On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Kathey Marsden <kmarsdende...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 9/2/2010 9:21 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > Original Ideas are good > > ======================= > > Past experience has shown that if a student proposes their own idea and it > is accepted the student is going to be strong. > > PROPOSAL > -------- > > Add the following to the mentor ranking: > > Is the project definition and idea originally the mentee's, the > mentor's or a collaborative effort? (0-2 points, 2 if mentee's idea, 1 > if collaborative, 0 if mentor's) > > I am still not such a big fan of the "original idea" points in a standards > base product <snip/>
OK, the idea is same as before (my comment on standards elsewhere in the thread): http://markmail.org/message/j6qkbipevrnphe6v > and marking down for collaboration where we want to encourage > interaction with the community. > <snap/> Yes, I can see how the wording can be perceived that way so it does need tweaking. > One minor clarification I would like to see made is in this item: > > How does the mentor rate the student's chances of success, based on an > in-person (face-to-face, video, audio, email) interview? (0-3 points, or 0-1 > if email interview only) > > To add an IRC interview as one of the 0-3 options. Our students the last > two summers have mostly been from Sri Lanka and China and so other options > hard to coordinate. Even the IRC interview will require someone getting up > in the middle of the night. > <snip/> I had a VoIP conversation with one of my eventual mentees from China. Even with the time difference and a slight language problem, I found it to be the most useful and expeditious thing I did in that particular evaluation. I say this to recount my experience, not to preclude the use of IRC with respect to the question above. -Rahul
