houshuang · May 15, 2020 15:48
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
 - In general, the values are pretty consistent with my personal values and my strong personal reason for wanting to join Minerva, and excitement at working there. 
 - One story that comes to mind is that I have a strong belief that more flexible collaboration scripts, breakout configurations etc (jigsaw, single-person breakouts, more flexible breakout tools like some of the things that have been iFramed during this course, etc) would be helpful, and wanted to do some experiments - however I admit that the experiments were more to "convince" others about why this would be great. When I was confronted with the need to design these experiments carefully to answer meaningful questions, I struggled with defining the relevant indicators, and have to this date not run the experiments.
 - This is perhap partially a reflection on a personal failing, but in general I feel that Minerva is not bold enough at iterating, experimenting and driving forwards its pedagogy and technology. We are so far ahead of others (this is particularly felt in Product, where Strategic team always comes back to us saying "The partners don't need more bells and whistles, they are blown away already, they just need stability".) And on the school's side, it feels like many things are already (after so few years) written in stone - and reified through software, grading structures, promises to students, employment contracts etc.
 - The danger is that if we continue just polishing our already great product, we won't attract or retain people who are truly innovative or cutting edge, and won't continue to known as a place where innovation is happening (as opposed to "happened")
	- In general, the values are pretty consistent with my personal values and my strong personal reason for wanting to join Minerva, and excitement at working there.
	- One story that comes to mind is that I have a strong belief that more flexible collaboration scripts, breakout configurations etc (jigsaw, single-person breakouts, more flexible breakout tools like some of the things that have been iFramed during this course, etc) would be helpful, and wanted to do some experiments - however I admit that the experiments were more to "convince" others about why this would be great. When I was confronted with the need to design these experiments carefully to answer meaningful questions, I struggled with defining the relevant indicators, and have to this date not run the experiments.
	- This is perhap partially a reflection on a personal failing, but in general I feel that Minerva is not bold enough at iterating, experimenting and driving forwards its pedagogy and technology. We are so far ahead of others (this is particularly felt in Product, where Strategic team always comes back to us saying "The partners don't need more bells and whistles, they are blown away already, they just need stability".) And on the school's side, it feels like many things are already (after so few years) written in stone - and reified through software, grading structures, promises to students, employment contracts etc.
	- The danger is that if we continue just polishing our already great product, we won't attract or retain people who are truly innovative or cutting edge, and won't continue to known as a place where innovation is happening (as opposed to "happened")