[eDebate] Graduate school debating & Newnam

Jason Russell jasonlrussell1
Fri May 8 19:53:02 CDT 2009

I don't have a strong opinion on this provision overall, but am I wrong that
Bill's concern about people coming back in their 5th year of PhD work is
off-base because you only have consecutive years of eligibility under the
current guidelines? My understanding was you could no longer gerrymander
your years. 1-4 + 1 at a later date.

I do not get the impression that there are only a few students to whom this
rule would apply. I believe many debaters would make drastically different
choices, particularly regarding their fifth years, if the amendment passed.
I think that an appeals process is wildly inappropriate to handle the likely
rush of student interest in said waiver. I do not believe that these waivers
should be only applicable to students finishing school in their 3rd year
given that we allow students to debate 5 yrs, regardless of Gordon's interp
(which I saw as merely an example, not a constitutive rationale).

I guess I will say that I strongly favor the anti-poaching provisions. I do
not believe that the goal of this proposal is to expand graduate
opportunities. I do believe it is to avoid a forced choice between debating
and graduating. I do not like the idea of students trained at one school
transferring to another for an MA program and 1-2 more years of eligibility.
I do believe that this retains and perhaps accentuates some of the perceived
injustices between smaller and larger programs. This is not for my vested
interest, mind you. I've only ever worked at schools w excellent graduate
opportunities in a diversity of fields. It is in my estimation not good for
our game.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/2eb960e0/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list