Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official
You could live in South Carolina, where your on-court ability means (literally) nothing for advancement.
25% statewide exam score (closed book, everyone takes in Columbia)
25% peer ratings
25% experience points (5% per year until maxed out after 5 years)
20% administrative (combination of meeting attendance, clinic participation, camp once every three years)
5% cooperation (lose points for turnbacks, etc.)
Most officials, in my experience, don't take the peer ratings seriously (we rate 1-10 in six different categories) and will give every partner a 9 or 10. Most officials receive all the other 50 points. What that leads to is the fact that the statewide exam is basically what determines your position in the rankings. An exam, not your on-court ability, determines where you're ranked as an official.
...
All this to say, trust me when I say that every system has its flaws.
|
Then that is the problem. The officials have it within their power to do the right thing but are not doing it. Can't blame the system when the system isn't used.
Are those ratings sufficiently anonymous so that an official could give an honest rating without fear of retaliation? It would have to be such that the scores would only become available to the officials after a large number were collected and the system closes.