[eDebate] 50 speaker point scale at Wake

Dallas Perkins dperkins
Thu Nov 1 18:03:28 CDT 2007


And, just like low point wins, there could be a box on the ballot which 
the judge has to initial to indicate that she remembered that there is a 
50 point scale and has assigned points accordingly.

dp

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Morris, Eric R wrote:

> My freshman year at CEDA I had a ballot with glowing comments and a 29/40 points which altered our elim placement. I hope any points that might indicate the judge "forgot" the new point system would be confirmed by the tab - just as low point wins are confirmed.
>
> Dr. Eric Morris
> Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics
> Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication
> Missouri State University
> Springfield, MO 65897
> (O) 417-836-7636
> (H) 417-865-6866
> (C) 417-496-7141
> AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of EMarlow at ucok.edu
> Sent: Thu 11/1/07 1:31 PM
> To: Andy Ellis
> Cc: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com; edebate; Ross Smith; ceda-l at ndtceda.com
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] 50 speaker point scale at Wake
>
>
>
> Here's my fear.  I remember the old days when CEDA nats used a 40 point scale.  Every year some team or debater that generally cleared and/or received speaker awards would not because one of their judges forgot the scale change.  You would get a judge giving what they thought were great point like a 29 only to realize later that the scale was different.  I encourage judges to be diligent and cognizant of the scale change.
>
> Peace,
> Marlow
>
>
>
> "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
> Sent by: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
>
> 11/01/2007 12:19 PM
>
> To
> "Ross Smith" <smithr at wfu.edu>
> cc
> edebate <eDebate at ndtceda.com>, ceda-l at ndtceda.com
> Subject
> Re: [eDebate] 50 speaker point scale at Wake
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ok, Im all into this new system an like the description ross offers. My concern i guess is this:
>
> As broken as the other system is almost everybody at the wake tournament knows how to use it, the new system may have some getting used to time...The fear for me is that one or two judges who do not yet have a good grasp of they feel about the 50 point scale can create a serious problem in the world where a bunch of 5-3's are not clearing on points anyway. Of course this could cut both ways and any particular team could benefit from the 50 point scale as much as they could be hurt by it, but i guess i would be frustrated if in a 30 point scale a team i coached had the points, but didnt under the 50 point scale. There is of course also no way to check who would have cleared in a 30 point scale vs the 50 which also makes it difficult to make comparisons...I'm all for the innovation, just a bit nervous that some judges may be harder graders than point givers....
>
> On 11/1/07, Ross Smith <smithr at wfu.edu <mailto:smithr at wfu.edu> > wrote:
> I promised in the invitation that I would share thoughts and encourage
> discussion. That'e the purpose of this.
>
> 1) The current system is broken. No doubt. Multi-way ties are now broken
> by judge variance ( a meaningless stat no better than random number.
> People are sensing that 28.5 is too many points for a given speaker
> while 28 is too few. The standard deviation (a measure of menaingful
> differences) is now smaller than 0.5, whiich means there judeges
> "exagerate" in either direction when they assign points.
>
> 2) Going to decimals or quarter points is one alternative, but does not
> require people to rethink.
>
> 3) When grading papers for classes we are able to make a wider range of
> disinctions than only good, real good, and great (28, 28.5, 29).
>
> 4) How I suggest the 50 point scale be used.
>
> NOT as a different digit in front -- 28.5 does NOT equate to 48.5.
> Obviously.
>
> Think of grades. 90% and above is an A. 80-90 is a B. Assume you are a
> very kind professor who will give mostly A's and B's and does not want
> to buck the grade inflation trend (it is unfair to do so since it
> punishes students relative to their peers merely for having you as the
> prof., not for the quality of their work).
>
> So, 45 points is an A-. 44 is B+. 50 is A+. 40 is B-. There are poins in
> between. 47 is a solid A. 48 a higher A. 49 is GREAT. 43 is a solid B.
>
> We have a national tournament with a limited field, so most of the
> students will be A and B students. Somebody who, in the entire nation of
> debate is just average might "deserve" a C (35-39). Probably does not
> matter much.
>
> I suspect there are more B students than there are A students (bell
> curves beiing what they are). You might usefully think of the A students
> as the ones that debate well enough that they are likely in the top
> third of the field.
>
> It should be no source of shame to a student to get a B. A B+ might be
> saying you are close to getting there.
>
> For those who like to think in other terms, maybe this will help:
>
> 49-50: Brilliant. Hard to imagine a better performance.
> 47-48: NDT elim worthy performance.
> 45-47: Powerful but not extraordinary. Workmanlike break round or early
> elim.
> 43-44: Good stuff, but missing what it takes to break into the top
> national level.
> 40-42: Decent. More than one area needs improvement.
>
> --
> Ross K. Smith
> Director of Debate
> Wake Forest University
>
> 336-251-2076 (c)
> 336-758-5268 (o)
>
> http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ <http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/>
> http://www.DebateScoop.org <http://www.debatescoop.org/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com <mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate <http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited.
>
>



More information about the Mailman mailing list