Features Download

From: michael hester <uwgdebate-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w <at> public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Point Inflation and the 100 pt scale
Newsgroups: gmane.education.region.usa.edebate
Date: Wednesday 23rd September 2009 14:59:33 UTC (over 9 years ago)
Russell is correct. 87 is too high. i was conservative (i.e., tried to
stay close to what i thought others would do) at GSU b/c i felt like
UTD got jobbed last year missing on points and it affected their bid

but i will also go on record and say my 100 point scale will look like

27-27.5: 70-74

27.5-28: 75-82
                    --> these two have large ranges b/c they are the
areas i want to distinguish the most
28-28.5: 83-89

> 28.5: 90-100

i'm adding this to my judge philosophy (plus, there are some other
additions since GSU)


On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Jason Russell
> 87 should assuredly not be the average. That's ridiculous. If 87 is
> average then we're using this scale needlessly and could easily use
> the old 30 point scale just as well since it is likely no one is
> getting below a 75 even if they're really terrible with 87 set as the
> mark. In fact, that average would argue we'd need less
> differentiation, not more.
> I'm not so worried about the top speaker having really high points as
> I am about the middle and bottom being differentiated. The top 20
> speakers at most tournaments are objectively very close in skill and
> persuasiveness. Those debaters typically do A level work (90-100). I'm
> not shocked they're about the same. I am constantly shocked at how
> close the 50th debater is in points to the 20th debater. In my mind,
> there is a huge difference.
> I wish tournaments would stop providing advice on what the scale means
> because it directly influences judges. Many people I know have said to
> me re: the old Wake system histogram "yeah, I thought a 70 or so
> should be average like a term paper, but it says here an 82 is a 27,
> so that's what I'll go by". Judging is so referential to important
> opinion leaders and norms and trends that this simple suggestion
> quickly becomes a law. Let's be honest: we got to the problem of point
> inflation because many judges want the good teams to pref them. If you
> give lower points, you won't get preffed by the top teams fighting for
> elim seeding or even the 30-45 teams fighting to clear. So the trend
> in points went up to satisfy debaters' egos and consequently judges'
> egos. Now, because of these "suggestions" at tournaments regarding the
> meaning of their scales, debaters have concrete expectations about
> their points that START at 87. This is like students who walk into a
> college classroom and believe that completing all of their work gets
> them an A. It's nonsensical, uneducational, and frankly does debaters
> a disservice in evaluating their true skills, both strengths and
> weaknesses.
> 87 won't be my average at 100 point scale tournaments. I will start at
> 75 and work from there.
> J
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate-Zy/[email protected]
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
CD: 61ms