Re:Garmon on "MPJ and Accountability"

[sxwoods@moose.uvm.edu (Steve Woods)]

>Just how is ABCX supposed to
>improve or enhance accountability?  At times, reading your post, I have
>the impression that you're trying an impact turn: you're pointing to just
>the factors that MPJ opponents point to as fostering elitism, and you're
>saying those factors are actually good (because they produce
>accountability).

I'm not sure how a judge rating equals elitism.  Some clarification here
would help, but I'll offer this initial response: If capability to do a
task and appreciation for that capability is elitist than how can debate
ever avoid it?  Secondly, despite the intrinsic hierarchy in our activity,
it seems more fair to allow the participants to make this assessment for
themselves.  Third, the key to MPJ is the first part of the
acronym-"MUTUAL" if both teams are in agreement in their assessment of the
critic how does this create an unfair advantage for one over the other?
Also, lets say their is a round between the alleged "big people" occurring
at the same time as a round between the "Small people" and they have all
ranked an "elite" critic an "A", if the round between the small people is
more important in terms of them being on the bubble, they have a greater
chance of getting that "elite" critic, not the "big people."  And if it is
a match up between the "big" and the "small" their agreement on critic must
be MUTUAL.


>The strategy that most of us MPJ proponents have been
>following, though, is to deny that those factors operate.  They don't
>operate to produce cliques, they don't operate to produce elites, so they
>don't operate to give us accountability either.  They are nonexistant.

I think the above explanation would apply here.  I think the "mutuality" of
the system avoids the cliques of teams and judges being isolated
communities wherein a tournament could be held and the teams that clear to
elim rounds are the only ones to get the "A" judges, and are consistently
the same teams and judges.  Now if the argument is that elitism is fostered
because critics who no one thinks do a very good job are not used much,
then I will concede the elitism.  But in so doing I think the result will
have preserved the educational integrity of the activity by weeding out
those who are lazy or not competent to be educators in the intense
laboratory of knowledge that is intercollegiate debate.  It is not after
dinner speaking or a style show it is for intense intellectual stimulation.
Those who do not want to work at being critics should be relieved of that
burden, rather than being randomly exposed to students who work so very
hard.

>        At any given tournament, I've long observed, if I judge equally
>in novice/JV and in varsity, the round that I will find most difficult to
>decide will be one of the novice rounds.  The varsity folks are pretty
>clear about indicating what they mean, but novices leave me anguishing
>about, say, whether some utterance constitutes a topicality argument or
>not. There's just as good an argument that says that our beginning
>judges should be in varsity, where the debaters know how to adapt to
>them, and our best educator/judges should be in novice, where they can
>provide the proper guidance and instruction to the debaters who need it >most.

I know what you are saying here.  That is a good point in terms of round
clarity, but I think I was referring to the more limited scope overall of a
novice or JV round.  There are significantly fewer issues in the round, are
usually slower in pace, and the participants seem more willing to accept
the critics view of the round and their own shortcomings as students just
learning the activity.  I still think that inexperienced judges should
apprentice in varsity rounds to get a feel for what good debate is, but
that they would fell more comfortable and initially do a better job with
debates that are more to a beginners scale.  I do agree that experienced
critics SHOULD hear novice and JV rounds for the reasons that you point
out, but there is also an obligation. in my opinion, that experienced
debaters deserve experienced critics so that they may have more advanced
and educational debate opportunities.  We would not expect any
undergraduate to constantly take an entry level course because that's all
the university would give them.  Debaters should consistently have an
opportunity to participate at the highest level possible, and the best
critic available to them makes that more possible.

>        How can strikes become B's if moving "up" is based on familiarity
>and striking prevents that familiarity from happening?

In MPJ the first few rounds are randomly assigned so that the preference
forms can be administered.  I think this gives that "non-elite" critic a
shot to show how they can do a good job.  Also, at some tournaments the
pool available will change who is an "A" or a strike.

> Let's just implement the idea I've already expressed here, and which
>Tuna tells me he has expressed long before.  Give the debaters ballots
>for assessing their judge.  Every judge is required to reveal and discuss
>the decision with the debaters after the round.  After that discussion
>takes place, the judge writes up her ballot while the debaters write
>theirs.  The debaters also give points to their judge.  At the end of the
>tournament an award is given to the highest point-getting judge.

I think that is part of the solution, but it won't keep critics who are
poorly prepared or just weak from hearing debates in front of students who
absolutely will not benefit from their presence.  If a judge sees that they
are consistently ranked a "c" or struck, then they may choose to reconsider
their efforts.  And if they don't at least teams can avoid them.  I think
that the cumulative results from the MPJ forms should be released with the
tournament schematics, just like the debaters records and speaker points.
I think a lot of resistance to MPJ comes from people who may be insecure
with their abilities as critics and don't want to be identified or
challenged.  The activity does not exist to insulate the educators who work
in it from the harsh realities of expectation of quality performance.  We
as critics owe as much to the students we judge as to the students we
coach.  I think that a judge rating system would allow for quality critics
to be paired with quality students.  You can pick your own meaning for
"quality," and if we agree on that then we can agree on who our critics
should be.  If we don't agree on that, then I think the activity is big
enough for us to each find critics we feel are of quality to be exposed to.

In closing, I realize the tone of this may still come off as elitist, that
I want only the Big teams to hegemonically control the activity.  Of
Course, I'm not real sure who the Big teams are since no one seems to
mention them by name.  And isn't it incredible that so many different teams
have had success so recently?  Who is the debate hegemon?  I think success
in our activity has been rather liberally spread around rather than
centralized.   My hope is that the plea for quality educational experience
comes through.   To Meredith specifically my guess is that we are a lot
closer on the issues than maybe my initial post indicated, and even if not
given these attempts at clarification, your responses do help to enrich the
texture of this discussion.  I hope the "lurkers" on the L are considering
the arguments for themselves as carefully.

Steve Woods
University of Vermont

---

• Prev by Date: Re: The LSAT & the CEDA-L
• Next by Date: Re: flowing ev.....
• Prev by thread: Re: Flowing Evidence - Has the Emperor No Clothes?
• Next by thread: Dear Santa :-)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page