|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Written Critiques |
|||
|
Fran Adams |
|||
|
The Philatelic Exhibitor, Vol. 15, Nr. 1, January 2001 |
|||
|
A recent letter authored by Mr. James Burgeson was reprinted from the May, 2000 American Philatelist in the July 2000 TPE. It described a handwritten, one page critique with 23 comments given to an exhibitor by a judge when circumstances prevented the agreed upon commentary at the frames. This judge went over and above what we normally expect. Mr. Burgeson's letter goes on to describe five points in support of written critiques. |
|||
|
After considerable thought, this incident leads me to ask: Can we fairly expect more from our judges? Do we have the right to written critiques? Perhaps, but we must also remember that judges provide direct feedback as a matter of courtesy. I know of no rule saying a judge is obligated to provide information outside the critique to anyone. |
|||
|
Written critiques sound like a nice idea, but they demand more time from jurors, especially one like that described above. So, how might we implement such a practice without undue pressure on jury members as they're already under time constraints. One possibility might be to list some typical criticisms on the evaluation sheet's reverse side which could give the exhibitor a general direction. It might even be an option reserved for medal levels of 'silver' and below. |
|||
|
Perhaps something akin to the following (a few points used as a quick example): |
|||
|
Class: Thematic |
|||
|
The Area: Presentation |
|||
|
Points for area: 10 points |
|||
|
Criteria: Description for area here |
|||
|
Sample Problems: Lettering is difficult to read (increase size) |
|||
|
Philatelic text descriptions missing |
|||
|
Thematic text descriptions missing |
|||
|
Handwriting illegible |
|||
|
Samples for other areas: |
|||
|
Development of the theme can be deeper |
|||
|
Material condition could be better |
|||
|
Make philatelic knowledge more evident |
|||
|
Too much 'philatelically inspired' material |
|||
|
More personal research would help |
|||
|
The presentation, philatelic and thematic element areas would each have general comments related to the area and a check box. A blank area on the form's face already provides an area for written commentary; most likely from the judges' notes should they deem it necessary to write a few lines. |
|||
|
The benefit - time to mark a box is minimal and can be done while making notes at the frames. The boxes may be used as reminders during jury discussions and perhaps the critique itself. A final evaluation sheet has consensus items marked. Checking boxes eliminates the need to write long notes on these points, minimizing time on basics and generalities and maximizing time for detailed review. |
|||
|
The drawback - this method may give the impression that only these general points were judged. In reality, many additional factors are considered which are not general in nature, but oriented to the specific subject of the exhibit. The subject related comments should comprise the meat of the critique unless there are some basic flaws which demand attention. |
|||
|
I often find it revealing to return to an exhibit several weeks after completing it. I lay the exhibit aside and send a photocopy to a reviewer like the AAPE review committee. When the copy returns, I've not been immersed in the subject for some time, so I get a fresh view and usually a better appreciation for the comments provided by the reviewer. It's also a hard copy and I can review it at my leisure more than once and not forget any particular point. |
|||
|
How many times have we asked a judging panel, "Could you please comment on frames xxx?" without any idea of how we might use our single question to best advantage. If exhibitors view their sheets before the critique, grasp the fundamentals and ask a question aimed at a specific problem, additional notes can be made to expand their understanding of the comment box checked. |
|||
|
Mr. Burgeson's letter goes on to indicate that juries should be held accountable even to the degree of filing written critiques and reviewing them at any later date. I don't believe that system would be beneficial and wouldn't be surprised to see a stampede of judges hanging up their credentials - telling the rest of us to look after our own critiques. |
|||
|
So, after the above, a few basic questions seem to be in order: |
|||
|
1) How much more complicated would check boxes make judging? |
|||
|
2) Would exhibitors appreciate 'basic criticism' on paper, getting specifics verbally? |
|||
|
3) If so, what comments would be most useful in which areas? |
|||
|
This is not an original idea. Europeans have used this type of sheet for many years - but it might save time with general feedback and give the exhibitor somthing to take home for review. |
|||
|
I've asked questions than can't be answered easily, but this solution is an interesting option that has been of assistance to exhibitors in other countries. We should also explore ways to implement a simple method to provide basic information an exhibitor can expand upon and retain. |
|||
|
e-mail: fran adams |
||
|
copyright © 2000-04 fran adams |
||