October 21, 2025
Mental well-being in academia is a topic that has gained more visibility in recent years. Youth mental health issues have been on the rise, partly due to COVID, but also because more people are talking about it. PhD students, in particular, face intense pressure—imposter syndrome, long hours, and high expectations can take a serious toll.
My own experience has shown me that the way we manage, mentor, and give feedback can make a huge difference. I’ve seen very different approaches across countries and stages of my career, and it shaped my own philosophy of teaching and supervision.
My first teaching assistant job was at Oxford, grading homework for a Numerical Linear Algebra course. I remember one particular incident: I marked a student’s answer with a red pen, crossing out the wrong parts and writing “0” next to it. The student complained, and the course instructor very kindly explained that this was not the way to give feedback. No red pens, no crossing out, always highlight what was good and what could be improved. Explain how to do better next time.
At first, I was surprised. I came from a French prep school and grande école culture where feedback was harsh and direct—if you weren’t perfect, you were shown in red ink. Positive reinforcement wasn’t common. But the instructor’s approach taught me something crucial: encouragement and constructive feedback make students engage, learn, and grow much faster than criticism alone.
This lesson became even more tangible during my PhD at Oxford. I was often nervous and unsure of my work—but my advisor always began by highlighting what was done well and what progress I had made. Only after acknowledging the positives would he point out what could be improved, always with detailed suggestions. His approach was rigorous but deeply supportive, and it helped me grow tremendously. I saw the same pattern at Columbia with my postdoctoral advisor. Experiencing this kind of mentorship firsthand profoundly influenced how I would later mentor my own students, teaching me the value of starting with encouragement before addressing corrections.
Back in France as a permanent researcher, I see that the old culture persists in many labs. Many PhD students I meet, including at a recent workshop in the south, report that their advisors rarely compliment their work, are not encouraging, and are very tough. Some of this is the “old-fashioned” French model: the harder the training, the stronger the student. Sometimes, perhaps, it’s simply the only model the advisor knows—or maybe a tiny bit of revenge for past experiences.
On my side, I try to maintain positivity in teaching and mentoring. I give detailed, encouraging feedback and highlight improvements, while still keeping high expectations. I will ask a student to redo a figure ten times if it’s not clear—but I do it constructively. My students seem to respond well; motivation is higher and stress is lower, even when standards remain rigorous.
Encouragement doesn’t mean lowering standards. On the contrary, it allows students to reach higher, because they know their effort is seen and valued. Mental well-being, especially in early-career researchers, is deeply connected to how feedback is delivered. Positive management can reduce anxiety, build confidence, and combat imposter syndrome.
Wherever I go, I try to spread this approach. It’s 2025, and the way we mentor and manage students can—and should—change for the better. Encouragement and rigor are not mutually exclusive. Positive management helps students thrive, keeps mental health in check, and ultimately leads to stronger science. Let’s make this a standard, not an exception.