I got the midterm evaluation from Ackley back. I'm honestly not too psyched. I'd like to take this opportunity to reflect on the comments he provides. He rates things on a 5 point scale.
Attendance, classes |...xx|
Not entirely sure about this. I've attended every class. I'll take this not perfect score to mean my being late on a couple occasions for academic advisement--although that only happened the second half of this semester, so it doesn't really apply to the midterm evaluation . . .
Attendance, meetings |....x|
Participation, classes |..xx.|
Arguably I probably could have participated more in class.
Participation, meetings |..xx.|
Actually this should probably be lower. Particularly of late, I let everyone else do the talking. I suppose since this is the midterm evaluation, maybe it's fair.
Proposal draft |x....|
Really? When he gave the initial evaluation, it was a 1.5/5. I guess he rounds down. But honestly, it wasn't so bad. It met the length requirements, and discussed everything it needed to. It was rough around the edges, sure, but not that rough. See also my overall reaction to the reviews. I can only assume he's judging me against everyone else, and that mine was on the lowest end.
Proposal revision |xx...|
Again, seriously? I thought that, even if the original proposal was bad, the revised proposal was much much better. It addressed literally everything that anyone complained about! It was more clear, concise, and explained the idea better. I worked hard on this, and it was most certainly not an incremental change.
Proposal reviewing |..xx.|
This is about accurate I feel. Maybe a solid 4 would be nice, but I *could* have reviewed more than two proposals, I guess . . . ?
Proposal pitch |..x..|
What was wrong with it? On Ackley's scale, this was "okay". I memorized my presentation, practiced it extensively, and presented it next to flawlessly. I even got some laughs from the audience, which very few other people did. I even dressed for the occasion!
Proposal impact |.x...|
Arguably correct. It was a computer game, which isn't too important in the grand scheme of things.
Blogging |...x.|
Also about accurate. My blogging is pretty decent, if not stellar.
Interim self-evaluation |...x.|
Impact (Jan-Mar) |..x..|
Overall (interim) |.xx..|
--0++
Comments:
Proposal draft undercut itself right out of the gate. Revision
improved in some aspects but doubled-down on the essential problem of the draft. Pitch was mostly okay, given the content issues, if a bit weak on delivery.
As before, the delivery was pretty awesome I thought. Maybe I just didn't project an aura of confidence or something. I didn't stutter or pause or talk at my feet or any of the stuff you're not supposed to do, and I hit the time goal within 5 seconds, so Ackley, some clarification, perhaps? I like to think of myself as a decent public speaker. Ackley, if you have any suggestions, please let me know!
Also, on an accusatory note, I feel like my performance in the first part of the class is being judged based on Ackley's dislike of my proposal idea. I understand that computer games aren't everyone's cup of tea, but that doesn't mean my proposal, reviews, and presentation of it necessarily sucked. I'm trying to be tactful, but I'm not seeing any other way to explain these reviews.
Blogging has been a relative[ly] bright spot. Quantity has held up overall, and posts are fairly often contentful, if fairly often blatantly self-serving as well.
I mostly agree with this. I wouldn't call them self-serving. As above, they're showing content, and if that content happens to paint me in a favorable light, so be it. I'm not going to try to argue that I didn't focus on the best of my work, though, so maybe in some sense you could call it self-serving . . . ?
There is a lesson in continually getting the feeling that for some reason one's code is inherently better than code produced in the "real world".
Yeah. I catch the double meaning; there are two lessons for me. The first is: "I'm a pompous jerk.". The second is: "Maybe I'm employable anyway."
Self-eval has lots of data.
Good. I was hoping I was doing it right.
The utter absence of any interpersonal aspects in the self-eval areas for improvement is telling.
That's my bad. I'm going to assume "intrapersonal" was intended (though both are applicable for this criticism). I was under the impression I wasn't supposed to discuss my personal thoughts. Though, it was a "self-eval". I focused more on my achievements or lack thereof. For the final self-eval, I will be sure to add this in. It may not be telling in the way he thinks it though; the lack of interpersonal aspects is probably a manifestation of my psychological condition. Really though, in the form given, it says to "focus on your achievements". So, I don't know . . . ?
Overall: It really is good to be brashly self-confident; it really can be a valuable trait, but it also gets very old very fast -- when working with other people -- unless it is coupled with a willingness to listen and hear, to share credit generously where possible, and to take blame squarely and without weaseling when justified.
Sarcasm aside, I think this is valid criticism. I am very confident in my abilities. Part of that is justified by successful experience. As far as my group is concerned, I certainly take my share of flak, and I like to think I do it honorably. Let's face it--I'm a horrible liar, so I can't weasel out of anything by blaming it on other people, and I'm generally personable once you get past my outer, defensive shell of self-confidence. Maybe that should go in my next self-evaluation.
Thanks,
Ian
No comments:
Post a Comment