(no subject)
So a prof is playing silly buggers with the grades of my year, and I think she's gonna get a smackdown about it. This prof doesn't teach the course she's evaluating the materials for, but taught the prerequisite for the course last year. Since they tie together with the summer internship, she marks the report we write about the business we worked for. We submitted these reports to her on October 12. We are told this Friday (December 1) that none of the reports are up to par, and they all need to be re-written and resubmitted by December 13 or we will get zero for the assignment. Since this assignment is worth 20% of our grade, this is not peanuts.
First, the angry rant. What the fuck is wrong with this bitch?! It takes her almost two goddamn months to mark the fucking things, and now she tells us they're no good? What is her game? What does she hope to accomplish with this? If she's trying to make sure Ryerson doesn't get any alumni donations from GCM grads, she's doing a bloody good job. I wish I had been in class that day, I've got some pretty penetrating questions I'd like to ask her about her ability to function as a human being.
Now the rational part. My biggest question is how on Earth she intends to get them marked. It took her almost two months last time, and final marks are due to the registrar (or whoever) on December 18. If it took her two months last time, how is she going to get it done in five days? There are 85 reports, averaging 15 pages. About 1,250 pages (did it in my head, might not be right, I'm on my fourth shot) in five days, where critical analysis and judgment are required.
In discussion with other GCM students, I have a theory that is shared by a few other people. This whole 'they're all crap' thing is total bullshit. They're just fine. She wants us to get them tidied up so when they go to the employers (which she is also requiring) they'll look just the way she wants them to (which is a whole other issue I'll get into later). She wants to have a good response rate so that she looks good when it comes time to review her performance as assistant dean. Which is why I'm glad we're appealing her act. That won't look good on her, especially since it's going through the course union.
I also think it's pretty rich, her deciding what we should tell our employers. My last one was a very small business, and the two owners were constantly looking for anything to could exploit to improve their advantage. I had a hard time finding anything I could recommend, these two were so dedicated. Ditto with analysis. They were constantly on watch for any inefficiency they could root out. I've not seen my report yet (I'm getting it on Monday) so I don't know what she has to say specifically about my report, but if it's anything like the others I've seen it will involve nitpicking and aesthetic concerns (one classmate of mine was told not to underline headings, as if that changes the value of the content, or even significantly affects legibility!). It's not like a conventional assignment, where we're all looking at basically the same data, and drawing somewhat different conclusions, or conclusions of differing quality. Businesses vary widely, so it's logical that our recommendations will vary widely. How is she supposed to evaluate them based on the same criteria when the starting conditions are so different? I ended up devoting most of my report to recommendations on when their business expands, since I couldn't really find any faults with their current set-up, beyond a few technological advances they hadn't yet adopted (and they're hardly alone in that respect). However, I know some of my classmates worked for very large printing companies who don't really have much more room to expand without acquiring competitors. Obviously, their reports will differ widely from mine. Despite this wide variation, she can still say they're all 'woeful'.
Drives me nuts. It's one thing to abuse power. That, I'm cynical enough to expect to one degree or another. It's quite another to be so pathological you don't care about other people to achieve your own ends.
First, the angry rant. What the fuck is wrong with this bitch?! It takes her almost two goddamn months to mark the fucking things, and now she tells us they're no good? What is her game? What does she hope to accomplish with this? If she's trying to make sure Ryerson doesn't get any alumni donations from GCM grads, she's doing a bloody good job. I wish I had been in class that day, I've got some pretty penetrating questions I'd like to ask her about her ability to function as a human being.
Now the rational part. My biggest question is how on Earth she intends to get them marked. It took her almost two months last time, and final marks are due to the registrar (or whoever) on December 18. If it took her two months last time, how is she going to get it done in five days? There are 85 reports, averaging 15 pages. About 1,250 pages (did it in my head, might not be right, I'm on my fourth shot) in five days, where critical analysis and judgment are required.
In discussion with other GCM students, I have a theory that is shared by a few other people. This whole 'they're all crap' thing is total bullshit. They're just fine. She wants us to get them tidied up so when they go to the employers (which she is also requiring) they'll look just the way she wants them to (which is a whole other issue I'll get into later). She wants to have a good response rate so that she looks good when it comes time to review her performance as assistant dean. Which is why I'm glad we're appealing her act. That won't look good on her, especially since it's going through the course union.
I also think it's pretty rich, her deciding what we should tell our employers. My last one was a very small business, and the two owners were constantly looking for anything to could exploit to improve their advantage. I had a hard time finding anything I could recommend, these two were so dedicated. Ditto with analysis. They were constantly on watch for any inefficiency they could root out. I've not seen my report yet (I'm getting it on Monday) so I don't know what she has to say specifically about my report, but if it's anything like the others I've seen it will involve nitpicking and aesthetic concerns (one classmate of mine was told not to underline headings, as if that changes the value of the content, or even significantly affects legibility!). It's not like a conventional assignment, where we're all looking at basically the same data, and drawing somewhat different conclusions, or conclusions of differing quality. Businesses vary widely, so it's logical that our recommendations will vary widely. How is she supposed to evaluate them based on the same criteria when the starting conditions are so different? I ended up devoting most of my report to recommendations on when their business expands, since I couldn't really find any faults with their current set-up, beyond a few technological advances they hadn't yet adopted (and they're hardly alone in that respect). However, I know some of my classmates worked for very large printing companies who don't really have much more room to expand without acquiring competitors. Obviously, their reports will differ widely from mine. Despite this wide variation, she can still say they're all 'woeful'.
Drives me nuts. It's one thing to abuse power. That, I'm cynical enough to expect to one degree or another. It's quite another to be so pathological you don't care about other people to achieve your own ends.