[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Eligibility-1 Year Extension Plan
In a message dated 97-06-30 06:07:23 EDT, PlaeDoh@aol.com writes:
If eligibility rules were thrown out Tuna knows he would one of the first in
line next to Korcok, Mahoney, and Lechtreck in the 2nd chance debate
However, debate is an educational activity and more and more students are
taking longer to get through school. It is going to take me 5 years to
graduate because not all of my JC classes in my major will transfer. At some
point I will have to take another semester off in order to be able to debate
my final year. Stories similar to mine are abound.
At Pace several people I've met (raw, uninitiated to the activity. Mostly
2nd-3rd year students) have expressed sincere interest in joining our squad
but have not done so after an explanation of the CEDA eligibility rules. By
the time they developed the skills necessary to compete at the level they
would like to, they would have run out of eligibility. Many wondered if they
could debate as graduate students.
Anyways, the important point about all this is that eligibility rules (with
the exception of enrollment- I could see that as ok) possibly erect a
to participation in the activity by new students as well as lowering the
number of debates that those who actually will graduate will participate in.
If some individuals choose to make the focus of their institutional
lives on debate, then at least they are doing something and are around the
"war of the masses, the outcome's disasterous" Wu-Tang >>
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.
I know that at my current institution and the one I previously coached, both
have five year degree programs in accounting and other majors. The
university is trying to produce better graduates by increasing the number of
hours and requirements in both the core curriculum and the major fields. In
light of this trend, that seems to be growing across the country in higher
education, I find myself leaning more and more to expanding eligibility one
additional year, without a grandfather clause if possible.
I mean James Taylor is still an undergrad and would get another year with a
grandfather clause. I think that type of situation should be avoided. Just
because you still haven't graduated several years after exhausting your
eligibility should not entitle one to the extra year. It should begin with
the debaters who can prove that their first semester of college level debate
began the same time the rule became effective. This would also provide a
four year delay until the community faced fifth year seniors, and I think the
delay will only serve to solidify the need for the extra year as degree
programs continue to get tougher.
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.
I am the first person to support the idea of employing an undergraduate
assistant to relieve some of the load from the director and help a student
without any remaining eligibliity finish their degree without actually
debating. I also feel for the coach who is under pressure to help support a
debater who has contributed four years of hard work and dedication to a team
while maintaining a full academic load but still lacks 25 hours to graduate.
It can be a real burden because these undergraduate assistants often eat up
the same budget (scholarship) that is designed to support incoming
freshman(person) debaters and returning debaters who are still eligible to
compete. The net result being that either the team grows smaller or a
dedicated and loyal team member is left hanging with no support at the end of
their degree program. This is not an enviable choice for any director, but
more and more often this choice is being made by directors all over the
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?
The CEDA organization is dedicated to educating students and helping them
develop their critical thinking skills. If universities across the country
are seeing the need for two more semesters to attain the knowledge
commeasurate with a bachelor's degree, shouldn't CEDA consider trying to
extend the education of debaters as well? If not, we should all get used to
the idea of seeing alot more undergraduate assistants in the future.
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,
ADOD Weber State University
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page