Hi Hannah:<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br>
<br>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).<br>
<br>Kelly<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Ashley, Hannah <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:HAshley@wcupa.edu">HAshley@wcupa.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello CBW reviewers (everyone else is getting this, too, but feel free to ignore):<br>
<br>
So, based on people's rankings/responses, the following two items are clear; there is a question at #3 below.<br>
<br>
1. The following six got consistent strongest rankings and we should accept them:<br>
Ianetta--DOE grant<br>
Rigolino--EOP coalition<br>
Hill--reading collaborative/physical plant/resistance<br>
Bryant--student support/eng 100 stretch<br>
Schreyer--adjunct faculty<br>
Olsen--survey results<br>
<br>
2. The following proposal got consistent bottom rankings and we should reject it:<br>
Stevens-Piazza<br>
<br>
3. Here is the question. The following four proposals got middle or mixed rankings:<br>
<br>
Sunderhaus<br>
McLaughlin<br>
Norris<br>
Webb-Sunderhaus<br>
<br>
Please let us know your thoughts on the following:<br>
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?)<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hannah Ashley, Ph.D.<br>
Associate Professor of English, Composition & Rhetoric<br>
Director, Writing Zones 12.5 (<a href="http://www.writingzones.net" target="_blank">www.writingzones.net</a>)<br>
543 Main Hall, West Chester University<br>
West Chester, PA 19383<br>
610-436-2371<br>
<br>
"For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness. Then one swoop, one swing of the arm, that work is over." Rumi<br>
________________________________________<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CBW_Exec mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CBW_Exec@tamu-commerce.edu">CBW_Exec@tamu-commerce.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec" target="_blank">http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dr. Kelly Ritter<br>Associate Professor of English<br>Director of Composition<br>UNCG<br><a href="mailto:karitter@uncg.edu" target="_blank">karitter@uncg.edu</a><br>(336) 334-4689<br>
<br>