Training, the Balaka, Worlds (Vancouver) and all that

[exnihilo]

We did, however, compete with those other far larger institutions and did so quite happily. We did pretty well, won from time to time. I don't see much difference now other than that we send perhaps five times as many teams and still only win a few. The very large, very rich and very good societies continue to dominate the field. I don't see that you've disproven anything and I don't think that your ignorance of the past in any way proves that I see it through a rose-tint. Sorry, but there it is.

[Ewan MacDonald]

Will keep this one brief I promise
"Development"
What isn’t clear is that teams develop from the Worlds experience on its own. Doug and Connie improved at Euro’s, after finalling at Bogwall and Aberdeen. In any case I made it clear that Euros was a better occasion for developing than worlds. So that actually supports what I said i.e. that developmental teams should have shown the potential to break at iv’s. However, I cannot see any tangible benefit from the last three years outside of Doug, Connie, Jason, and yourself; from debaters attending worlds that could not have been done in other ways. Yes we need training, that is why we send the best to improve them and make them better coaches.

"Only those who have attended it can understand this."
Graduating does tend to prevent attendance, I suppose there might be some mythical improvement that occurs at internationals that I have missed during my very extensive debating career.

However, I have heard and judged your developmental teams before and after worlds. I have judged with them before and after worlds. And I have seen no discernible improvement. The speaker tabs year by year also indicate that weaker speakers don’t benefit from this.

Yes, people prefer that their teacher has a good track record. That is why I recruit the best debaters for the latter stages of the Courier. I don’t recruit someone who has been unsuccessful at a competition I have never attended. The knowledge they gain could be just as easily imparted internally. I would assert that John explaining the finer details of a policy or technique is far better than muppet middle of the tab judge. That’s because he is an excellent judge, with a track record, who improved due to Worlds.

Unless you can prove that our weaker speakers have vastly improved, and that improvement is entirely based upon attending the World Championships, and that there is no way that these improvements could have occurred outside of this, then the development issue needs to be re-examined.


[hr]

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
Edmund Burke

[TC]

Exnihilo

Not so long ago you wrote "Do you also realise that the Society has first class, forensic, inter-'varsity speakers too, speakers who have competed at international level?" (23/07/05, Freshers Debate Thread) to refute an attack on the style of debating used in LPH. You used it in defence of the society and LPH.

If IV debaters who have competed at international leval added such luster to LPH in September, what has changed?

[hr]

Per Ardua ad Astra

[exnihilo]

I don't think I was using it to defend the style in LPH. You misread.

[TC]

In that case what were you using it for? You certainly seem to have been using it to rebute a critique of the society. The post you were refering too attacked the style and substance of the debate as a whole as well as the society. Thus I can only assume that you were using it to argue that the society did have good debaters and speakers in it who had international experience and that this was a credit to the society.

[hr]

Per Ardua ad Astra

[John Stewart]

You may not see the improvement Ewan, but I do and I think that many of the "development" speakers would disagree with you.

What is it that makes you think that Euros is so great for imparting experience and Worlds isn't? There's no magical difference except Worlds has 9 rounds instead of 6 (arguably more time to practice) and more break rounds with better teams (arguably better to learn from) and many better judges (arguably more capable of providing useful feedback).

And one final thing is that speakers have to know what Worlds break standard is before they can aspire to meet it. Let's be clear on one thing - I'm not arguing that we send absolutely anyone with even the faintest potential to Worlds - that would be futile as you point out, and expensive at that. People should cut their teeth on the IV circuit first to some degree (I'm waiting for Bryn's comment here). But you know fine well that the break is a very hard standard for speakers to reach, even in Scotland as the woeful standards of recent years are now forgotten.

And another thing about the Scottish circuit - the judging standards have been and remain shockingly poor. Sometimes you HAVE to go further afield to get your teams exposure to proper debating.

You can argue for one extreme - that only proven speakers go (in which case they benefit less and it looks like a clique) or you want it open to all with raw talent (looks less like a clique but a couple of exceptions aside, you don't get very far).

The benefit of sending developmental teams is that you get the best of both worlds. After all, Jess and Beth were hardly challenging the break at Scottish IVs this year, and yet at Euros they ended one point off the break. Identifying real talent as a selection panel is never easy, but it's worth it when you get it right, and I would argue that experience of running these panels is meaning we're getting better at doing that. And since these things are usually funded by the individuals themselves and specific, ring-fenced sponsorship, it's not really of concern to others.

[Cain]

John Stewart's just given me an idea.

You want somewhere in between all a closed clique and open to everybody?

Why not take a leaf out of the Ryder Cup and use an order of merit, totting up points accrued from IVs over the season with a few spots left for 'wild cards'?

Even better it's a transparent system.

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[Dickie]

Quoting John Stewart from 18:35, 14th Apr 2006
it's not really of concern to others.

OOPS

[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

[Chinchilla33]

Having just scrolled through the discussion that's been going on here I felt that I should offer my input.

Being one of those who appear to have been included in the "not improved" category I think that it's important to give my own take on things in order to bring another angle to this discussion.

Whilst a lot has been said, there was a basic contention somewhere along the lines that sending teams for "development" to Worlds is unproductive and should be avoided.

I think there is a danger here in drawing conclusions without careful analysis and consideration of all the variables that may be at play.

As John quite rightly suggested, Worlds is both a competition and a learning arena. Whilst I may be accused for holding some bias, I personally feel that attending Worlds in Dublin enabled me to understand the intricacies and mechanics of competitive debating in a way that no other IV has done before. I truly felt and continue to feel that aside from learning many new things, it also enabled me to draw the ends together on issues that had been shadowing me for a long time. It was in no way similar to the experiences I have had at IVs and I feel that I learnt things at Worlds that will stay with me for the rest of my life.

It was suggested that in the context of a “before and after test” no “discernible improvement” of these “developmental” speakers had been witnessed. Before accepting such a conclusion, as with any test that wishes to be seen as reliable, it’s important to recognize other factors at play and also to make use of an objective sense of measurement.

I do dispute that there has been no improvement in “other speakers”, as I hope would anyone who has actually been in regular and close contact with the speakers in question before and after Worlds. Whilst I personally would admit to not having capitalized as much as I could have on what I learnt from Worlds, changing this really is now a matter of me spending time training, researching and putting in to practice the vast array of things that I learnt from my experience there. Broad conclusions shouldn’t be drawn without careful attention to detail and recognition of all of the facts.

Another issue was whether Worlds was the right place to send these “developmental” speakers. Like I mentioned earlier, and as anyone who has gone to Worlds in the context that I did would appreciate, Worlds really is unlike any other learning experience for debaters. Sure it’s partly to do with the fact that you have lots of rounds, but that aside, I felt that I gained more from 9 rounds at Worlds than 9 rounds at IVs. I don’t want to get in to why exactly here, but I just think it’s important to realize how much worlds can do for people who want to go and learn and that this opportunity should be given to those who will both do well for the University and be sure to gain something valuable as an individual.

Speaking with regard to the thread as a whole, I think it’s important to keep a check on whether the Debates Society is doing the right thing and making the right decisions. There will always be things that could be done slightly better. At the same time I think it does a great disservice to everyone’s efforts and to the decisions that are made, if people, especially those who don’t attend training (for whatever reason), try to criticize from outside, without perhaps knowing the facts on the ground and being in the shoes of those who have directly benefited from the work of the Debating Society.

Keep up the good effort team!