Regarding Harvard's plans to improve its tournament:
I applaud that they are going to use the $120 per debater to provide a civil, competent ballot table, better judging, and rooms in which to have debates. High time, I would say. But I find their acclaimed good intentions may outstrip the possible results. Given the enormous field, a "limited number of strikes" and community rankings won't really solve the problems with adjudication, which outweigh all the other issues. Also needed: cap the field at 160 and hire 15-20 solid LD judges above the number needed. Short of these, their good intentions will remain merely intentions. For a hundred and twenty bucks, I want more than intentions.
For the sake of full disclosure, I will be among the Quakers that weekend. Make of this what you will.
1 comment:
I respectfully disagree. Harvard is unique among major national "circuit" tournaments because it does not cap its field and is attended by many programs whose only trip all year is to the tournament. Capping the field at 160, for example, would mean that 190 debaters last year would not be allowed to debate.
Am I saying that every tournament should be like Harvard and allow all comers? No. But, there is space for a tournament like this on the schedule -- a tournament that lets anyone enter.
Is there room for improvement in judging? Surely so (though there always will be). But then again, that will always be the case and Harvard surely has shown they are willing to listen to suggestions.
Post a Comment