Don't fix what's wrong, but develop what's good.
Don't fix what's wrong, but develop what's good.
Reply to a post about sharing rejected materials and discussing what was wrong with them.
nishio: It is good that more information is being disseminated, but from the standpoint of someone who is wondering "Proposal A and B are both very good, but what should I do?", after passing the first round of screening I wonder if it is possible to find bad points by looking at the proposal that failed in the first round by itself. nishio: school exams and such are subtractive, so if you identify the mistakes and fix them, you get 100 points and pass, but something like unexplored junior is like "A is A is great! 150 points! But B is even better! 160 points! A is not selected, it's a waste of a great score, but it can't be helped...". nishio: When you pass the screening process, you are already in the 100+ point zone where there are no "obvious flaws" and the rest is like a height comparison between multiple applications to see who is taller. It's like a comparison between multiple applications to see who is taller. This is a bit of an exaggeration, and there are often obvious flaws.
The difference between this type of assessment and a school test is that "having an understandable shortcoming" and "a score of 100" go hand in hand.
In connection with this and other related matters, the official website now includes "examples of accepted applications".
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ダメなところを直すのではなく良いところを伸ばす using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.