[CBW_Exec] CBW 2011 Proposal Rankings & question

Mon Sep 6 12:53:48 CDT 2010

Hey, Kelly, hang in there.  I don't know of anyone having head lice last forever.  It's a shorter
time than pregnancy....

I like Kelly's idea, but want to add something, maybe because I'm used to thinking in terms of students
who could improve their writing with a little help. It makes sense to select the most excellent proposals
for presentation, but could we also (I'm thinking of us retired folks here who have no children with head
lice) create a professional writing incubator process to help our junior scholars to improve the quality of
their writing?  Seems to me that this would gradually raise the status of our field and our scholars if a
greater proportion of our folks were sending out publishable quality ms because they'd already gone
through presubmission critiques.  Lots of our BW folks work at institutions where they may not have many
other BW folks to get critiques from, and folks outside our field may be willing to help, but not very helpful
because they're unaware of our expectations.

Marcia

________________________________
From: cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu [cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory R Glau [Gregory.Glau at nau.edu]
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 1:20 PM
To: Conference of Basic Writing Executive Board
Subject: Re: [CBW_Exec] CBW 2011 Proposal Rankings & question

I'm torn and can go either way but I think that Kelly makes a good point: fewer, longer discussions is probably better and more useful than briefer ones.

thanks,

gg

------------------------------------
Greg Glau
Associate Professor and Director, University Writing Program
Northern Arizona University
PO Box 6032
Flagstaff, AZ 86001-6032
________________________________
From: cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu [cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu] on behalf of Kelly Ritter [karitter at uncg.edu]
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 9:40 AM
To: Conference of Basic Writing Executive Board
Subject: Re: [CBW_Exec] CBW 2011 Proposal Rankings & question

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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto: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<mailto:karitter at uncg.edu>
(336) 334-4689

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.tamuc.edu/pipermail/cbw_exec/attachments/20100906/3b4219a6/attachment.htm