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

No Subject

25 Jun 1997 12:20:02 CDT@
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:47:42 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: BAlthrop's Comments on Coaching
To: CEDA-L@Cornell.edu
Message-id: <01IKHLGX1GV690OCVL@selu.edu>
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

A couple things to get out of the way: First, I have a lot of respect for
Dr. Balthrop and his work in forensics. Second, I am doing just fine in
my position as a Director of Forensics. My publications are enough to justify
tenure and my pay is pretty good. So what is my beef?
	Well, first the publish or perish world created by universities does nedneed some serious re-evaluation. Counting publications are easy ways to 
evaluate the work of professors. I will certainly jump through the hoops to
meet that requirement. However, I still feel that Directors of Forensics are
doing "double-duty" to meet those standards of publication. Dr. Balthrop is
quite correct that it is the nature of the tenure and promotion process to
support those who get published. But I think he underestimates the time
trade-off inherent in active forensic coaching.
	A researcher (I've been one, really) spends all of her time and 
effort producing a product for publication. I've pulled the 72 hour/ 20
pots of coffee stints to finish a project for publication. I know that 
many of my colleagues have done the same. But that entire weekend is
effort expended toward publication of a journal article or a book. An
active debate coach (Been that too) must hop in a van on Thursday afternoon,
drive all night, then judge rounds all weekend long, then drive back home
early Monday or Tuesday morning. The result? Maybe a trophy if your kids
did not drop "T" in the final round. While that is nice, all of that time,
anywhere from 72 to 140 hours for just ONE WEEKEND, does not lead to publicationSo, while it serves some educational and competitive purpose, actively coaching
will not support a person's publication aspirations. In order for me to
compete with others in my field (rhetoric), I must therefore pull a double-shiftI must not only travel on theweekends, but then spend my nights working on 
my publications. If, on the other hand, I simply do research I would recieve just as much (probably more) points toward tenure than coaching and publishing.
The time trade-off between the two is is simply too much. 
	Pay--The same issue of hours devoted to coaching commensurate with
pay is the same as above. Debate coaches sacrifice their weeks and weekends
for the same pay a someone who puts in ONLY 60 hours a week. I say only because
many coaches spend 30 hours a week meeting their teaching responsibilities,
8 to 15hours DRIVING to a tournament, 72 hours at the tournament, and then another 8 to 15 hours driving back. Dr. Balthrop, when am I supposed to do the research? What other professors put in this much time? Not Cancer researchers, but
Professors in the field of Communication, which put in this much time? 
	Like I said at the beginning of this post, I am in no trouble
whatsoever as far as tenure and promotion. However, I believe I echo many
people's complaint that coaching does place a professor in an untenable
situation. Many of our most brilliant scholars in the field of Communication
are former debate coaches. But that is the rub. They are FORMER debate coaches.
They had to quit forensics in order to really progress in theri field. 
	Doin' fine in Louisiana, but thinkin' about the future.
Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D.
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page