Good news! The people at Cowtech University have assessed my Performance Self-Evaluation Evidence Portfolio and sent it back with a list of comments for improving the Portfolio before it goes off to the Tertiary Education Commission, all neatly tabulated in the form of a checklist.
Item 13 on the checklist: "Is the research trajectory evidenced?" It appears that I was supposed to write a Trajectory within one of the boxes provided on the Portfolio form. Sadly, my Research Trajectory is more of a vertical plummet. The only times I can bring myself to use the word 'trajectory' is in close association with 'rectory' in the lines of a rude limerick.
Item 18: "Is the commentary / narrative embedded throughout the entire Evidence Portfolio? Provides an overview which connects all the elements of the Evidence Portfolio." Apparently the Tertiary Education Commission wants narrative. I hope they are prepared for slapstick comedy.
The Assessment team complain that in the absence of sufficient Narrative, they are unable to form a constructive opinion on a number of items on the checklist, beginning with #1, "Is selection of TEC panel appropriate to the 4 NROs selected and appropriate to where the person is publishing?"
But fortunately I pass on Item 9: "Is the Evidence Portfolio free of cryptic references? (abbreviations, institutional specific, jargon, acronyms etc)". So it's celebration time down at the pub and the first pint of Gaffer Gammidge's Parsnip Elixir and Shoat Weaner is on me!
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
My paradigm was shifted as I read this. And my box? It really made me think outside it.
I would prefer to think inside the box but there always seems to be one of the cats sitting there.
I would prefer to think inside the box but there always seems to be one of the cats sitting there.
and that stupid flask of poison that Schrodinger keeps putting there.
I love when they ask for 5 year plans when everything changes on an hourly basis.
I would prefer to think inside the box but there always seems to be one of the cats sitting there.
Geez, what kind of gargantuan women are you hanging around?
Smut's macrophilia revealed...
Sadly, my Research Trajectory is more of a vertical plummet.
I've read that the gravity of small objects has an effect much larger objects, and the perturbation can be measurable. It's possible that in falling toward your research goal, you are at the same time ever so slightly drawing it towards you(this is also true of death, which draws us through time as the ground draws falling objects through air). Tell them you are concurrently researching the properties of the medium through which you fall, specifically in regards to buoyancy and lift.
If you name it après Diderot, you can skip the narrative step, too.
***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THIS IS NOT A STORY***
***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THIS IS NOT A STORY***
Thankfully, we can leave the harvesting of the Shoat Weaners to the professionals, as the Shoats tend to be somewhat persnickety...
"... appropriate to the 4 NROs selected and appropriate to where the person is publishing?"
Isn't one NRO (National Review Online, we assume.) more than enough?
So... you're not aiming for a high PBRF score this time round then?
Post a Comment