The Importance of Mistakes

So many have told the story: after they submitted their portfolio, they looked at what they submitted and found errors. They then obsessed about them until they heard their results from the Board for Certification of Genealogists. [1]

But, those mistakes serve a purpose for all of us–submitters and wanna-be-submitters alike. They prove that perfection in a portfolio is NOT the standard by which the portfolios are judged. Thank goodness, or my portfolio would have hit the dustbin early.

The problem is when you review the sample portfolios at a conference or institute there is not enough time to identify those mistakes.  As a consequence, you leave that review thinking that the portfolio is perfect. The submitter knows their own work product has errors, but when you look at it–it looked perfect. Many decide to defer submission or not submit at all, because their portfolio would not be as perfect as those they had just reviewed.

And, so the myth begins—“my” portfolio had errors but “yours” didn’t; you received the credential and I won’t; I won’t submit because mine won’t be perfect; I will submit but be found wanting because of “all of my errors”. The obsessing begins while we wait.

Let me be clear, all portfolios have errors. And it’s true, if you make enough and they are bad enough mistakes, you won’t receive the credential.  But, some mistakes are more egregious than others. But, we most often seem to fuss over a comma here, a misspelling there, a goofed up citation here.

If each element of the portfolio is testing a skill, then it behooves us to not make a mistake on that skill. For example, if you link the wrong person to the wrong parent in your KDP–that’s a big deal.  Or, if you fail to address another same named individual in your Case Study, that will draw the ire of the judges. Does that mean you are out of the running?—no. The judges look at the totality of the submission. Here are some examples of mistakes made:

Research Report: I referred to the wrong person a couple of times in my RR. Of course, the judges caught the problem, because that section didn’t make sense.   I still received the credential.

KDP: I goofed on my numbering system and fussed about it. In the end, the judges didn’t seem to have even noticed it, but instead mentioned that I din’t have to follow such an elaborate numbering system at all because I had chosen “narrative lineage.” I still received the credential.

KDP: “I found a city directory for a Charles Olin in San Fransisco in 1912. The reviewer followed that through and said it was a different Charles Olin. Fortunately, I had enough other evidence in the case study about Charles Olin.”[3] Mary Roddy still received the credential.

Mary also, right before submission, found she had put the geographic place of interest on the wrong Great Lake.  It wasn’t Lake Erie; it was Lake Ontario![4] She changed it before submittal and received the credential.

Perfection is not the standard, but, that doesn’t give you a license to be sloppy.  Do your best work, so you can be proud of what you submit. Then read the judge’s comments and learn from them. Think of it this way– if you get very few comments from the judges, you probably had a very good portfolio, but you haven’t learned much from the judges’ comments.  Comments by judges or journal peer reviewers force us to look at our writing more closely.

That’s a good thing.

Should your portfolio not earn the credential, think about how much you learned by just doing the portfolio in the first place! Then, try again.

Mistakes are an important part of the learning process. Watch a toddler learn to walk or watch me ski, if you don’t believe me.

If you want to know more: See the article by Alison Hare, CG at “Skillbuilding: A Look at BCG’s Evaluation System.” (second row, first article)

Happy hunting,

Jill

PS: I do not speak for BCG. Your experience may be different. This blog is my experience or those experiences of others who have elected to share them with me, and for that I am eternally grateful.  YMMV.

What I have done since the last blog post: not much—pet the cat, make my hubby’s birthday cake, reviewed the emigrants from Björskog parish from 1850-1880 (only 20 more years to go!), etc.

[1] A “portfolio” is a 6 part submission to the Board for Certification of Genealogists to be reviewed by three judges. The portfolio is judged based on rubrics. If the portfolio is adequate, the submitter receives the credential of Certified Genealogist.
[2] Facebook, Photo by Mary Roddy, 17 March 2020, http://facebook.com. Used with permission.
[3] Mary Roddy, Personal Message to Jill Morelli, 17 March 2020.
[4] Ibid.