Overseas Debate

[Barry Joss]

Presumably you've all been made aware of this already, and have read the posting from Alison Ramsay, but it seems that Overseas Weekend as we know it is to vanish and be integrated with Freshers' Week generally.

What are the Society's thoughts on how best to capture new students for the wacky world of debates in those changed circumstances? Especially given that presumably we will now be looking at one event in Freshers' Week.

I have my thoughts, but I'd be interested to see some responses first... (oh, and I'm starting to feel better!)

[Okocim]

One impact of the newly lengthened freshers week might be that after having five nights of drinking themselves stupid at the Union rather than only two, a lot of the first years could be up for something slightly different on the Thursday (ie. 'Let's go to a debate!'). If it's well-advertised, and as fun as overseas/freshers debates have been in the past, then the night should be very popular. Having a party or mass pub trip planned for afterwards would work also.

As for getting people actually debating, then I suggest getting some more sponsorship for the maiden speakers comp. For example, would any of the local pubs/restaurants be willing to donate some freebies for prizes? Could we even have a catagory for best completely novice debater? (By which I mean someone who arrived at St Andrews having never debated in their lives before) Would the extra days in freshers week provide us with an opportunity to run a training session during an afternoon before term starts? Most freshers week events are planned for the evenings and not a great deal goes on during the day. It could be a very relaxed and light-hearted introduction to university debating. It might also be a good chance of conscripting recruits into debating academic families

OK,I know none of this is terribly original, but as no one else has replied yet, I thought I'd give it a go.

Oh, and glad you're feeling better Barry.

[Barry Joss]

All sound stuff. Especially trying to do something during one of the days. It will be interesting to see what the Association does with the extra time.

However, primarily what I was asking was what the Society will do now in respect of Overseas students. Normally we have two debates in the first week, one on the Sunday for Overseas arrivals and one on the Thursday for everyone.

Now, that meant that we got about 200 of 300 Overseas arrivals and a further 200 or so of the remaining 1200 home arrivals. Giving us, approximately, access to 400 or so new students, or 25%. If we drop to one debate on the Thursday, we reduce our potential audience sharply, and probably only gain access to 200 new students, or 12%.

So, how do we address this? Larger venue? Continue with two debates? Or something else? I'm not trying to prescribe a course, I just want to see what people think.

[Eliot Wilson]

I'd be inclined to try to maintain two debates, though it will, of course, be harder to get the overseas students to come along if they aren't herded there by Overseas Week bods.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to make more of the Maiden Speakers' Competition, too, and extra sponsorship is always welcome. I fear a "novice" category would be impractical, however, as we would have no way of policing it.

More thoughts to follow, no doubt...

[Barry Joss]

The only problem with two debates is that they would both have to be open to all - which is fine - but which might make a lot of people select the one they want to go to to give them time for other stuff. D'you see?

Whereas, if we had one that was for overseas students and one for home students we can at least ensure different attendances at each event. Hmm. Why am I having this conversation with Wilson???

[Eliot Wilson]

One has to wonder. Good point on audiences, but I suppose each could be marketed differently. And it may be that if the Overseas Debate is sufficiently brilliant, the foreign types might come to the Pre-Sessional Debate too. We shall see...

[David Bean]

I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and it's one I'm going to put to the Board once it's elected. I'd imagine two debates would be the ideal, although how they'd be scheduled is a matter we'll have to look into. One will be an overseas-style debate on some US-related motion or other, and as for the second, well, this might be an opportunity to try and bring in high-profile speakers, or alternatively (or perhaps in concert) it should be on some subject that blends humour with a serious issue. Prostitution worked well, so that might be one idea, but I am sure that I don't have all the answers, so does anyone have any suggestions?

[John Stewart]

I suppose it depends on the overseas debate - best perhaps to try and strike some kind of a balance.

So, if the overseas debate is perhaps going to be somewhat serious or down to Earth, then a lighthearted pre-sessional debate would most likely go down well.

In all honesty, though - I think a humorous pre-sessional debate DONE WELL is most likely the best way. After all, LPH debates are, in a way, for both entertainment and intellectual purposes.

But that's just my opinion - after all, WTF does an IV hack like me know about LPH?

[Eliot Wilson]

I leave your last question to future generations, Mr. Stewart.

As for Pre-Sessional Debates, I would offer only that the motion in my first year (which, yes, I can still remember, if dimly) was "This House Would Screw and Bolt". It was, perhaps not coincidentally, a fantastically successful year as far as bejant and bejantine recruits were concerned, with 80-odd people entering the Maiden Speakers' Competition, and that first year contained not only myself but also Messrs. Booth and Jardine-Brown, both of whom were to render great service to the Society (if in rather different ways).

