[CBW_Exec] CBW 2011 Proposal Rankings & question

[Kelly Ritter]

Hi Hannah:

I will first admit that I did not read the proposals. Got a cat who needs a
zillion day pill regimen and a kid with head lice. And some needy new TAs.

Having said that, my opinion may not be super-valid. But I think fewer
proposals that have more space and time for discussion might be better than
including everyone. I say this having been frustrated in recent years by how
many mediocre proposals get through the Cs review process, and hearing that
from other attendees as well. We want to balance quality and inclusion; in
the case of Cs in general, I think we may be leaning too far in the
direction of inclusion.

If we have 6 really good proposals, to turn the question around, is that
enough to make for a good workshop? If so, I would probably vote to limit
and perhaps encourage Norris to submit to BWe, making clear that while her
proposal wasn't a great fit for this year's particular pre-conference
activity, it *would* be a good submission for a print venue like BWe (or
electronic print venue, if you will).

Kelly

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Ashley, Hannah <HAshley at wcupa.edu> wrote:

> Hello CBW reviewers (everyone else is getting this, too, but feel free to
> ignore):
>
> So, based on people's rankings/responses, the following two items are
> clear; there is a question at #3 below.
>
> 1.  The following six got consistent strongest rankings and we should
> accept them:
> Ianetta--DOE grant
> Rigolino--EOP coalition
> Hill--reading collaborative/physical plant/resistance
> Bryant--student support/eng 100 stretch
> Schreyer--adjunct faculty
> Olsen--survey results
>
> 2. The following proposal got consistent bottom rankings and we should
> reject it:
> Stevens-Piazza
>
> 3.  Here is the question.  The following four proposals got middle or mixed
> rankings:
>
> Sunderhaus
> McLaughlin
> Norris
> Webb-Sunderhaus
>
> Please let us know your thoughts on the following:
> a.  Do we go for greater selectivity, with the idea being that we want to
> foster a sense that only the strongest proposals/work gets featured at our
> fabulous precon?  Or do we go for greatest inclusivity, to bring more people
> into the conversation?  Is there a middle ground, to do both?  (e.g, ask the
> four above for posters but not presentations, or something?)
>
> b.  Do we want to define the conference theme tightly, and reject proposals
> if they don't fit?  As in, Norris's proposal, which several people have
> pointed out should go to BWe but perhaps does not belong in this year's
> precon?
>
>
>
> Hannah Ashley, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of English, Composition & Rhetoric
> Director, Writing Zones 12.5  (www.writingzones.net)
> 543 Main Hall, West Chester University
> West Chester, PA 19383
> 610-436-2371
>
> "For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness. Then one swoop, one
> swing of the arm, that work is over."  Rumi
> ________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> CBW_Exec mailing list
> CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec
>



-- 
Dr. Kelly Ritter
Associate Professor of English
Director of Composition
UNCG
karitter at uncg.edu
(336) 334-4689
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.tamuc.edu/pipermail/cbw_exec/attachments/20100906/269291c4/attachment.htm