data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8a417/8a41772d8f390202776a111862c27c5a4583449a" alt=""
Here's the review:
For teachers of English for Specific Purposes
#specificenglish #iatefl OMG jeremy's trying to be cool in a suit and trainers. LOL!
Two weeks before mention of grant in the bulletin we filed third party observations in view of annex 5. Our remarks were ignored. Should we argue that the first examiner will be biased against us?The discussion went something like this:
Professor: Any thoughts?What did I learn? A few things, actually.
Class: [Silence]
Prof: Come on … it’s not difficult. What do you know about third party observations?
Clever student 1: They’re not binding, sir. According to protocol XYZ dated blah blah blah … [OK, so I don’t remember the details, but you get the idea]
Prof: Excellent. So … was the examiner biased or not?
Class: [silence]
Prof (getting exasperated): Look … the third party observation isn’t binding … is the examiner biased or not?
Class: [silence]
Prof: OK, here’s an easy question. Why were the remarks ignored?
Clever student 2: Because everything’s frozen. It’s frozen 7 weeks before mention of a grant.
Prof: (relieved) Absolutely. So there’s the answer. Third party observations aren’t binding, so the examiner doesn’t have to act on them. Everything is frozen anyway, so it won’t make any difference. There’s nothing the examiner can do. So is he biased?
Class: [silence]
…
Sheepish student 3: Sorry, sir. Could explain what ‘biased’ means?