Re: Eligibility-1 Year Extension Plan

[Gary Larson <Gary.N.Larson@wheaton.edu>]

Before I express any opinions on the issue of extending eligibility either
in length of time (8 semesters/4 nationals) or beyond the B.A. barrier, I
think its important for us to note that the two issues are very different
(but potentially affect each other).  

In one case, students face the prospect of academic programs that can't be
completed by the time their debate eligibility expires (whether or not
debating contributes to this extension of academic careers is yet another
issue).

In the other, students can't complete their debate eligibility prior to
the completion of their undergraduate academic programs (the propensity
of debaters to extend eligibility through limited travel schedules is
again another issue).

While I might be sympathetic with both dilemmas, they potentially feed on
each other if we relax one or the other eligibility requirement.  If we
permit students 10 semesters of debate, we increase the disadvantage of
the students who begin as sophs, juniors or seniors and increase pressure
to relax the B.A. barrier.  If we relax the B.A. barrier, we would
confront "typical" academic programs that might last the 20 years that
transpired from the beginning of my B.A. to the completion of my PhD
(with three M.A.'s intervening - and I would still have eligibility).

An attempt to address the one concern without addressing the other would
potentially disadvantage a group of students.

So why should we care at all?  Eliminating all eligibility requirements
treats everyone "equitably".  But there are several reasons to place some
limits on eligibility.  1) The requirement that debaters be "students" is
clearly demanded by the majority of institutions and departments that fund
our activity.  2) In many cases, funding and other forms of institutional
support would be clearly limited to undergraduate students (particularly
institutions with only undergraduate programs and programs that fund 
debate from undergraduate student fees).  3) Even if we weren't concerned
about the programmatic inequities that would be created, I am concerned by
the blurring of the line between coaching and competing.  We rely
significantly on graduate students to coach and judge in our activity.
Many of these would still have eligibility.  How would the activity find a
principled way to distinguish the two groups?  4) I am also concerned that
GA support could (or would) be used for participants rather than coaches.
Since GA support often is significantly greater than UG scholarship
support, this could create another significant resource inequity (most
schools in the activity do not have GA lines in comm depts (or others)
that could be used to support debaters.  5) If we relax only the 8
semester rule without relaxing the BA barrier, we increase the entry
barrier for students in "traditional" four-year programs who start later
than their first year but find themselves even in their senior year
debating those with 4+ more semesters of experience.  If this additional
experience does NOT, in fact, disadvantage anyone, we lose one of the best
warrants for extending careers for more than 8 semesters in the first
place.

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: Eligibility-1 Year Extension Plan
• From: Billy Cravens <bcravens@collegemail.com>

---

• Next by Date: Dispositionality
• Next by thread: Re: Eligibility-1 Year Extension Plan
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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