And, just like low point wins, there could be a box on the ballot which the judge has to initial to indicate that she remembered that there is a 50 point scale and has assigned points accordingly.
dp On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Morris, Eric R wrote: > My freshman year at CEDA I had a ballot with glowing comments and a 29/40 > points which altered our elim placement. I hope any points that might > indicate the judge "forgot" the new point system would be confirmed by the > tab - just as low point wins are confirmed. > > Dr. Eric Morris > Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics > Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication > Missouri State University > Springfield, MO 65897 > (O) 417-836-7636 > (H) 417-865-6866 > (C) 417-496-7141 > AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thu 11/1/07 1:31 PM > To: Andy Ellis > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; edebate; Ross Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [eDebate] 50 speaker point scale at Wake > > > > Here's my fear. I remember the old days when CEDA nats used a 40 point > scale. Every year some team or debater that generally cleared and/or > received speaker awards would not because one of their judges forgot the > scale change. You would get a judge giving what they thought were great > point like a 29 only to realize later that the scale was different. I > encourage judges to be diligent and cognizant of the scale change. > > Peace, > Marlow > > > > "Andy Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 11/01/2007 12:19 PM > > To > "Ross Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc > edebate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject > Re: [eDebate] 50 speaker point scale at Wake > > > > > > > Ok, Im all into this new system an like the description ross offers. My > concern i guess is this: > > As broken as the other system is almost everybody at the wake tournament > knows how to use it, the new system may have some getting used to time...The > fear for me is that one or two judges who do not yet have a good grasp of > they feel about the 50 point scale can create a serious problem in the world > where a bunch of 5-3's are not clearing on points anyway. Of course this > could cut both ways and any particular team could benefit from the 50 point > scale as much as they could be hurt by it, but i guess i would be frustrated > if in a 30 point scale a team i coached had the points, but didnt under the > 50 point scale. There is of course also no way to check who would have > cleared in a 30 point scale vs the 50 which also makes it difficult to make > comparisons...I'm all for the innovation, just a bit nervous that some judges > may be harder graders than point givers.... > > On 11/1/07, Ross Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > I promised in the invitation that I would share thoughts and encourage > discussion. That'e the purpose of this. > > 1) The current system is broken. No doubt. Multi-way ties are now broken > by judge variance ( a meaningless stat no better than random number. > People are sensing that 28.5 is too many points for a given speaker > while 28 is too few. The standard deviation (a measure of menaingful > differences) is now smaller than 0.5, whiich means there judeges > "exagerate" in either direction when they assign points. > > 2) Going to decimals or quarter points is one alternative, but does not > require people to rethink. > > 3) When grading papers for classes we are able to make a wider range of > disinctions than only good, real good, and great (28, 28.5, 29). > > 4) How I suggest the 50 point scale be used. > > NOT as a different digit in front -- 28.5 does NOT equate to 48.5. > Obviously. > > Think of grades. 90% and above is an A. 80-90 is a B. Assume you are a > very kind professor who will give mostly A's and B's and does not want > to buck the grade inflation trend (it is unfair to do so since it > punishes students relative to their peers merely for having you as the > prof., not for the quality of their work). > > So, 45 points is an A-. 44 is B+. 50 is A+. 40 is B-. There are poins in > between. 47 is a solid A. 48 a higher A. 49 is GREAT. 43 is a solid B. > > We have a national tournament with a limited field, so most of the > students will be A and B students. Somebody who, in the entire nation of > debate is just average might "deserve" a C (35-39). Probably does not > matter much. > > I suspect there are more B students than there are A students (bell > curves beiing what they are). You might usefully think of the A students > as the ones that debate well enough that they are likely in the top > third of the field. > > It should be no source of shame to a student to get a B. A B+ might be > saying you are close to getting there. > > For those who like to think in other terms, maybe this will help: > > 49-50: Brilliant. Hard to imagine a better performance. > 47-48: NDT elim worthy performance. > 45-47: Powerful but not extraordinary. Workmanlike break round or early > elim. > 43-44: Good stuff, but missing what it takes to break into the top > national level. > 40-42: Decent. More than one area needs improvement. > > -- > Ross K. Smith > Director of Debate > Wake Forest University > > 336-251-2076 (c) > 336-758-5268 (o) > > http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ <http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/> > http://www.DebateScoop.org <http://www.debatescoop.org/> > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > <http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate> > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > ________________________________ > > **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain > confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized > disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. > > _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
