{"id":50790,"date":"2020-01-21T12:26:25","date_gmt":"2020-01-21T20:26:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/world.edu\/?p=50790"},"modified":"2020-01-21T12:26:25","modified_gmt":"2020-01-21T20:26:25","slug":"when-great-chefs-taste-the-uncertainties-of-evaluation-in-the-light-of-michelin-stars","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/when-great-chefs-taste-the-uncertainties-of-evaluation-in-the-light-of-michelin-stars\/","title":{"rendered":"When great chefs taste: the uncertainties of evaluation in the light of Michelin stars"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"The Michelin Guide\u00a0has just withdrawn<\/a>\u00a0their third star from the great chefs Marc Veyrat, then the late Paul Bocuse.\u00a0The stir caused is considerable.<\/p>\n

For all those who are interested in evaluation, especially in school, it is a remarkable opportunity to reflect on the uncertainties of this practice which, less than ever, cannot claim to be a measure.<\/p>\n

The question of legitimate referrers<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The emotion aroused by this event testifies to the importance for the public of gastronomy, of course.\u00a0But it also says how questionable the legitimacy of the evaluators, in any setting whatsoever.<\/p>\n

To evaluate is to say to what extent a given reality (in this case, the dish served) seems acceptable by reference to an expected reality (the perfect dish).\u00a0Any evaluation involves a “referent”, which expresses what one thinks is legitimately entitled to expect from the reality evaluated.\u00a0It remains to be seen what founds this legitimacy.<\/p>\n

This foundation will be objective when (and if) we can indisputably fix what we are entitled to expect from the reality assessed.\u00a0We are for example entitled to expect a CM2 pupil to master the programs of his class.\u00a0Admittedly, the programs were the subject of a preliminary discussion (and often passionate).\u00a0But, the program being fixed and published, its legitimacy becomes indisputable within the educational institution.\u00a0In a very general way, we are legitimately\u00a0entitled to wait<\/a>\u00a0for the school to instruct, for the police to protect, for the hospital to treat, etc.<\/p>\n

This foundation will be subjective if what one is entitled to expect is public opinion, can be discussed from a social, or political point of view and is not “sealed” in a text having the force of law.\u00a0This is the case when the evaluation relates to “objects” such as a book, a film, a meal, a hotel service, etc.\u00a0We must then be able to have a referent who can reach consensus.<\/p>\n

Democratic issue<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The question to which the evaluator must respond can be expressed as follows: “Did the service provide the satisfaction that we were entitled to expect?”\u00a0“.\u00a0But what can we expect from a \u201cgood\u201d meal?\u00a0Opinions can be very different, depending on customers, critics, and food guides.<\/p>\n

When the expectations that can be used to build the referent are a priori questionable, the solution would be to subject them to a collective examination, carried out by legitimate representatives of the persons concerned by the evaluation, to arrive at a shared referent, that is to say that is to say, built in common, and accepted by the actors.<\/p>\n

To arrive at a set of expectations with a maximum (or, in any case, a minimum) of legitimacy, it would therefore be necessary to debate them serenely, accepting the idea that no one owns the one and only real grid. appreciation.\u00a0We can then speak of\u00a0democratic evaluation<\/a>\u00a0.<\/p>\n

Such a \u201cdebate\u201d requires the respect of each of those who take part in it, the arguments of authority being unable to be put since since, basically, each one can be judged expert as regards his personal satisfaction.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Not so transparent judgments?<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Such participative construction work of the referent is, it is true, a challenge.\u00a0Because it forces to privilege the dialogue, and to bet on\u00a0the collective intelligence<\/a>\u00a0.\u00a0We are still far from it in the gastronomic domain.<\/p>\n

The educational field is not spared either, because the programs do not unequivocally dictate expectations.\u00a0There is a lot of room for interpretation.\u00a0Many other expectations are added to those that arise directly from the programs.\u00a0And the student has their own expectations.\u00a0An effort of clarification will always be necessary.<\/p>\n

No one, even the\u00a0Michelin Guide<\/a>\u00a0, or the Associate Professor, can argue that his point of view is infallible.\u00a0The point of view of those evaluated is no more superior than the others.\u00a0But the one who is evaluated through his productions is entitled to demand transparency on the “kitchen” that produced the judgment that affects him, especially if he overwhelms him.\u00a0The restaurant owner has the right to know “in what sauce” he was eaten.\u00a0So does the student.<\/p>\n

What the appraised can then demand is threefold:<\/p>\n