a cycle where conformity is rewarded over critical thinking. It’s a system that prioritizes endurance over learning, where the ability to survive grueling and often irrelevant challenges is seen as a marker of success.

What if, instead…

What if, instead, we focused on creating a learning environment that encourages curiosity, nurtures diverse thinking, and supports students in developing their unique strengths? What if we measured success not by how well someone can endure arbitrary difficulty but by how much they grow intellectually and contribute creatively to their field?

Photo by "My Life Through A Lens" on Unsplash

It’s beyond time to rethink what we value in graduate education. The goal should be to equip students with the skills and knowledge they need to excel, not to force them to jump through hoops that serve no real educational purpose. By fostering a more inclusive and supportive academic environment, we can help students become not just cogs in a machine but innovators, leaders, and thinkers who are truly prepared to make meaningful contributions to the world.