In the previous seminar on the literary quotes of travel, I scored a 6 (a), and a 7 (c).
The seminar included questions that were vague, like your interpretation of the quotes. Because there’s 4 pages of quotes, we were talking about very different stuff, which caused the seminar to not be a “discussion” but a class where everyone writes their own answer for different questions. Most of us couldn’t really respond to others’ points (because the points were scattered and even if we had a response the leaders wouldn’t pick us as we just spoken). Therefore, we spoke a lot, but got a very low analysis score (even 0,7). However, as we realized the problem of the discussion and as the questions became more specific, the connections to each others’ points became much better and the our criteria A’s score greatly improved.
For me, the main problem for not getting a higher score is I couldn’t link multiple quotes with the quote, so I only got 3 or 4 middles and no highs. For example, I focused on one quote and talked about real life examples to support the quote, but these points are relatively obvious so I got many lows. Or, I could only connect two quotes, but couldn’t delve into a deeper analysis, so I got a middle. The second problem is that I wasn’t making any notes so I couldn’t remember all the points I wanted to respond to. Because the leaders wouldn’t call you again when you speak a lot, it meant that I needed to record down my connections to other people’s analysis. But because I didn’t, I would constantly forget my points after 2 or 3 people had spoken, which may be also a reason why I had no highs. My final problem is I didn’t prepare enough. I didn’t understand the book enough, so I couldn’t connect the travel quotes to “the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy“. I also didn’t search about the background of the quotes, so my analysis may differ from the real expression of the quotes.
Moving on to the leaders’ management of the discussion, I felt like it was generally fine (as they picked on everyone at least) but still there’s room for improvement. Two main issues: First, the leaders weren’t picking on the people who wanted to extend on someone else’s point, but often chose someone who presented a new point. For example, after Ian talked about how “death is what makes travel valuable”, I wanted to connect another quote to his point. However, the leaders thought I wasn’t the person who raised their hand for the longest time so they didn’t picked on me. I still made a connection after three or four turns, but responding on the point immediately would be much better. People might forget Ian’s points after a few turns, which would make the discussion less diverse and thorough. My suggestion is the leaders can allow 3 or 4 people to make an initial response on the previous persons’ analysis, then move on to a new point, so the discussion would be more organized. Second, the leader should pick on the quiet ones first. If we already said all the points, then they would have nothing to say. For example on the first question the leaders can let the quiet ones say their point first then move on to “initiative” (because usually after the quiet ones finish expressing themselves there’s not much to say for the first question).
Finally I want to talk about some other points that weren’t mentioned in the seminar but I felt was worth talking about. The quote is in page 25, “A fool prays for an easier road, a wise man prays for stronger legs”. This connects to book, as the guide’s advice is “don’t panic”. The advice is not to make you avoid more problems, but to embrace the challenge with resilience (which basically is “stronger legs”) There is another Chinese saying, which is “强者不抱怨环境”, which means stronger people don’t complain about the environment or the situation they are in. This expresses a similar idea as the quote before. Not wishing for easier circumstances but making yourself more powerful. Arthur Dent is like this in the book. He initially complains about Earth being demolished, the life on the spaceship to be awful etc.. But later he upgrades himself with “stronger legs” and stop “complaining about the environment”, and he keeps going ahead despite the difficulties.
In summary, this seminar made me explore travel in a more diverse way, and I see that travel has much more value then what I usually think of. If I prepared more and made more connections, I would do better. Next seminar, I hope to get 77 or 68 and get at least one high.