So most of these are just random thoughts of mine, this one will be no different!
Even if I tried to stay on a single topic, my mind tends to drag and shanghai other ideas into the picture. Perhaps this very mental activity is why people accuse me of intelligence? When you work with a bunch of dim type A…
And now for something completely different:
Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid.
--Heinrich Heine (1797 - 1856)
So my father arrived at my house last night. He informed me of his intentions to visit last week, but he also said he was arriving yesterday. So my beloved went to great troubles to have a wonderful meal, and then no guest. That was just fine with me, as her cooking is heavenly and thus more divinity in my belly. To top off the crab-crap sandwich of not showing up, I am suffering from allergies and my wife has a cold (perhaps allergies, but perhaps not).
About 2:45 yesterday, I got a voicemail saying he was in town and wanted to know if we were going to be home. Almost told him we had plans, but decided to make nice. He said he would come over between 5 and 5:30. Truth be told, he showed up after 6 (almost 6:30). Well he toured the property, sat in my mustang and sat on the deck. We talked about nothing much. His wife’s ex-brother-in-law John and John’s alcoholic cancer suffering wife were the main topics. Keep in mind, I have never met either of them and probably never will, but I guess stories will be stories.
At a little after 6:30 we went to a supper club (use that term just for the Pace technical recruiter, as she laughs out loud every time she hears it). We had an over priced dinner, that I didn’t have to pay for. The kids were in perfect form – if you want to make an argument for mandatory chemical sterilization, and parenting licensing. Now understand that this is a quiet place and the kids were trying to shout each other down and swearing like sailors. There was a nice late 40s couple a few tables over; they just sat back and watched the display of insanity.
It would not have surprised me if one of them would up and spit on the floor. The real crazy in all of this is that they were not nearly as bad as they often are. I would say ½ the volume and ¼ the vulgarity. Well my dad, as a social worker, has worked child welfare. He also raised a pair of daughters, one of which tried to stab the other to death; of course it is worth mentioning that she had to first kick down the bathroom door to get to her sister. He was not phased, but that does not make it all right.
I am completely off the Benadryl (Diphenhydramine hydrochloride – just for Maria). I am suffering much less. Still have some of the sinus pressure, but very manageable. I hope that the lovely and talented Mrs. Anderson is not afflicted with a cold, but rather allergies and they abate VERY quickly. I do think that the Clairiton is messing with my blood sugar.
Maria was trying to use this material as a sleep aid, but went out and purchased Claritin and could not figure out why she could not fall asleep.
WORK:
Let’s play the blame game. First the problem – the assessments our group (myself included) are turning out are unacceptable. The “quality” of the assessment needs to be increased. My first issue rests directly on the idea of how quality is defined. Assessments are complicated and large documents. They are not so much big stacks of paper, but more piles of data. Lots of information is packed into each sentence. I would assume that quality refers to the employment of this data and subsequent interpretations. If the data is correctly utilized then the assessment has quality. Thus omissions of data or less precise use of the data would result in a lower quality assessment. In my most recent reviews, I have not received comments about data. No corrections were made in reference to my use, or utilization of data. In fact, all of the recent comments have surrounded grammatical and syntax errors. Obviously my idea of quality is incorrect. The definition of quality is resolved through grammar. If this is the measure of quality of our assessments, then we need to look at fault – as there is a huge problem with grammar.
The assessors are at fault. The individuals writing the assessments are not “excellent” writers. Criticism of word choice and syntax has been abundant. So the blame is on the author, but for the employer is offering positions to people who are not specialists in English composition. Most of the people hired are educated in a science field. In fact the requirements for the position are centered on science education. No requirements are specified for flawless English. Thus the blame is not the author but rather the employer. If they required greater ability in use of the English language, then quality would be higher. The employer does not accept this argument based on the fact that qualified applicants must have earned an undergraduate or graduate degree (in our case some of the worst “quality” comes from group members holding MS degrees). This prerequisite, in the employers mind, should be high enough to ensure the ability to use the English language. Thus the blame is upon the university(s) as they are failing to educate to a high enough standard. If the college systems were more demanding in terms of writing ability then the “quality” would be high enough. The university systems require the same degree of writing intensive courses as always. In most cases the writing requirements for graduation have increased significantly. So the university system is not to blame, but rather the actual educators who are passing students who cannot write. The college professors are at fault for ever slipping requirements in writing requirements. The professors disagree because the level of criticism in writing is strictly defined. In my last college courses papers were marked off for “countable errors.” A countable error was any grammatical or syntax error. An “A” paper could have no more than 5 countable errors before being down graded. Hence a “B” content paper would be awarded a “C” if it also contained 6 countable errors. This standard was adopted by the university and thus the professors doing the grading from the publishing industry. The publishing industry criteria are somewhat difficult to obtain and the justifications for setting the standards is even more problematic, but headless of that, this level of “quality” is defined as professional and at the university level the top 10% of the students. Hence it’s the publishing industry that is responsible for the poor “quality” in our assessments. Let pick specifically Time Magazine.
Perhaps the university should have adopted different standards. Perhaps the employer should have required applicants to complete a writing test. Perhaps the authors should campaign for increased standards in academics. Perhaps the criteria for “Quality” are unrealistic and only set at this level because the reviewers don’t have the technical expertise (knowledge) to review anything else. Perhaps it’s because the position of administrative assistant no longer requires English classes.
Oooo that’s it! Our society (those who read Time) is to blame! We don’t have the traditional, sexist, stereotypical position of secretary, and thus a significant amount of writing is not being reviewed by people. Rather it is being peer reviewed (for technical merit) and passed on. The people who are doing the reviews are not qualified to correct English problems (only technical) and when it reaches a level where "quality" is being questioned the people doing the reviews are only able to comment on the English (because they have no ability to understand the technical aspects). If all of the writing went through secretaries then you would have a review on a non-technical level, by someone who was educated in English rules and syntax (and trained). Then should errors be found the blame does not fall back to the author (who is doing a good technical job), but rather to a busy and invaluable secretary. – PROBLEM SOLVED – GET ME A SECRETARY...with big, round, perky…typing skills.
Even if I tried to stay on a single topic, my mind tends to drag and shanghai other ideas into the picture. Perhaps this very mental activity is why people accuse me of intelligence? When you work with a bunch of dim type A…
And now for something completely different:
Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid.
--Heinrich Heine (1797 - 1856)
So my father arrived at my house last night. He informed me of his intentions to visit last week, but he also said he was arriving yesterday. So my beloved went to great troubles to have a wonderful meal, and then no guest. That was just fine with me, as her cooking is heavenly and thus more divinity in my belly. To top off the crab-crap sandwich of not showing up, I am suffering from allergies and my wife has a cold (perhaps allergies, but perhaps not).
About 2:45 yesterday, I got a voicemail saying he was in town and wanted to know if we were going to be home. Almost told him we had plans, but decided to make nice. He said he would come over between 5 and 5:30. Truth be told, he showed up after 6 (almost 6:30). Well he toured the property, sat in my mustang and sat on the deck. We talked about nothing much. His wife’s ex-brother-in-law John and John’s alcoholic cancer suffering wife were the main topics. Keep in mind, I have never met either of them and probably never will, but I guess stories will be stories.
At a little after 6:30 we went to a supper club (use that term just for the Pace technical recruiter, as she laughs out loud every time she hears it). We had an over priced dinner, that I didn’t have to pay for. The kids were in perfect form – if you want to make an argument for mandatory chemical sterilization, and parenting licensing. Now understand that this is a quiet place and the kids were trying to shout each other down and swearing like sailors. There was a nice late 40s couple a few tables over; they just sat back and watched the display of insanity.
It would not have surprised me if one of them would up and spit on the floor. The real crazy in all of this is that they were not nearly as bad as they often are. I would say ½ the volume and ¼ the vulgarity. Well my dad, as a social worker, has worked child welfare. He also raised a pair of daughters, one of which tried to stab the other to death; of course it is worth mentioning that she had to first kick down the bathroom door to get to her sister. He was not phased, but that does not make it all right.
I am completely off the Benadryl (Diphenhydramine hydrochloride – just for Maria). I am suffering much less. Still have some of the sinus pressure, but very manageable. I hope that the lovely and talented Mrs. Anderson is not afflicted with a cold, but rather allergies and they abate VERY quickly. I do think that the Clairiton is messing with my blood sugar.
Maria was trying to use this material as a sleep aid, but went out and purchased Claritin and could not figure out why she could not fall asleep.WORK:
Let’s play the blame game. First the problem – the assessments our group (myself included) are turning out are unacceptable. The “quality” of the assessment needs to be increased. My first issue rests directly on the idea of how quality is defined. Assessments are complicated and large documents. They are not so much big stacks of paper, but more piles of data. Lots of information is packed into each sentence. I would assume that quality refers to the employment of this data and subsequent interpretations. If the data is correctly utilized then the assessment has quality. Thus omissions of data or less precise use of the data would result in a lower quality assessment. In my most recent reviews, I have not received comments about data. No corrections were made in reference to my use, or utilization of data. In fact, all of the recent comments have surrounded grammatical and syntax errors. Obviously my idea of quality is incorrect. The definition of quality is resolved through grammar. If this is the measure of quality of our assessments, then we need to look at fault – as there is a huge problem with grammar.
The assessors are at fault. The individuals writing the assessments are not “excellent” writers. Criticism of word choice and syntax has been abundant. So the blame is on the author, but for the employer is offering positions to people who are not specialists in English composition. Most of the people hired are educated in a science field. In fact the requirements for the position are centered on science education. No requirements are specified for flawless English. Thus the blame is not the author but rather the employer. If they required greater ability in use of the English language, then quality would be higher. The employer does not accept this argument based on the fact that qualified applicants must have earned an undergraduate or graduate degree (in our case some of the worst “quality” comes from group members holding MS degrees). This prerequisite, in the employers mind, should be high enough to ensure the ability to use the English language. Thus the blame is upon the university(s) as they are failing to educate to a high enough standard. If the college systems were more demanding in terms of writing ability then the “quality” would be high enough. The university systems require the same degree of writing intensive courses as always. In most cases the writing requirements for graduation have increased significantly. So the university system is not to blame, but rather the actual educators who are passing students who cannot write. The college professors are at fault for ever slipping requirements in writing requirements. The professors disagree because the level of criticism in writing is strictly defined. In my last college courses papers were marked off for “countable errors.” A countable error was any grammatical or syntax error. An “A” paper could have no more than 5 countable errors before being down graded. Hence a “B” content paper would be awarded a “C” if it also contained 6 countable errors. This standard was adopted by the university and thus the professors doing the grading from the publishing industry. The publishing industry criteria are somewhat difficult to obtain and the justifications for setting the standards is even more problematic, but headless of that, this level of “quality” is defined as professional and at the university level the top 10% of the students. Hence it’s the publishing industry that is responsible for the poor “quality” in our assessments. Let pick specifically Time Magazine.
Perhaps the university should have adopted different standards. Perhaps the employer should have required applicants to complete a writing test. Perhaps the authors should campaign for increased standards in academics. Perhaps the criteria for “Quality” are unrealistic and only set at this level because the reviewers don’t have the technical expertise (knowledge) to review anything else. Perhaps it’s because the position of administrative assistant no longer requires English classes.
Oooo that’s it! Our society (those who read Time) is to blame! We don’t have the traditional, sexist, stereotypical position of secretary, and thus a significant amount of writing is not being reviewed by people. Rather it is being peer reviewed (for technical merit) and passed on. The people who are doing the reviews are not qualified to correct English problems (only technical) and when it reaches a level where "quality" is being questioned the people doing the reviews are only able to comment on the English (because they have no ability to understand the technical aspects). If all of the writing went through secretaries then you would have a review on a non-technical level, by someone who was educated in English rules and syntax (and trained). Then should errors be found the blame does not fall back to the author (who is doing a good technical job), but rather to a busy and invaluable secretary. – PROBLEM SOLVED – GET ME A SECRETARY...with big, round, perky…typing skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment