Elitism

["Norah E. Dunbar" <nedunbar@ecst.csuchico.edu>]

	I have been reading this thread with some interest and would like 
to contribute some thoughts:
1. "Talent, Desire, and a Good Director" is not enough to succeed in CEDA 
debate today.  It is a budgetary issue but I believe the bottom line for 
most teams is ROUND EXPERIENCE.  To be competitive, you need to debate 
often and debate often against teams that are a challenge to you.  If you 
are confined to one region, or only get to 3 tournaments a semester, it 
doesn't really matter how many cards you cut or how smart you are.  You 
need to to know what other teams are running, what to do with all the 
cards you cut, and what NOT to do in a round.  The more you do it, the 
easier it gets and you learn fast from your mistakes.  If you don't see 
many rounds, that type of learning can't happen.

2.  I think Leah Castella hit the nail right on the head when she said 
that the real problem is not for those teams cited by others as having 
overcome barriers to be recognized by the "elite" but the fact that some 
teams have to overcome barriers at all.  The teams that manage to succeed 
dispite their disadvantages should certainly be applauded but they are a 
select few.  Many more teams have less talent but are part of the "elite" 
by default--simply because of the school they attend.  This does not 
mean that teams like Kieran and Paul do not deserve their reputation.  
Certainly any team that can go to several tournaments and only drop 3 
rounds is an excellent team, but I think even Kieran and Paul--and they 
can correct me if I'm wrong--acknowledge that they don't have the 
monopoly on good debate.  They recognize and compliment talent when they 
see it in others, even if those others are not part of the "elite."  
Certainly, there are many good debaters that don't see the national 
circuit very often.
  
3.  Will Baker rightly points out that it is not just the "elite" that 
have debaters who work hard.  Successful squads are hard workers and 
there's no doubt those who manage to break into the national circuit from 
a small or underfunded squad are probably doing more than their share of 
the work, but just about every squad has at least one debater who "works 
hard." Unfortunately, it doesn't always pay off with a national rep.  
There are many other factors involved (see #1 above).    

Thanks to Kevin Twohy and others in recent postings who recognized my 
squad's talents.  Matt & Pat haven't seen too many tournaments this 
semester but they are kicking butt in their own way at home.  The 
adjustment to a new coaching staff can sometimes be rough, but they have 
done everything humanly possible to make it easier on the squad :).  Gina 
too!

	Norah Dunbar
	California State University, Chico

---

• Prev by Date: National Qualifiers
• Next by Date: Limiting Nationals-Jason Trice, Tim Mahoney
• Prev by thread: Elitism
• Next by thread: elitism etc.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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