-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, > Any organization administrator or mentor can score an application an > unlimited number of times. The cumulative scoring history for each > mentor will be displayed in the Cumulative Evaluation section. > > To add a score to an application, select a numeric value (+4, +2, > +1, -1, -2) from the "Evaluation" drop down list and click "Add > Comment/Eval." You can also post a private comment as part of adding > a score, but it is not necessary to add a comment when scoring. > > Please note that scores are not taken into account by Google as part > of the student allocation process. The scoring function is solely to > allow organizations to rank applications. Please note that an > application that has a mentor assigned will always appear higher on > an organization's application list than one with a higher score but > no mentor assigned. I think we'll be using +/- 2 mostly, I can't think of any reason we'd want to use +4 right now, we can use it later to re-jig the orderings if there's a problem. For now, can I ask that we keep our scores in the -2 to +2 range to see how far that gets us. Scores are cumulative, so if you rate as +2 then change your mind to -1 you need to do -1 and -2. Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFH+ueWZnKd+ctxHMoRAjwEAJ0bkk4mDr58Qoh4dQVmjghk30m1RQCgpmKg DEAMEUnqDdtusVOof9fG+N0= =s5Jk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Thread Outline:
-
Matthew Wilkes wrote: > I think we'll be using +/- 2 mostly, I can't think of any reason we'd > want to use +4 right now, we can use it later to re-jig the orderings > if there's a problem. > > For now, can I ask that we keep our scores in the -2 to +2 range to > see how far that gets us. Scores are cumulative, so if you rate as +2 > then change your mind to -1 you need to do -1 and -2. In past years, we've had a bit of discussion around the merits of various proposals. Some things can look great on the surface but show signs off a student that could be flaky. Some students we know to be deserving, even if their English isn't the best so they don't always sound it. I think it's useful to build some consensus on what we think should be the top 5 and the top 10, say. Sometimes, we need to fiddle the voting a bit to arrive at that, but since not everyone is likely to vote and not everyone is going to interpret the voting system exactly in the same way, I'd argue this is better than trying to be democratic (which we won't manage). Martin
-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Heisei 0020-04-08, at 042003EDT, Martin Aspeli wrote: > I think it's useful to build some consensus on what we think should > be the top 5 and the top 10, say. Sometimes, we need to fiddle the > voting a bit to arrive at that, but since not everyone is likely to > vote and not everyone is going to interpret the voting system > exactly in the same way, I'd argue this is better than trying to be > democratic (which we won't manage). Ok, that seems sensible, I was expecting us to need to do that at the end anyway to sort out draws. I'll change the membership of this list to only be the accepted mentors so we can discuss on here in private. Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFH+7EVZnKd+ctxHMoRAq1uAKCFk1EZ4M6z7D9WJocsYFIu5vwzXACfTzbE 1IzIDD16hnjGCfgPVsQNb5I= =mx4/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-