[busy signaL]
[Monday, October 24, 2005]
before i proceed to the actual content of this entry, i really must pause to contemplate the sudden peculiarity i perceive concerning the spelling of this post's title. although microsoft word assures me that no errors have been committed, i can't help but think that the word "whistling" shouldn't look the way it sounds, both literally and figuratively. it would probably make a good title for a novel or film, though.
anyway, last thursday's filipi2 class proved to be a interesting study on how man's cleverness leads to his own undoing. the 35 of us were divided into five groups, with each member being required to be that group's representative in one of seven consecutive panel discussions. after the recitation, each panelist would rate his or her peers from one to four [one being highest], meaning that one's group's grade would be the average of the other four groups' opinions.
thinking ahead, i realized that in order for my group to achieve an above-average grade despite our average academic talents, we needed to compromise the other groups' standings. therefore, if we were to give a four to the group deserving a one, and vice versa, the averages would middle out, giving us a relatively higher score.
i suppose i shouldn't have been surprised when the results from the first panel discussion revealed that the undeniably worst speaker had garnered a unanimous vote of one. nor should i have been surprised when, six iterations and a solid two average later, one of our more spirited group members chanced upon genius, and was rewarded with a quartet of fours.
the moral of the story? evidently, it's not underhanded if everyone does it.
sige ingat.ΓΌ
posted by stani at 3:44 PM
anyway, last thursday's filipi2 class proved to be a interesting study on how man's cleverness leads to his own undoing. the 35 of us were divided into five groups, with each member being required to be that group's representative in one of seven consecutive panel discussions. after the recitation, each panelist would rate his or her peers from one to four [one being highest], meaning that one's group's grade would be the average of the other four groups' opinions.
thinking ahead, i realized that in order for my group to achieve an above-average grade despite our average academic talents, we needed to compromise the other groups' standings. therefore, if we were to give a four to the group deserving a one, and vice versa, the averages would middle out, giving us a relatively higher score.
i suppose i shouldn't have been surprised when the results from the first panel discussion revealed that the undeniably worst speaker had garnered a unanimous vote of one. nor should i have been surprised when, six iterations and a solid two average later, one of our more spirited group members chanced upon genius, and was rewarded with a quartet of fours.
the moral of the story? evidently, it's not underhanded if everyone does it.
sige ingat.ΓΌ
posted by stani at 3:44 PM