Self Evaluations

Everyone should send me an email or hand me a written version of their self-evaluation by Wednesday at the latest.

I want three things. First, a self-rating on a scale of 1 to 5 of your participation in class, and a second self-rating on a scale of 1 to 5 of your work on the blog (for almost all of you, this amounts to a self-evaluation of your critiques of the writing of other students. Third, feel free to include a sentence or two, or at most a short paragraph, commenting on your performance in either area, or both.

Here's what these scores mean.

1) You only rarely participate in class / your critiques are often short & perfunctory (you usually focus on trivial details, and that only briefly, or you simply praise them then quit).
2) You have something substantive to see perhaps once a week / your critiques are sometimes acceptable, and sometimes sub-par.
3) You have something useful to say most classes / your critiques are consistently acceptable, but in no way extraordinary (you usually spend your allotted hour, and you consistently if imperfectly focus on your peer's argument).
4) You participate consistently, usually having more than one useful thing to say every class / your critiques are more often good than acceptable.
5) You believe that nobody in the class has more useful things to say than you / your critiques are consistently thoughtful and detailed (you *always* spend your hour on them).

Note: I'm asking for this because I really want to know what you think. Generally speaking, I will be guided by honest self-evaluations; if you are obviously exaggerating, though, I won't be happy. Here's another way to put it: I'll tolerate a little inflation, if you seem to have honestly thought through your own work, but only a little.