[eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat

Josh jbhdb8
Sat May 2 11:58:47 CDT 2009


If however, as Dallas pointed out to me, the rule is written (as it is now)
to prevent poaching by saying it has to be at the same school....then I am a
moron for suggesting a straw boogie person......Ok, sorry about that (most
people do not go to graduate school at the same school they did
undergraduate at and are encouraged not from my understanding....but thats a
minor disadvantage).

Apologies,

Josh

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:

> It does seem to me that regardless of the "turns" made to the 4 year
> graduation arguments...the 5 year/graduate proposal creates an incentive for
> programs with grad schools to poach good debaters from other programs to
> debate the last (arguably best) year for pay.....Is this really what we
> want?
>
> As usual, I agree with Ermo,
>
> Josh
>
>   On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Eric Morris <ermocito at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Several thoughts on this amendment proposal.
>>
>> 1. We should keep in mind the factors which motivated the original shift.
>> a. CEDA moved to get in line with the AFA (and thus the NDT), who changed
>> their rules. One significant motive was uniformity, which is undermined with
>> a CEDA-only change.
>> b. The average length of the undergrad career IS increasing at many
>> schools (while others give you 4 years to graduate or not). Our school has
>> majors which require nearly 150 hours to graduate.
>> c. Some schools have a hard time justifying providing scholarships to
>> people who are not yet done, but were recruited and rely upon debate
>> scholarships to afford college.
>> d. The 5 year option was already available to many, but required
>> minimizing travel for a semester, which may considered an annoyance.
>> Occasionally, the 8 semester rule extended people beyond 5 years.
>>
>> 2. The current amendment's writing is designed to account for cases
>> similar to a recent appeal, where a student at a school with an unusual
>> schedule graduated a few weeks before CEDA nationals. Opening 5 years to
>> every graduate student is a VERY different animal than making a reasonable
>> adjustment to a school whose unusual calendar created a potentially unjust
>> and inappropriate interaction with CEDA eligibility.
>>
>> 3. Presumption should remain against graduate school poaching, and I say
>> this as a program that could theoretically poach effectively with our GTA
>> positions (I thus disagree that short term competitive self interest would
>> control the outcome of a vote on this proposal). It's a big deal to hand one
>> program the bill for training you, and then debate your final (presumptively
>> most successful) year for the highest bidder. The current ethical norms
>> against poaching - combined with the allowance for transfer - are a
>> balancing act that, if scrapped, might lead to a very different sort of
>> community. One we legitimate poaching via graduate school, it will seem a
>> short walk to accept it at all levels of the undergraduate experience. I
>> anticipate significant cultural shifts will result from open bidding, and
>> I'm skeptical that most of them will be positive.
>>
>> 4. Joel Rollins' post on CEDA-L indicating we may create significant PR
>> problems with our home departments is a valid point. Although I think the
>> proposal of some that we retreat to the old rule creates problems (see #1),
>> it would probably be far less disruptive than the 5 years into graduate
>> school alternative.
>>
>> 5. Given the points made above, and the clear lack of consensus about this
>> issue in posts thus far, I would strongly oppose having the CEDA EC assert
>> the power to impose this really substantial change on the community through
>> the backdoor of the appeals process. The purpose of appeals is to consider
>> hard cases within the spirit of the current rules, not to overthrow decades
>> of practice. The notion that it might do so in reaction to defeat of the
>> current modest proposal is even more concerning. It would be far superior to
>> stretch the Constitution by finding a way to vote on a 5 year, grad school
>> inclusive proposal than to have the EC impose that principle and thus push
>> CEDA and NDT into inconsistent standards.
>>
>> 6. I don't wish to suggest that I'm completely decided on the merits of a
>> 5th year graduate school proposal. I am at least very hesitant, and I would
>> encourage those pressing for it to further advance the discussion instead of
>> moving to the action phase without a clear vote from the community.
>>
>> 7. Do you really want to give every former debater who finished in 4 years
>> another year if they enroll in a grad school somewhere? I don't know if the
>> "you sacrifice your eligibility by judging open" norm is strong enough to
>> prevent that, particularly given that none of those people understood
>> themselves to be ("uniquely") forfeiting said eligibility if they did judge
>> after graduating. How will you establish whether or not someone who
>> graduated in 1979 and didn't coach judged open rounds or JV rounds? It could
>> be Tim Mahoney's professional-debate concept run amok....
>>
>> Ermo
>> MoState
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090502/5b24008d/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list