|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An AAPE Feeder System to National Judging |
|||
|
Fran Adams |
|||
|
The Philatelic Exhibitor, Vol. 15, Nr. 1, January 2001 |
|||
|
I'vebeen daydreaming again (and we both know that's dangerous), this time exploring various ideas which might introduce practices or programs to advance a few issues before the exhibiting community; APS Judge 'Continuing Education', 'Single Discipline, Single Frame Jury' specialists and an 'AAPE Judging Program' acting as seed stock for APS multi-frame qualification. I've spoken to Ann Triggle to get some feedback from AAPE's point of view and am now presenting you with the same information. |
|||
|
There are points, benefits and drawbacks to these thoughts, but if I don't voice them I'll never know what might have been, so here are the results (in somewhat coherent order). Please review the following and should any of these ideas be workable, please use them to advance the current state and procedures for qualification of judges, etc. Further, an example for ANYPEX '99 is at the end of this note. |
|||
|
Observations/Comments |
|||
|
1. Judges are not the most plentiful commodity. |
|||
|
There seems to be no endless line of exhibitors beating down APS's door to become qualified jurors and some shows have difficulty getting a full complement. Some judges are overworked and cannot find it in their hearts to say no regardless of the fact they've overspent their budgets for philatelic engagements by June and still have three more shows to do before the end of the year. |
|||
|
AAPE has no accreditation program and APS has no 'draft league'. It would be in APS and AAPE interests to establish an AAPE accreditation program which dovetails into the existing APS program. The AAPE should concentrate on what AAPE currently does well (AmeristampExpo), namely - Single Frames and Single Disciplines. Such a program would provide additional jury resources in multi-frames by increasing the pool of prospective jurors and fields of expertise. Extra jurors lighten the load for the judging community as a whole while increasing field expertise. |
|||
|
2. Many judges do not expand their 'comfort zone' with continuing education. |
|||
|
APS judges are accredited in all areas regardless of the discipline in which the requisite medal was awarded. A knowledge shortfall seems to exist in the system as these circumstances lack balance. No officially approved ladder exists for judges to increase their levels of expertise and proficiency by experiencing unfamiliar areas first hand (other than simply judging those areas &endash; without sufficient background in some cases). In short, the system has no aging process, unlike fine wine. |
|||
|
APS and AAPE would benefit by defining an ongoing process of education for accredited jurors, proving full accreditation is more than simply winning a required medal and surviving a few assignments with other medal winners. Current judges learn from few focused specialists, but future juries would be composed of judges familiar with multiple 'single discipline' areas. Individual experts also create a 'specialty' jury should 'single discipline' jurors be used at shows with a preponderance of exhibits from a particular field. |
|||
|
3. More exhibitors might be interested in judging if exposed in a limited fashion. |
|||
|
Many exhibitors wish to experience judging but are reluctant to jump into all areas in a multi-frame competition. A stepped program would introduce prospective jurors to the process without overwhelming them. Even if they choose not to continue, they still experience the other side of the fence and increase their personal knowledge and better their exhibits through such an exercise. |
|||
|
4. Interested exhibitors with medal qualifications are a wasted resource. |
|||
|
Current APS accredited jurors could work directly with prospective new 'Single Discipline' jurors to ensure techniques and transfer of knowledge base. Many of these exhibitors offer expertise seldom experienced by others. Qualify them as AAPE 'Single Discipline' experts. |
|||
|
Requirements: Vermeil award in either multi- or single frame competition. |
|||
|
Three judging assignments to receive AAPE 'Single Discipline' accreditation. |
|||
|
Benefits: AAPE 'Single Discipline' qualification relieves 1 required judging assignment for standard APS accreditation. Certification in 3 or more 'single disciplines' results in full APS accreditation (providing a standard APS multi-frame assignment is fulfilled successfully). |
|||
|
AAPE 'Single Discipline' judges also benefit local & regional shows, increasing knowledge levels and providing guidance at lower levels to raise exhibit levels at national shows. |
|||
|
'Single Discipline' jurors receive (1/3?) honorarium and increase jury headcount. That makes it easier to finance and have an APS jury with more than one specialty member. |
|||
|
Building an AAPE/APS organization does not restrict APS from qualifying judges the old way, but it does open a door to those traveling a different route to the same destination. |
|||
|
Example proposal for ANYPEX '99: |
|||
|
AAPE sponsored single frame competition (in conjunction with ANYPEX '99 multi-frame exhibits) to be held as a distinct component. 'Single Frame' jury (as follows) would be responsible for single frame exhibits: One APS multi-discipline juror would be chairperson for the single frame jury. 4, 6 or 8 apprentices would serve in pairs to judge the exhibits by 'single discipline'. (Alternative: 2, 3 or 4 apprentices, paired with an APS or AAPE accredited judge) Apprentices supervised by APS chairperson who is responsible for review of all medals. Apprentices justify awards in respective areas to the multi-frame panel of jurors. (Alternative: justify awards to their APS accredited Single Frame partner) Clarify their opinions during the critique(s) and work with exhibitors at the frames. Receive certificate acknowledgement towards AAPE 'Single Discipline' accreditation. |
|||
|
e-mail: fran adams |
||
|
copyright © 2000-04 fran adams |
||