 |
 |
 |
Some of the issues with the Video Production & Editing class are as follows:
• We were shown a video as an example (titled Kung Fu Fighting) for our Feet & Faces project. This video showed various shot formats (long shots, with view of full body, etc.) that were later found (the day of shooting, and entire week later) to be shots that we would be marked off for, if we used them on our project. How can a professor(s) get away with showing a visual example of a project that does not meet the requirements of what is expected of said project? All of the storyboards, with shot sequences, and list of shots (that may have contained long shots, extreme long shots; I.E. shots that were not deemed acceptable) were viewed by either Nancy, or Fred (possibly both of them) the day the Kung Fu Fighting video was shown, without being told that students would have points taken off their grade for such shots. If it was not for the questions from students the day of shooting, many of said students would not have known this fact. Most students assumed that these shots were acceptable to use, so long as the required shots were woven into the project. The excuse given (the day of shooting) was “this was not a perfect example of what we were looking for”. Then why show it?!!!?!!!? If not to confuse us, no other explanation comes to mind.
• Once this revelation came to light, it created total chaos for many of the groups. Some of the ideas that groups created, from the previous week, hinged on these shots in order to tell their story. This caused groups to frantically scramble (the very day of shooting, no less) to either re-write their storyboards, or scrap their idea entirely. The fact that any professor can then stand up in class and say that they explained this previously to a class full of students shaking their heads and looking at each other in disbelief, is beyond disheartening.
• There seems to be a deliberate pattern of mis-information, and lack of consistency as it pertains to our expectations in this class. This lack of consistency may be due in part to the fact that we have two people teaching the class. When the issues are raised in class, it seems as if they dance around the subject, and try to deny the fact that their story was different from a previous lecture.
• The fact that our class is a lecture/lab all in one day puts us at a dis-advantage when our professors decide to throw such curve balls at us. It would be bad enough to only have 24 hrs in order for a group to adjust to such circumstances (like many of the other students with a different schedule must be facing). For those of us that go from lecture, straight to lab, it can be an impossible feat.
• When questions arose about the format of the tests, we were told that they would consist of: Multiple choice, true/false, fill in the blank, etc. Not only was that not the case, when it came to the part of the test where we had to name the shots in each picture, the print quality of the pictures were so bad in some cases, that it was nearly impossible to decipher them. If that was not bad enough, the time (or lack their of) that we had to complete the test left many students scrambling to complete it.
• On November 2, 2005, we were split up into teams with people we may have never worked with before. We were given approximately 45 minutes to shoot footage, edit the footage, and hand it in. More than one group had experienced technical issues that were beyond the scope of what a layman could fix. Many of us lost 10-20+ minutes of our overall time, due to equipment issues. It is not fair that groups may have been marked off for issues beyond their control.
• This is supposed to be an ‘entry level’ class. Many VC02 students are required to pass this class as a mandatory requirement. The format of the class seems geared towards emulating the stress induced environment of a station such as ESPN. That would be fine, if this was a Masters Degree class. When you teach a person how to swim you should not toss them in the Atlantic Ocean before they learn ‘the doggy paddle’. Those that are drowning in our class feel cast off at sea. There are people that have prior experience with skills needed for this class. For them, this is a challenge that they can adjust to (possibly). As far as the rest of the populus, we have little or no background in this skill set. We are not allowed the time outside of class/lab to attain a level of confidence that only comes with repitition.
• The fact that individuals are graded as their group performs is ridculous, to say the least. If fate puts you in a group that puts rearranging their sock drawer above working towards the project goal(s), it does not matter how much that person tries, they get the same grade as the slacker(s) get. Once again, if this were a Masters Degree level class, this socialistic approach towards learning might be appropriate. Let the individual decide if they want to take this carrear path.
This petition is also addressing the wish of each student that has signed it to a grade grievance for COM 150. With such a unanimously unified group of individuals sharing the same feelings towards this class, it is our belief that a ‘class action’ grade review is needed.
To ensure this, we would ask that those who signed this petition be left un-named, until after final grades are issued. |
 |
|
(fields marked with * are required)
|
|
|
|
The views expressed in this petition are solely those of the petition's
sponsor and do not in any way reflect the views of iPetitions.
iPetitions is solely a provider of technical services to the petition
sponsor and cannot be held liable for any damages or injury or other
harm arising from this petition. In the event no adequate sponsor is
named, iPetitions will consider the individual account holder with which
the petition was created as the lawful sponsor.
|
|
|
