I don't know what the functional difference between 100 & 50 (with half points) is: Both make the old scale obsolete. Both have the same number of gradations. I'd be happy with either.
I'm not judging, but if I was judging, I'd still like some fairly concrete guidelines printed on the ballot. Like Charles said "we all basically know what a 28 means." None of us like to unfairly grade performances. [Well not really...not when the top 5 speakers are broken by meaningless tiebreakers.] But, I'd rather not be assigning 75 points for "average" when others are assigning 90. (Which is what the current scale amounts to: a 27-well below average-equates to a 90 on a 100 point scale.) So, a basic rubric for translation from the old scale that make use of the extra range (without starting at 90 for "average," ) printed on the ballot would be incredibly helpful! At 05:17 PM 11/4/2007, Ross Smith wrote: >So, we originally had in mind a 50 point scale where you could still use >half points. > >My message analogizing to grades required people to divide 100 by 2 to >get the idea. > >Several people have pointed out that we might as well use a 100 point >scale (without half points). Maybe it would be more "natural" to >educators and students who are used to giving and getting grades on such >a scale. > >Since there is no mathematical difference, I have no objection (nor does >Gary Larson, tab engineer). > >What do people think? Does the 100 point scale help with the gestalt? > >-- >Ross K. Smith >Director of Debate >Wake Forest University > >336-251-2076 (c) >336-758-5268 (o) > >http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ >http://www.DebateScoop.org > > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
