I brought this up too—it’s also relevant in cases where a person isn’t interested in gaining skill in a certain area. I consider the issue to still be up for discussion, but in the meantime I don’t see a problem with taking a ‘this bit is useful to me, so I’ll do it; this bit isn’t, so I’ll ignore it’ approach.
Is OP really suggesting that to get Level 1, you need to do all those things? (I think the quote kind of suggests that.) I think a lot more reasonable approach (and one I thought OP was advocating) is to just measure Levels separately for each skill.
This looks pretty clear to me, though it is noted as “what I [the OP] think”:
2. A level is indivisible, you don’t get moral whuffie points for doing half of the tasks. 3. The only exception is that some people may opt to try for Level 1 No Physical, so they don’t have to meet the Strength and Endurance requirements. (In university we had a saying that “sports is the only test you cannot cram in a weekend”.)
Hmm, you are right. It’s just that kind of system makes no sense to me. Not everyone needs or wants to learn programming/chess/etc..., which I guess was your original point. :)
I brought this up too—it’s also relevant in cases where a person isn’t interested in gaining skill in a certain area. I consider the issue to still be up for discussion, but in the meantime I don’t see a problem with taking a ‘this bit is useful to me, so I’ll do it; this bit isn’t, so I’ll ignore it’ approach.
Is OP really suggesting that to get Level 1, you need to do all those things? (I think the quote kind of suggests that.) I think a lot more reasonable approach (and one I thought OP was advocating) is to just measure Levels separately for each skill.
This looks pretty clear to me, though it is noted as “what I [the OP] think”:
Hmm, you are right. It’s just that kind of system makes no sense to me. Not everyone needs or wants to learn programming/chess/etc..., which I guess was your original point. :)