[eDebate] Graduate school debating & Newnam
Sat May 9 22:56:29 CDT 2009
I agree with nearly everything Russell says here, but I do think you can
'gerrymander' (as an undergrad). The CEDA Constitution (Section VII):
"Tournament contestants are eligible to earn points for a maximum of five
different, not necessarily consecutive, academic years."
I don't think the proposed amendment, if passed, creates that much of a
problem, as it would only enable graduate students to compete if they have
only competed in 4 years (or fewer).
I do believe that the "wait and debate later" trick might work for students
who debated 3 or fewer years, but if they coached and judged open, then the
EC might get into the position of trying to decide if judging in open really
DOES end your eligibility. I'm among many who feel it does, although I can
think of at least one case where someone was pushed into judging open
against their preferences that I would think appropriate for an exception.
If they didn't coach and judge during those off years, I'm not sure that
their participation is that concerning to me. I respect that it might be so
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Jason Russell <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman