Re: 5th year -Reply

[MWBRYANT@aol.com]

In a message dated 97-01-27 08:55:49 EST, you write:

<< Finally, I would agree that some debaters stick around too long.  So
 do some other students.  And, a STRICT five year rule would be more
 rigid than the current 8 semester rule.
 
 John Fritch
 SMS
  >>

And by what reasoning do you reach this conclusion, John? It seems just as
likely that we'd start seeing six year debaters. NDT's history of grandfather
clauses and under-the-table exemptions seems to provide enough risk of this
concept that it seems obvious that it will transpire.

As a commuter school full of thirty year old parents, Weber's average number
of years for an undergrad degree is over eight. By your reasoning so far, my
debaters should get eight years of eligibility.

Obviously, Weber St would benefit greatly from weakened eligibility
standards. We have many debaters who would gain a new lease on life. But
frankly, I think they're better off concentrating on graduating. Debate's
fun, but it's not a right. Debaters need to get on with their lives. Maybe
this is paternalistic, but if you can avoid paternalism when you see students
you have worked with for years screw up their lives due to an addiction to
debate, then you and I truly have different perspectives on teaching.

No one is owed five years of debate eligibility, others are waiting for their
chances. It is more abusive for us to camouflage our own self-interest in
keeping experienced debaters around.

Bear
Weber St

---

• Prev by Date: Parli-L Listserv
• Next by Date: 5 years
• Prev by thread: Re: 5th year -Reply
• Next by thread: Saluki entries, 1/25 (really!)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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