Well, seeing that mine was the funniest and most original, my email must be playing up. 
only joking! 
BBC College of Comedy 2 Page 16
Quote: Griff @ May 8 2009, 4:11 PM BSTI wonder what "no CVs to speak of" means?
There does seem to be quite a gulf between the entry criteria for this scheme - a single professional credit, which means many of us BSGers who have had sketches on radio etc. are eligible - and the CVs of the selected students, who have had substantially more success and experience.
Yep!
Earlier on in this thread, someone mentioned that CVs are (allegedly) taken into consideration first, BEFORE the script.
But what if someone has just one broadcast credit, say, for example a RFTP sketch, and their script was amazing?
Would that be picked or would the almost-amazing script by someone else with more broadcast credits be picked instead?
Wouldn't it be better to have meritocrasy?
We read both work and CVs, and a slim CV was as good as a more extensive one if the work was good. But despite the criteria being clear, some people still tried on the basis of a sketch on hospital radio, for example. You can't blame them for trying, but that's not really a CV to speak of.
Hello Micheal.
Thanks for clearing that up.
And LOL @ hospital radio.
And just to clear it up. It's not my email playing up, is it?
Quote: Micheal Jacob @ May 8 2009, 4:21 PM BST... some people still tried on the basis of a sketch on hospital radio ...
Just to point out, it had them in stitches.
Ah well. All is not lost.
Out of those 600 odd scripts that didn't quite make the CoC, I'm sure the Beeb will think "ooh, some of these are really good" and actually develop some of them.
Otherwise it'll be such a waste as there must be some absolute gems in there.
Surely because of the criteria those 600 will be better quality than the 1000s they get "open-house" through WR.
Looks like I killed the convo again
OUTSIDE
INSIDE
Quote: Mikey Jackson @ May 8 2009, 5:39 PM BSTOut of those 600 odd scripts that didn't quite make the CoC, I'm sure the Beeb will think "ooh, some of these are really good" and actually develop some of them.
Well they didn't last year. As far as I know.
Plus, there's no reason why most of the scripts they received weren't awful.
Twas a ray of hope.
Plus Micheal mentioned on the blog that the majority of entries this year were quality.
Quote: Mikey Jackson @ May 10 2009, 7:04 PM BSTTwas a ray of hope.
Plus Miceal mentioned on the blog that the majority of entries this year were quality.
Well he's hardly going to stick the boot in and tell everyone they were shit! 
Well, I would probably say something like - rather disappointing. But there were a lot of good ones, probably more good ones than last year.
The point of the scheme isn't to find work to develop, but to find writers to develop. In any case, much of the submitted material has either been broadcast, or is being developed already.
Quote: Ben @ May 9 2009, 11:19 PM BSTPlus, there's no reason why most of the scripts they received weren't awful.
Whatever happened to you, Ben? You used to be such an optimistic upbeat young man, now you're as jaded and cynical as the rest of us. 
Quote: Micheal Jacob @ May 11 2009, 10:17 AM BSTWell, I would probably say something like - rather disappointing. But there were a lot of good ones, probably more good ones than last year.
Would you tell us if there weren't?
Quote: chipolata @ May 11 2009, 10:18 AM BSTWould you tell us if there weren't?
Of course, why not? There's no advantage in talking things up for the sake of it.