Издательство студии переводит и издает книги по дизайну, искусству, архитектуре, типографике, а также научно-популярную литературу. Мы ищем переводчиков с английского языка, которые обладают широкой эрудицией и уже имеют опыт книжных переводов. Желательно быть знакомым с нашей областью знаний или как минимум испытывать к ней неподдельный интерес.
Кандидатам предлагается коротко рассказать о себе и своем опыте, а также выполнить пробный перевод фрагмента статьи из «Гардиан».
The algorithm was conceived 100 miles north-west of Croydon, at the Coventry headquarters of Ofqual, the English exam regulator. Ofqual is an organisation made up of politically neutral civil servants who are empowered, encouraged and often as not hobbled in their work by government ministers. Staff there, including the chief, a floppy-haired executive called Roger Taylor, were initially queasy about using an algorithm on such a grand scale. Could they really try to simulate make-or-break grades for students who’d been pulled out of school without warning, two-thirds through an academic year? At first Taylor suggested other choices, including some sort of certificate to replace traditional grades, but ministers in Boris Johnson’s government ignored the idea. The algorithm plan was announced by Johnson’s education minister, Gavin Williamson, on 18 March. Ofqual spent the next two months toying with possibilities.
It came up with 11 candidate algorithms, labelled Approach-1 through Approach-11, ranged next to each other for consideration like prototype rockets. Approach-10 fell away first. Approach-3 had a genuine shot, as did Approach-1. These algorithms were intelligent guessers, the gist of their work familiar to racetrack patrons, as past form, judgment by eye and other looser assumptions were blended and sieved for insight. Approach-1 was reckoned the most accurate of the lot. By the end of May it had the nod.
In order for Approach-1 to function, it needed to be fed data. Some of this data could be drawn from Ofqual’s own historical records — for instance, how well a school had performed in exams in previous years — and some data would have to be generated more speculatively. Teachers around the country were asked to predict what grades their students might have secured if exams had gone ahead. They were also asked to make lists that ranked students against each other by subject. The projected grades and rankings reached Ofqual in mid-June. Because most teachers were expected to be generous, and a minority to be Scroogier than the rest, a failsafe was built into Approach-1 that would adjust the incoming grades up or down based on historical precedent. For instance, did a school tend to get about 10 As in maths a year? And had its teachers projected 12 As for 2020? Well, Approach-1 might suggest, the school’s 10 highest-ranked students in maths could have their As. But students number 11 and 12 would find they were Bs. They might even find they were Cs, if their school by some historical quirk did not typically secure Bs.