| > anyone editing my work wanted more verbiage I _never_ got that feedback. My mentors all emphasized economy of language and nobody cared how "thick" my thesis was. This is a pretty amusing story about verbiage. Back in the old days, you would send a manuscript/research article to colleagues/friends by _snail-mail_ to get their feedback. You'd wait a month, and maybe they would mail a 'red-inked' copy of your manuscript back to you. My Ph.D. advisor sent out a draft to a colleague who was famous for being harsh with the red-ink. After a month, my advisor receives the manuscript in the mail. * He turns to page 1. No red ink! * He turns to page 2. STILL no red ink! [He must looove the paper] * Keeps turning pages (no red ink!!). * On page 10--in red ink--is written, "Start here." |
So this puts the reviewer in a situation with misaligned incentives. They might prefer to tell you to prioritize concise communication, but believe the risk is high that such a thing will get vetoed by the committee for Dilberty reasons, and thus their feedback gets optimized for what the committee will superficially think.
When the committee is mostly attentive professors, this isn’t so bad and everybody is aligned on short, to-the-point style.
But my experience is that this is hardly true. Maybe one committee member will be an attentive technical authority, sometimes only your advisor. The others will be deans or directors of various sorts who view it as an administrative chore to even have to sign off, and probably farm that review out to grad students or adjuncts, who are far more likely to take a capricious point of view about e.g. heavy literature review or conclusion sections.