Before you ask, I cannot for the life of me remember who spoke in said Pre-Sessional Debate. Perhaps Mr. Joss, then Treasurer of the Society, will recall.

[John Stewart]

I certainly remember with great fondness the pre-sessional debate in my first year - the infamous This House would open a Brothel in St Andrews.

Fantastic debate, a good night out, and certainly brought me back for more LPH debates throughout the year, and then eventually a return to competitive debating (some still rue the day...).

And, in my recollection, it was a year that spawned a good few IV debaters and general hangers-on to the society hardcore.

A precedent for humour, then?

[Barry Joss]

[s]John Stewart wrote on 14:10, 9th Apr 2003:
A precedent for humour, then?


Very, very much so. Indeed the debate you mention was nothing more than a rerun of the same motion from a few years earlier - and with many of the same speakers.

Incidentally, in my first year the motion was "This House Would Castrate Rapists" which also went down well. But I have to say that over the last ten years every really succesful Freshers' Debate has had a comedic bent to it.

It gets people's attention and makes for an entertaining night. For God's sake don't debate an IR-esque motion in Freshers' Week or I will come over there and be quite ironical at you all.

[Magus]

i]
A precedent for humour, then?
[/i]
mmm... we had the "This House would open a brothel in St Andrews" debate in my first year (and one of my more recent years...), and it went down really well (sic.). I was more than disappointed with the Fresher debate this year (to the extent that I cannot even recall the motion...). Humour is good. If you start out too seriously you will put off at least those who are there for a more social affair (and who may later be coerced into joining the ranks of the faithful), and debates will be seen as high-brow poncy affairs which everyone takes far too seriously.

Wait a minute!!!



[hr]
Goodnight to principle, sincerity, and honour!

[larkvi]

As a former overseas student who went on to be quite active, I must say that I found the accepting atmosphere of the overseas debate to be a crucial aspect of my interest in the society. While I realize that it would be impossible and unadvisable to make a debate limited to overseas students if the whole of the fresher's will be there, I think it nevertheless important to have an acknowledged overseas debate, in order to make it clear that they are looking for overseas students.

By the very name, it conveys an invitation to the overseas students, singleing them out, and therefore drawing their attention.

Plus, giving them a chance to win the floor prize before all the hacks are in the room is a plus Such a simple thing may make the environment seem more ready for foreign voices.

-Sean (who won the floor prize without that advantage all the same, but still thinks it is a nice gesture to give them a better shot)

[Cain]

Am i right in thinking that the reason that there used to be two debates was because the overseas people arrived before everyone else, and therefore an overseas debate was a good way to cater to them?

so, if overseas and domestic students are arriving at the same time, and are all lumped into the group of freshers, surely the issue isn't about what to do about the overseas students.

The society should still look at making freshers welcome, which is a good thing, but now there's less of a mandate, if any, to make special provisions to cater for the needs of overseas students.

[Alison Ramsay]

In response to the previous posting by Cain, yes, the aim of the new-look Orientation Week is to be all-inclusive. That does not mean, however, that specific groups cannot be catered for and, to that end, the Overseas Society has been repeatedly invited to get involved. For the record, I can state too that the Debating Society has also been contacted: I emailed Hendrik Puschmann on March 17th, asking if I might take the liberty of timetabling a debate for the Thursday evening of Orientation Week and asking that he confer with his potential successors to get their agreement in principle. His reply was that I should liaise with his successor when the time came. I had rather hoped he would have passed this on...

[David Bean]

My apologies; he didn't. Could I have your contact details, perhaps?

[Eliot Wilson]

The danger, of course, in having one debate in pre-sessional week and billing it as an 'Overseas Debate' is that home students are put off; we cannot afford to miss the audience which usually comes to the Pre-Sessional Debate, as it is our recruiting ground.

[Cain]

[s]Eliot Wilson wrote on 02:02, 28th Apr 2003:
The danger, of course, in having one debate in pre-sessional week and billing it as an 'Overseas Debate' is that home students are put off; we cannot afford to miss the audience which usually comes to the Pre-Sessional Debate, as it is our recruiting ground.


then don't bill it as an overseas debate. bill it as a presessional debate

[hr]
whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance

[Barry Joss]

Point somewhat missed, methinks. The problem is where there were two debates with access to two groups of 200 students, now there is one with access to one amorphous group of 200 students. With me so far?

So, if we have a presessional debate but no overseas we lose a considerable opportunity to seize potential. And vice versa. And, let's not forget that our overseas students are often among the most active debaters.

See? A question of numbers and talent.

[Cain]

what are the chances of holding it in the blt?

that'll sort out the numbers, you sort out the talent