Scores..."where everything is made up and the points don't mat

[JimF-LowBari]

Yep, I made a boo-boo; and thank you for pointing it out I retract the word 'only' and replace it with the word 'mainly' as in "...something which is mainly taught by winners.".

p.s. so I am now at 99%, with a 1% failure rate dang-it!!!

Well so much for your Performance Evaluation... oh wait you' re the boss...

And thanks for the thanks, I'm Civil Service.... I'd make a lousy military person but like to think I've got their back... or at least their data....

Edited October 30, 2013 by JimF-LowBari

[DAvery]

Succeeding is setting a goal and either meeting or exceeding that goal .

Interesting; so I take it that since success is defined by each person, you teach kids that if they want to define their own academic success, as opposed to the school setting the success standards, as having an overall GPA of 57% is fine and dandy? I mean they are defining their own success and should not be required to measure up to anyone elses standard correct?

I'm confused. How do we define success again?

[Stu]

I'm confused. How do we define success again?

Success is defined by setting a goal, and either achieving or exceeding the goal. In the scenario you referenced, student's GPA at 57%, success would be attaining 70% because that is the general standard set by most school districts for a passing grade. The student should not set the goal for himself/herself in this situation because one who allows their grade to be at 57% in the first place would more than likely set their own standard at 50% then claim they are already a tremendous success.

[DAvery]

Success is defined by setting a goal, and either achieving or exceeding the goal. In the scenario you referenced, student's GPA at 57%, success would be attaining 70% because that is the general standard set by most school districts for a passing grade. The student should not set the goal for himself/herself in this situation because one who allows their grade to be at 57% in the first place would more than likely set their own standard at 50% then claim they are already a tremendous success.

So who sets these goals?

[perc2100]

So if my band makes finals at BOA after placing 27th the prior year, we would be a success even if we did not attempt to be a success? I believe that every could be a "winner" and everyone could be a "loser" ( to use your terms). Art is not a zero sum game.

Art on its own is not a zero sum game. Beethoven's 9th Symphony is not "better" than Mozart's 42nd Symphony. Picasso's "Weeping Woman" painting does not "win" against Degas' "L'Absinthe."

However, we are talking about a competitive with fairly clear criteria. Based on that criteria everyone cannot be a "winner," and to be blunt that attitude diminishes the accomplishments of actual groups who do achieve at Championship level. If you have a broad, nebulous goal of "do better than last year," then I guess that's fine and if you achieve that goal then you accomplished something: but you didn't necessarily win or become winners. If you set a specific goal of "we were 15th place last year, our goal is Top 6 this year," and you achieve that goal, then again you accomplished something and that is great.

There is a difference between accomplishing a goal, or even feeling proud of your season (for example, you can be incredible performing a great show, but if someone else is better than you there is not much you can do to change that). But calling everyone a "winner" is disingenuous

[Jeff Ream]

But you only learn the underlined if you win?

Hey Jeff.... did you know it's not possible for a corps to put a show together in 6 weekends? I'd call that going beyond expectations.....

yes...but it helps if half the corps doesn't get trashed the night before prelims

[Jeff Ream]

It is not a lie if you actually won DCI, or won BOA, or won the Little League World Series, or won the NCAA,... !

True. but hell you can see on facebook where people lie about marching places.

And still no guarantee you actually learned to win even if you did.

I've used my drum corps experience on resumes. Didn't make a hill of a beans difference

[Stu]

So who sets these goals?

In the case of grades in an academic environment, the school district sets the ‘minimum’ goals. The school district typically sets 70% (2.0) as minimum goal and then it is up to the student to meet or exceed that minimum standard. The student certainly can, and should, set a personal goal higher than the set minimum, but the student should nnever be allowed to set a lower goal than meeting the set minimum standard. This also applies to something like university entrance requirements; each university sets the minimum standard to attend, and it is up to the applicant to meet, or better yet, exceed that minimum entrance requirement. The idea of letting kids set their own minimum standards of achievement not the adults, and allowing the kids to perform lower than the minimum standards set by the adults without dire consequences, is actually doing a grave disservice to the children.

[Jeff Ream]

I'm confused. How do we define success again?

However Stu wants it defined.

[Stu]

I've used my drum corps experience on resumes. Didn't make a hill of a beans difference

You are correct; in fact unless it is directly related to the position on the application, the drum corps experience probably should not be placed ‘on the resume’. However, in the interview process, when asked things about 'strengths' or 'successes', pointing out that you engaged in a drum corps which was deemed best in the entire world in an international competition, and that training, that experience, helped mold your personality and character into being a ‘winner’ at the things you choose to accomplish, then the DCI experience can, and usually does, make a very positive impression.