Self Evaluation Form Self Evaluation Form - People: Fill & Download for Free

Honestly this is a big drawback of IIIT. The institution with its policy to promote research at undergraduate level helps students (those interested) to search the depths of a particular field but unfortunately not the breadth of the undergrad program. People who are coders or into some specific field are prayed like gods and others are termed as misfits. Faculty justifies its stance by saying that students were given a self evaluation form before joining the college and hence its not their responsibility if they aren't motivated to study the stream of their "choice".Consulting and finance companies are not even invited for placements. Courses related to finance and economics are very few. Due to a strict 85% attendance policy of the college and hectic schedule, students find it difficult to pursue things of their own interests making their lives (those not interested in CS) even worse.Thanks to a good reputation in the industry because of handful of coders doing well in coding competition and abundance of jobs in CS field, most of the students get placed. For ECE guys not interested in ECE, the situation is horrible because the courses are really tough and its very difficult to get grades. This means you won't get an engineering job and also getting into a top B-school is tough because of your grades.The conclusion is IIIT-H is a heaven for those who are interest in CS (don't know about ECE) but definitely not for people who want a analyst or a managerial jobs. If a person with no interest in his branch had joined IIT alteast he would have got the tag of IIT, if he had joined NIT or BITS, he would have the time to pursue thing of their interest and mould his future. But since he choose IIIT, GOD BLESS HIM.PS- I am not saying its the end of road for IIITians with no interest in CS, but yes, its a lot tougher to make a non-CS profile here because of lack of flexibility.

Dushka Zapata has written a splendid checklist of questions. I would like to focus on what prevents us from knowing the true answers to these kinds of questions.For example, here are some of Dushka’s questions:Who are you?What do you want?Why do you do what you do?What do you like?What is important to you?What are your patterns?Here is how most of us interpret them:Who are you? Is that good enough?What do you want? Is that good?Why do you do what you do? Is that a noble reason?What do you like? Is that mature or immature?What is important to you? Is it good enough to achieve a successful life?What are your patterns? How does it compare to the patterns of successful people?We often confuse self-knowledge with self-evaluation.Self-analysis, SWOT analysis, knowing my strengths and weaknesses - are all forms of judgement. Every questions somehow boils down to: “Is this good or bad?”, “Is this good enough or not?”Can I just know? Regardless whether it is good, bad, sad, awesome, strength or a weakness?Of course you have the right and freedom to judge yourself anyway you want.But what leads to transformation is your capability to know yourself . Your level of self awareness. Not whether you or others approve of it.But if your goal of knowing yourself is to judge yourself - then your thoughts about your benchmarks come in the way of your observation.Think of a biologist studying the behaviour of ants for the first time. He simply studies them, very closely - how they walk, how they run, how they build, how the fetch food, how they collaborate.While he is studying them, if he bothers about “How does this compare to cockroaches?”, “Is this the best way to build the ant hill?”, “Is there something good enough to bag a deal with NAT Geo?” - he will miss out on a lot.Because he won’t be fully PRESENT.Then his ‘knowledge of ants’ wont be reliable. Because he was not engaged 100% in them.It is about knowing “HOW” they work, without worrying about WHY they work that way…So know yourself; don’t judge yourself.It is not what you know that makes the difference; but your capability to know.

No work of art is universally great. Critics may assert such universality, but there are always people who remain outside the consensus. And greatness is redefined in every generation. Even Shakespeare’s reputation has had its ups and downs. And all movies are still far too young for us to have any idea of their real staying power. The critical fave Citizen Kane looks to me like a sophomoric, heavy-handed vanity project by Orson Welles, whose reputation seems to me to be based solely on his own self-evaluation. The popular fave Casablanca is fine, but far from the best film romance ever. I'm quite content to remain the odd man out because I don't think any critical judgment is “true” — not even my own. De gustibus …My personal view of best film romance ever is Emma Thompson’s Sense and Sensibility, one of the rare adaptations that is truer to the book than the book itself. For the best movie about war, I am torn between the brilliantly fair and accurate Tora Tora Tora and the devastatingly honest Hacksaw Ridge. For romantic comedy I adore Love Actually but could argue just as forcefully for Crazy Stupid Love. Best film comedy is probably the Matthau-Lemmon The Odd Couple. And my candidate for best film drama is A Man for All Seasons, though I would have to be crazy not to put Jaws right up there, even despite the typical Spielbergian decision to have Richard Dreyfuss’s character not be dead after all.I don't expect anybody to agree with my superlatives; there’s bound to be something in each category that you like better or admire more. But most people will agree that most of my choices are excellent. Critical consensus about Citizen Kane and Casablanca was determined far too early and is enforced by university film programs far too rigorously, as if filmmakers hadn't learned anything in the years since. It’s as if Box and Cox, and Gammer Gurton’s Needle were declared the greatest plays in English before Marlowe or Shakespeare or Jonson or Beaumont and Fletcher ever wrote a word. We learn from and build on the art that came before, and premature consensus on “greatness” hampers the artists who come after.Ultimately, judgments about art are always individual, and the only “universal” is the impulse to form community by persuading our friends (or readers) to join the audience for a work of art we individually love.