All in all, it's been a rough ride for everyone, and there is no better measure, in my opinion, of what we've been through than the fact that we have barely had five football gatherings since September. That's ridiculous, considering I've been playing religiously since January, and most of the others even earlier so.
I heard that before, the Advertising course that we've all slogged through involved impressing actual clients and/or representatives of ad agencies. That would actually be pretty cool, on many levels. It adds to the realism bit, as well as offering us students the opportunity to test our mettle and be judged by actual, real-world industry professionals. I'm not detracting from the current instructor's ability, but you see where I'm headed here.
Being an American course on Advertising, I can understand, expect and appreciate the emphasis on group project work. However, there are a few things to consider regarding the grouping that may be greatly beneficial to future victi - err, students of COM 443.
It's no secret that certain groups, though randomly assembled, are totally and wholly superior to their "competition". I'm not just talking book-smarts, of course. What happens if a group doesn't have anyone proficient in Photoshop or other graphic design software? What happens if the entire group, in a cruel twist of fate, has smart, creative people but all of whom suffer from the severe disability to speak to a crowd? What I'd suggest is at the start of the course, students "rank" themselves according to their ability and talents in different areas, some of which include:
Graphic Design and/or Drawing
Public Speaking
Creative Flair
Language
Video Editing
Audio Editing
Photography
A basic 1-10 on the above (which is far from exhaustive) would suffice, and then the instructor can ensure that there is some even distribution of talent, for lack of a better term.
Of course, the random nature of the (current) grouping procedure is designed to reflect the dynamic and unexpected nature of the working world that all of us should be entering soon. However, there are a couple of things that could potentially help all involved.
In a real working environment, of course, you'd expect people to switch jobs and agencies due to whatever reasons. Personal issues, financial gains, proximity to home, culture clashes, the list goes on. The same should be allowed in the classroom as well. But what, you say, what happens if people just decide to hang with their buddies? One might design a system whereby only straight 1-for-1 swaps are allowed, and only one person may swap per group per semester. That would work (somewhat), no? An example to highlight:
Group A consists of seven members, assigned somewhat randomly by the instructor. However, it's a busy, hectic, difficult semester, and while nearly everyone in Group A is able to meet every Tuesday and Thursday morning to get their work done, Person X cannot, because she has a class that the rest are not a part of. Weekends are worse, due to other commitments. However, Person X might be a better fit in Group B, who has someone willing to swap immediately.
Swap proceeds.
Group C, however, has the best friend of Person X, and now she wants to go to Group B too. However, due to the fact that Group B had previously decided to use their "Transfer Card", so to speak, no such move is possible.
Flawed, but oh well.
Finally, and most controversially, each group currently has to appoint a leader. An Agency Director. A CEO. A Boss. Give the boss some power. What power, you ask? The power to fire people. It's supposed to simulate a company, a real-world agency, isn't it? Let him/her fire people (one person?) should the need arise. The leader is elected anyway, so the group already has some regard for his/her authority.
What happens to the said fired person? If another group wants to take him/her up, by all means. If not... Drop the course? That would be harsh(er). Perhaps there could be supplemental, solo projects for everyone in class, for small extra credit. But these projects would become the bulk of the said person's workload, maybe with new dimensions and added difficulty, of course.
So what do you think of that, hmm? Full of holes, of course, but I think it could work.
Posts
2 comments:
Interesting thoughts, Naz. Let me respond...we did the leader firing thing and no one did it. Too chicken to make enemies. The ranking of skills would be interesting but the point of the semester is to learn...so with your method, there would be less emphasis on learning and more on 'showing off' the talents already acquired. I know it's not perfect at least now, the hope is that someone unfamiliar with photoshop or whatever will learn from a peer. With your idea, I think the learning is capped. Finally, I did try this semester to have 'professionals' judge the final day and during other semesters. There response is normally, "so busy this week" or "I can't do three hours." That's the reality because if they are there to judge one group, then they must judge them all and right now, the classes are just too large to accommodate outsiders. Now, if I could get a cadre of UB alums, I think things would be different. So you must get hired (and we'll have Leon and his bunch) and now we have something cooking. By the way, you have a chance to be judge by outsiders when you take that portfolio for an interview. I think you'll see I was quite nice to all of you! :) Great suggestions and I do take them seriously. I know I can't count on you to provide a great perspective! All the best!
Naz, I meant "can" not "can't"! Sorry.
Post a Comment