Kelly wrote, regarding constructive criticism: > In closing, I'd like to say something about constructive criticism. > To me this implies that the one doing to criticism provide at least > an idea of how these problems should be fixed. I would encourage all > of you reading this to return to the above 5 sections, and ask, what > could I have done to improve the situation, and if you have any > possible solutions, please let me know, as I am planning to do this > again next year. To me, the criticisms in Mr. Fine's post were > directed at things were the result of unavoidable human imperfection > or things that could only be changed by creating greater problems. > Any posts or emails proposing constructive solutions will be read > with great interest by me. > That's fair enough, and I admit I did miscount the number of packets - - it was 15. I thought I did provide some constructive criticism, but I missed some points, so here is what I meant to write: 1. On "recycled subject matter," look at the packets. Eliminate one or two of the references to Poe, for example, and replace them with a couple famous, gettable authors missing from the set, such as Faulkner or Hemingway. 2. On bonus parts, eliminate really obscure answers, and attempt to create an easy-medium-hard difficulty spectrum. I'm sorry Seth, but we spent about ten minutes in my 400 level European art history course on Mengs, so he is hardly ACF Fall material. 3. On the use of five editor packets out of 15, I'll take your word that the submissions were poor, but I know that in my experience editing for the Terrapin, I kept at least part of every packet (some from less experienced schools) that I received by five days before the tournament, save one, and in that case, I would have created a 17th packet by combining it with a packet I received from Mike Usher, were a 17th packet necessary. I think one or two more packets should be created next time, given the number of submissions received. I also suggest combining packets from schools; were the submissions so poor that you could not have saved at least a third of each packet, and then wrote a few filler questions where needed? 4. Pyramid structure is a matter of opinion, so I'll withdraw there. 5. On errors... I'm glad you sent the packets out the Sunday before this weekend, which makes sense. Why was I able to find five easily correctable factual/structural errors off the bat, then? Stating that Paz was a South American author, I agree, is not a big deal. Eliminating a bonus part without replacing it is another matter; I'd have to believe someone would have caught that within 5-6 days. So I guess a more careful reading of the questions is necessary. -Adam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST