Let’s see how many people pay attention to this blog without Facebook or Yahoo updates. It’s Sunday morning and I think I deserve a little sunshine. Here are some things running through my head at this point.
1. I’m amused with how students have described my handling of the Middle East Summit. One called me The Buddha leading his students to enlightenment. Another called me The Joker for conducting a nasty sociological experiment. But my favorite has to be the one who described me on that morning of Win As Much As You Can as the big bad from Saw (the slasher flick). Welcome kiddies to my house of horrors.
2. Average grade of the post-summits so far is 3.33 or B. Only one person has gotten an ‘S’ so far.
3. Almost everyone underestimated #2. It’s 2.4 point credits (compared to the 1.6 of #1) and thus required much more rigor and industry to answer. I’ve given zeros and 0.5s for #2.
4. You can’t fool me with a long #1. Entries that got too long, rambly and ‘livejournal-y’ wouldn’t get perfect unless they were deep, profound, and insightful too. I’ll respect rants, but if I don’t see a point to it then you don’t get the grade either. There’s a big difference between someone who just rants and someone who actually gets around to answering the question.
5. I’m more than halfway done! I’m currently finishing up one section, and I’ll have a quick Sunday weekend, work on the long test tomorrow, and wrap up the remaining papers.
*hoping that I didn’t get the 0*
I have a pretty good idea of my horrible grade right now.
The ‘untold rule’ of point credits: For every two pages of #1 (40%), there should be three pages of #2 (60%). I won’t be strict with that of course, but that illustrates where I prefer to see more effort.
That hyped me up to read :O):
@sir martin : that makes me a 0 in part two…. Gaah. I shouldn’t have passed early…
/screams in frustration and does not want to see her horrible grade
>mfw I read this
D’:
Sir, can I get extra points for the Saw thing?