Hi,
Cant reply to any thread, so after having avoided posting all day, here's a new thread to reply to GW.
Supervisors vary in their styles and temperaments as widely as supervisees and their projects and personas do. So everyone here will come up with answers specific to their situations.
Here's my two pence. Our equation works this way. My sup is infinitely busy, a frontline scholar and one of my greatest intellectual inspirations. She takes different forms with every student, depending on *student* temperaments. But yes, a paper submission before each meeting is compulsory. My style is, everything except the intellectual is left outside her concerns. She and I have solely intellectual conversations that have only inspired me till date.
But thats style specific. I manage my proejct, my deadlines, my plans myself. But I keep her abreast of everything and get her YES to it all.
The fact that your sup cares enough to comment closely one very slide is actually great if they r genuinely productive comments (which I didnt quite get from ur post). If they r nit picking style, then there maybe a problem. Also, weekly supervisions r unusual perhaps, and may be a bit intense though clearly if they have the time for weekly supervision thats great.
I would suggest going into the meetings with a clealry (though not rigidly) defined agenda, which he is aware of before the meeting. Make conscious attempts to literally sieve out the pellets of intellectual contribution you derive from a supervision, after its done but before you forget it, and write it down.
Trust me, by the time you recharge your batteries, and go back to them they'll make sense.
All of this, though, I say, assuming an intellectually committed an engaged supervisor. Setting your own discomforts about being pushed (and questioned) aside, if there are personal/intelletcual problems with them thats a totally diff issue.
best :)
