Spring back

It is not such an idle thought to wonder about talent. Surely as a set of three siblings we weren't exactly missed by the gods of wisdom, intelligence and wit: yet we aren't exactly leaders, gamebreakers or makers of tomorrow. Not that we are uniquely or extraordinarily talented, deserving of more. From my aerie in central Guangzhou, I wonder sometimes whether my humble allocation of intellect has been fully activated in the pursuit of higher ideals. I often wonder whether this was because despite sharpness in some areas, I'm startling obtuse in others.

 

In my field of work, lately, I've felt frustrated to say the least. I'm not in favour with new management that look for a kind of person, which I'm not, and they would be happy to let the others who weren't that kind of people hang in the horrible limbo of "potential". "Potential" being the feedback they give you when you aren't progressed forward. You have "potential" qualities that may be developed and realised in the future. It could be hard to wait, if you think about waiting, for a time that may never come. I was in a holding pattern until just recently, despite a huge diploma workload, I produced several initiatives. The one that has actually attracted attention is merely an intellectual doodle.

 

The doodle? I called it the cruelty quotient (CQ). I checked how often teachers gave the lowest score (1) in at least one aspect of student assessment. Outstandingly, I found myself the cruelest of them all. I gave close to 30% of my students the lowest possible score. To put this in perspective, only one other teacher was close. Three had given 0% of their students a 1. Thus I shared. I went regional. Now the idea is national. I like the idea of measuring as a way to isolate "training needs" (another way of saying that someone either doesn't know what they are doing or isn't doing their job).

 

I've got more to give than that. I hope that I'm not producing all this to show what a loss I'll be when I leave.