deepening dislike of PHd student
As promised, here is my mark and the feedback for my POP2 practical assessement that I didn before Easter. As you can probably tell from the entry title, it hasn't exactly increased his popularity.
Conceptual Development: B
Creativity: B
Content: B
Skills and Techniques: B/C
Investigation/Research: B
Group Comment: This piece had a good sense of dramatic style and the ideas behind the performance were fairly well developed. It would, however, have benefitted from closer scrutiny of what constitues "sex in society" and sexuality more generally - there were many areas of sexuality that were ignored completely and others which were simply washed over. The form of the piece was set up well and was both effective and enjoyable, although certain scenes were far from fully realised and many needed to me more carefully executed. One element that needed particular attention were the transitions between scenes; while the setting up of a "host" for the show helped smooth the way between scenes, there was still an element of chunkiness and hestiation. Overall, the piece worked well and tackled some difficult material in diverse and interesting ways but was not fully realised and lacked depth in performance.
Individual Comment: Lizzy, your performance was committed and energetic with a clear understanding of the material, your place within the piece and displayed good versatility. There were times when you were in danger of over acting, pusing the style out of sync with the rest of the piece but overall a competant and enjoyable performance.
Overall mark: 64%
Ok, so it's a 2:1 - not bad, you say. However, what a nasty piece of feedback. So, just because I don't like our jumped-up-PHd-student of a tutor, I will now go on to pick to pieces his feedback. Don't you just love bitterness?
1) "there were many areas of sexuality that were ignored completely and others which were simply washed over" - that's because you only gave us 20-30 minutes.. and you can't do everything!
2) "certain scenes were far from fully realised and many needed to me more carefully executed" - this is because we were underrehearsed, since you only gave us 4 days to devise and rehearse our piece, and you told us it didn't have to be polished :( And, "needed to ME"? *tuts*
3) "One element that needed particular attention were the transitions between scenes" - if you had been listening, you would have noticed that what we were presenting were a series of experiments, something you set us to do. Therefore, no scenes, and no need to make smooth "polished" transitions.
4) "there was still an element of chunkiness" - tee hee, chunkiness.
5) "was not fully realised and lacked depth in performance" - again, lack of rehearsal time. You can't achieve that much in 4 days.
6) "There were times when you were in danger of over acting" - Moi? No, with all seriousness, some characters were meant to be exaggerated, and others weren't... nevertheless, highly insulting.
7) "a competant" - gee, thanks.
You get the idea. Anyway, at least he had SOME good things to say about me - I've spoken to other people in my group and their feedback comments are a lot harsher. And, it looks like I got the highest mark out of my group, so I guess I can't complain too much. Well, I can always try :D
Anyway, now to the Cultures of Performance essay feedback - slightly nicer.
Coverage: B
Analysis: A/B
Presentation: B
Comments: A very good essay with a measured and compelling style of presentation. You handle the ideas maturely and with confidence - including the nice reference to Husserl when things had the potential to go astray. A good piece!
Overall mark: 67%
Now, considering I got such nice comments from him and got a 67, and such.. bleh ones from Mr PHd and got a 64, and then considering that there were only 3 marks between the two, something seems slightly fishy. Either Mr PHd is overmarking, or Calvin is undermarking. Hmmm.
Either way, they're both 2:1s, so it's not so bad I suppose.
Conceptual Development: B
Creativity: B
Content: B
Skills and Techniques: B/C
Investigation/Research: B
Group Comment: This piece had a good sense of dramatic style and the ideas behind the performance were fairly well developed. It would, however, have benefitted from closer scrutiny of what constitues "sex in society" and sexuality more generally - there were many areas of sexuality that were ignored completely and others which were simply washed over. The form of the piece was set up well and was both effective and enjoyable, although certain scenes were far from fully realised and many needed to me more carefully executed. One element that needed particular attention were the transitions between scenes; while the setting up of a "host" for the show helped smooth the way between scenes, there was still an element of chunkiness and hestiation. Overall, the piece worked well and tackled some difficult material in diverse and interesting ways but was not fully realised and lacked depth in performance.
Individual Comment: Lizzy, your performance was committed and energetic with a clear understanding of the material, your place within the piece and displayed good versatility. There were times when you were in danger of over acting, pusing the style out of sync with the rest of the piece but overall a competant and enjoyable performance.
Overall mark: 64%
Ok, so it's a 2:1 - not bad, you say. However, what a nasty piece of feedback. So, just because I don't like our jumped-up-PHd-student of a tutor, I will now go on to pick to pieces his feedback. Don't you just love bitterness?
1) "there were many areas of sexuality that were ignored completely and others which were simply washed over" - that's because you only gave us 20-30 minutes.. and you can't do everything!
2) "certain scenes were far from fully realised and many needed to me more carefully executed" - this is because we were underrehearsed, since you only gave us 4 days to devise and rehearse our piece, and you told us it didn't have to be polished :( And, "needed to ME"? *tuts*
3) "One element that needed particular attention were the transitions between scenes" - if you had been listening, you would have noticed that what we were presenting were a series of experiments, something you set us to do. Therefore, no scenes, and no need to make smooth "polished" transitions.
4) "there was still an element of chunkiness" - tee hee, chunkiness.
5) "was not fully realised and lacked depth in performance" - again, lack of rehearsal time. You can't achieve that much in 4 days.
6) "There were times when you were in danger of over acting" - Moi? No, with all seriousness, some characters were meant to be exaggerated, and others weren't... nevertheless, highly insulting.
7) "a competant" - gee, thanks.
You get the idea. Anyway, at least he had SOME good things to say about me - I've spoken to other people in my group and their feedback comments are a lot harsher. And, it looks like I got the highest mark out of my group, so I guess I can't complain too much. Well, I can always try :D
Anyway, now to the Cultures of Performance essay feedback - slightly nicer.
Coverage: B
Analysis: A/B
Presentation: B
Comments: A very good essay with a measured and compelling style of presentation. You handle the ideas maturely and with confidence - including the nice reference to Husserl when things had the potential to go astray. A good piece!
Overall mark: 67%
Now, considering I got such nice comments from him and got a 67, and such.. bleh ones from Mr PHd and got a 64, and then considering that there were only 3 marks between the two, something seems slightly fishy. Either Mr PHd is overmarking, or Calvin is undermarking. Hmmm.
Either way, they're both 2:1s, so it's not so bad I suppose.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 3:37 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
As you say, such a small difference between the marks. Only goes to show that, even given a short period of time, you can still put in the work and get results.
Well done!
Yeah welldone! :)
» Post a Comment