[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Eligibility-1 Year Extension Plan


In a message dated 6/30/97 11:58:43 AM, you wrote:

>In addition to problems in transferring hours, graduation programs are
>getting longer.  I do not think we should bend the rules for transfer, even
>legitimate JC transfers.  It is a shame that many hours do not transfer, but
>that is the pitfall of transferring that all transferees must consider
before
>moving.  However, I do find some sympathy with giving people an addition two
>semesters and a corresponding CEDA National Tournament to compensate for the
>changing nature of undergraduate study.  
<snip>
>I really don't see alot of sympathy for the transfer student, but I think
>CEDA should recognize and respond to a nationwide trend in higher education.
> If our universities are going to require our students to spend five years
>obtaining a degree (even if they were just full time students and not
>debaters), then we as directors and advisors should recognize this and allow
>debaters to have another year of eligiblity.  
>However, the proliferating number of these types of students leads me to
>believe that this isn't an isolated problem with a few debaters who are
>sacrificing academics for their debate "carreer".  The number of these types
>of students leads me to believe that there are more and more good students
>who are also debaters that are not graduating in four years despite serious
>attempts at timely matriculation.  
>
>I think that the time is soon coming when a bachelor's degree will be a five
>year program, and if this assessment is accurate, I think the eight/four
>(semesters/CEDA Nationals) eligibility standard in place should be seriously
>reconsidered.  Remember, a great athelete can almost jump from high school
to
>the pros so why does this four year distinction retain an almost priviledged
>position in our eligibility discussions?  
<snip>
>sidenote:  I debated all eight semesters as an undergrad and graduated with
a
>bachelor's degree in four years, and up until the last couple of years had
no
>sympathy for someone who could not do both as I did.  Looking around at the
>programs of alot of universities, I have had to reevaluate my own stance.
> You should, too.  Even if you don't agree with me, you should at least look
>into the data for my warrant.  Perhaps there is some other interpretation
>that I have missed, but if not, we may need to seriously reconsider our
rigid
>eight/four approach to eligibility.
>
>Sorry my rant is so long,
>
>Peace,
>Eric Marlow
>ADOD Weber State University

A 5th year is a step in an agreeable direction I suppose. But, why do we even
have these eligibility rules in the first place? Is the only justification
for their existence to protect a student from themselves? I think these are
important questions because they illuminate the reason the organization made
the rules in the first place and if/why they are unecessary or obsolete.  

peas
Danny Bell
Pace U.
"Let's all strap bombs to our backs and ride our bikes to the next G-7
picnic" Propagandhi
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page