[eDebate] Additional Program Development Thought

[Josh Hoe]

Dr. Warner is right about the problems of creating revenue...Administrations
at State schools, especially in a decade where cuts to state budgets have
really cut higher ed funds, are turning more an more to a model requiring
you to raise your own funds. I know that trying to continually find revenue
streams through bad economic years in Michigan is truly challenging.  Sounds
like Ede is trying some interesting new ideas at Louisville.

I used to feel upset that I had to raise money and couldnt just "coach
debate" but I fear that is going to become more and more of an essential
debate coaching survival skill.

Anyway, I agree that the court decisions around Title 9 have much to do why
non-revenue generating sports remain on most college campsuses.

Josh


On 4/21/06, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:

>

> The repeated argument I've heard is that men's basketball and football

> are the cash cows and create resources from which the others are funded.

> Since Title IX, the argument has been you must create an equal amount

> of women's opportunities.  So generally schools reduce their total

> number of men's sports if they don't generate a lot of revenue in the

> "main two".  If they do, like Louisville, they maintain all of the

> non-revenue generating male sports and simply offer more women's sports.

> Their ability to protect still comes from the generation of revenue.

>

> The ability of speech and debate activities to exist outside of

> departments and not be funded like smaller student run clubs will come

> down to the ability to generate revenue for most schools (run like a

> business).  I don' t know how to do that outside of what is sucessfully

> done at Michigan and other places:  institutes, handbooks, etc.

>

> We are going in the other direction.  One of the things we are doing is

> trying to institutionalize debate as curricular instead of

> extra-curricular.  Create another classes to offer forensics as part of

> a minor, or a certificate, or a degree program, then speech and debate

> can compete for academic resources.  In particular, our school is

> pushing online distance education.  Students pay 30% above normal

> tuition to take these courses and departments are given a

> stipend/refund/kickback for each student that takes the course.  The

> debate team is teaching 3 of these courses a semester, and is moving

> towards creation of our own program, "Urban Communication" of which

> debate will be a centerpiece.

>

> Debate will have to find ways to generate revenue to survive, whether

> it's accessing tuition dollars or external funding.  Jake's framing

> below was, is, and will be ineffective if the financial piece is not

> also addressed.  I think this analogy fails without the comparable

> revenue piece of the major sports.  But perhaps I'm wrong.

>

> Jake:  "I throw this out there cause it does seem like there would be

> benefits to framing the value of debate in the athletics context:

> recruitment of exceptional students, development of an excellent alumni

> base, broad and focused publicity for the school. And frankly, unlike

> Parli or speech, success in policy debate requires a time commitment

> similar to that of a collegiate athlete."

>

> Ede:  What if debate alumni created a "National Debate Endowment" for

> example?  And there were certain conditions attached to how

> participating schools would benefit from it?  One thing that

> administrators LOVE is matching. "If we can get something from an

> external source, we'll throw in the other half."  When administrators

> feel their resources are stretched by new money into an institution,

> they seem to respond well.  Instead of only making arguments asking for

> resources, debate needs to generate something if administrators are

> going to take seriously requests for additional funding.  Debate needs

> to think about itself as a business if that is the model education is

> going to.  Just my thoughts, based on my experiences.

>

> >>> "Jacob Weigler" <j_weigler at hotmail.com> 4/21/2006 1:08:11 PM >>>

>

>

> I've been reading the back and forth with some interest and decided

> that it was worth throwing one additional point into the mix.

> As has been discussed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to

> convince school administrators to spend thousands of dollars per student

> to support the activity. I won't rehash the debate about causes, but

> what has interested me is that universities have no trouble ponying up

> such sums for athletics - indeed it is pretty much assumed that these

> activities will require such funding with equipment requirements,

> facilities, travel, coaching staff and such.

> There are other obvious parallels such as the recruitment of top-tier

> high school debaters to the top-tier college programs, scholarship

> disparities, and a coaching staff allowed to devote a

> primary/substantial focus to debate that also suggest many things in

> common with the perennial debate powerhouses and college athletics.

> The relevance of this, to me, is the ability of college athletics to

> retain all of these resource commitments when schools as a whole are

> streamlining and becoming more focused on a business model for

> education. Obvious answers like "Football, Basketball, etc. make money

> for schools," don't explain the continued support of dozens of other

> sports like volleyball, tennis, water polo, etc. that are much more

> equivalent to debate in terms of creating visibility for schools and

> drawing down alumni support. The answer, I would suspect is the

> economies of scale that allow for an athletics department with the

> administrative clout to protect budgets, create a vehicle pool, recruit

> staff and incoming students, etc.  I tried to create a similar

> architecture when I started the nyu program (reaching out to parli, mock

> trial, ballroom dance, quiz bowl and other activities that traveled like

> we do) with mixed results largely due to the student-led nature of most

> of them, but it is something that perhaps others have/could explore.

> I throw this out there cause it does seem like there would be benefits

> to framing the value of debate in the athletics context: recruitment of

> exceptional students, development of an excellent alumni base, broad and

> focused publicity for the school. And frankly, unlike Parli or speech,

> success in policy debate requires a time commitment similar to that of a

> collegiate athlete.

> The larger question, of shifting debate out of departments to a more

> explicit "activity/competition" focus, is a more difficult one. It seems

> to me to be the flip side of the discussion that has been happening

> about the disconnect with the academy. Implicity it seems to already be

> happening at several programs across the country. There are some obvious

> downsides, the chief in my mind being that it puts coaches in a

> difficult position. No one expects a basketball coach to get tenure or

> write papers (though it seems like at an increasing number of schools

> the same goes for the debate coach).

> Regardless of whether such a dramatic shift is adviseable,  taking

> proactive steps to forge, share and refine these alternate models is

> something positive we can do rather than watching the pool of resources

> at programs continue to decline as we mutter about needing to "just try

> harder."

> So, this is all fascinating Jake, but so what? Not sure I have all the

> answers, but it does seem that the economies of scale advantage of

> athletics is something we should take seriously. There have been

> numerous efforts at the national level on the CEDA & NDT side to compare

> notes and share strategies, but my suggestion would be to

> institutionalize this - relying on the good will and extra effort of our

> officers or committee members is simply asking too much over the long

> term.

> Hope this contributes to the conversation.

> j.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> eDebate mailing list

> eDebate at ndtceda.com

> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060421/360478d7/attachment.html