[eDebate] Point Inflation and the 100 pt scale

[michael hester]

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
application.

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

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)

hester

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Jason Russell <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 at www.ndtceda.com

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

>