Correspondence Critique

From:   XXX on behalf of SCI Events  Sent:   Tue 8/26/2008 10:19 AM  To:     Cc:     Subject:   Science CBLC Recruitment    Attachments:  View As Web Page

Hi!   Looking for a place where you could make friends that will last a lifetime? Or perhaps a place for you to destress after a hectic day in school? Science CBLC (Computer Based Learning Centre) is the club for you. We are having our recruitment drive (only for FoS and SoC students though) till this fri (29/08). Interviews will start at 6pm everyday till 8pm. Don't worry! Interviews are just a way for us to know you better! So come down quickly to our center at s10 level 2, just directly above LT23. Don't hesitate to drop by our booth in our very own IT fair iTCh'08 (25/08-27/08) should you have any queries or doubts. Bring a friend along! Be a member of our family where we treasure bond and team spirit - one club, one heart!    Cheers, ZZZ YYY (zzyys@hotmail.com) President Sci CBLC XXst Management Committee

 

The opening line and the use of language was courteous and friendly as this was an email sent to fellow students in the Faculty of Science.  

I felt that this letter was not informative enough. Firstly, the subject showed that it was about recruiting members for the CBLC Club. However, it instead went on to tell details about the Recruitment Drive that was going to be held, it did not state what the exact duties of a member in the CBLC were, the expectations of a club member, nor did it even state what the CBLC is for and why people should want to join it apart from making friends.  This meant that the email was not complete.

Also, the flow of the information given to the reader was not cohesive. The email merely jumped from saying that they were having a recruitment drive to the next sentence which explained that interviews were ongoing everyday as well. This would have left others confused about whether it was a recruitment drive or an interview cum recruitment drive. I think what it was trying to say was that people could sign up at their booth for interview slots which were on going on the same days of the Recruitment Drive. This would have improved the coherence of the letter if they had phrased it this way instead.

Secondly, I felt that the presentation of the email was not clear; everything was lumped together in a paragraph. Such an email should have been properly paragraphed as it would have caused the reader to lose interest upon reading such a cluttered message. The date and venue of a recruitment drive should have been in another paragraph after the introduction. Details of the person to contact if there were interested interviewees should have been in the following paragraph alongside the venue, date and time of the interview place.

However, despite all of the above comments, I did feel that they brought across a very light hearted message with regards to recruiting their new members while trying their best to entice students to join their club. Basically, the email presented above would have been sufficient, concise and complete had the subject matter been about the Recruitment Drive instead of plain recruiting.

The problem with blogging

Jill and Sarah have been friends since their matriculation into the same faculty in university. Upon starting a new semester, Sarah has decided to run for the Chairman position in their faculty’s student group. After successfully attaining that position, Sarah decided to recruit Jill into her committee, along with their other peers to work on an event together.

Just two months before the actual occasion, there were many changes taking place in the committee. A few members left because they could not commit to the call of duty, while others were sighed upon for atrocious attitude. However, even with people dropping out, no replacements were found and this only meant one thing – everyone else’s workload increased tremendously, along with their job scope, overlapping from one subcommittee to the other. One day, in the midst of expediting the completion of a couple of designs for Sarah which was to be due at the end of the day, Jill unintentionally lashed out at Sarah, after hearing her ask the same question three times repeatedly in a span of two hours. Jill had not only answered her question the first time, but also taken time to type out a long message to Sarah to explain and clarify every misunderstanding. And yet during that moment when Jill was so busy, Sarah came at the inappropriate juncture. So this was what happened:

Jill yelled, “I’ve already told you what!”

Sarah snapped, “Ya, don’t have to be so fierce right!!!!”

After seeing Sarah’s reply, Jill realised that she had flared at her. She apologised immediately.

“Sorry about that, I’ve just been too overwhelmed with work,” Jill said remorsefully.

Sarah replied, “It’s ok, I understand.”

And you might have thought that the whole matter ended. Later that night, Jill logged into Sarah’s blog and to her astonishment found that Sarah had pinpointed and singled her out on her blog amongst others. Attaching to every person whom she had mentioned on her blog, were her thoughts and judgment she had to that person. Sarah had also written nasty comments and criticised their attitudes and commitments mercilessly. These people were her very own friends, whom she had recruited into the committee.

Jill was devastated, as well as distraught about the matter. She felt that Sarah had been hypocritical about the apology she had made. She could not understand why Sarah was unable to be candid with her and share as friends would whenever they faced difficulties or frustrations. Her other friends in the committee also expressed their discouragement. This kept them on their toes all the time, to the extent that they have to put on fake masks to please Sarah. Sarah on the other hand, who was probably disillusioned and indignant most of the time, felt that she had the right to post the inflammatory remarks. She also stated that her blogging space was hers to keep and that it didn’t matter what she wrote or who it affected.

This situation left the committee – Jill included – wanting to get over the event as soon as possible, while dealing with Sarah in a less amicable manner and trying ways and means to get someone else to liaise with her if they weren’t on her blogging black list. Jill distanced herself from Sarah and tried as much as possible to avoid her. Sarah continued as if nothing ever happened, occasionally frowning upon Jill’s aloofness. They had as little contact as possible, unless there was a need for communication, purely on a work basis.

Isn’t it a pity that these friends aren’t on talking terms anymore? This happened because both of them chose not to speak to each other when they were upset with the other party. Should Jill have expressed how she felt towards Sarah’s actions? Or should Sarah have apologised and be more cautious and learn how to filter what she says over the internet despite feeling adamant that it’s her personal space? Was Jill lesser to blame than Sarah? I doubt so. I believe that there was a better way to handle the situation by both parties and that they could have salvaged the friendship. What would you have done if you were either of them?

/edited 2nd paragraph on the 8th of feb/