<p>We should definitely mail this contentious issue to the freakonomics guys!!!</p>
<p>I debated in 9th grade and dropped it because I found it really time consuming and boring. Had I kept debating, it would have significantly decreased my chances of admission to a decent college. Debating isn’t for everyone, the most important thing is to do what you like and get really good at it.
In my debate league, I’ve seen too many people doing rap narratives. They get too emotional and complain how their lives suck and how the current debate format puts under-educated people in a disadvantage. There’s also the “let’s just nuke the whole world” counter plan. Some people get really angry and make personal attacks during the debate. It’s just too ridiculous. I don’t know if debates are that crazy else where.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They aren’t. As it is with any activity, good debaters comply to standards of conduct and professionalism. Just as you’ll hesitate to call someone who carelessly slides a bow across a bunch of strings a violinist, I’d be reluctant to call a person who resorts to ad hominem attacks or lets-nuke-the-world BS a debater. Happily, debating in most leagues around the world presupposes a level of competence and an adherence to rules, regulations and parliamentary procedure (where necessary). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re absolutely right and I hope that no one reading this thread will take my conjecturing about why debaters might be more successful in the admissions cycle as anything more than a untested (or even untestable) hypothesis. Even those of us who believe/hope that debaters might have an edge argue less with the intent of offering any sort of normative or prescriptive analysis and more in an attempt to explain trends or predict outcomes in the status quo. In other words, I hope none of you take any of our reasoning as a reason to sign up for your debate team, especially if it’s not an activity that you will feel comfortable taking part in.</p>
<p>I asked my college Dean this question and she said no debate is not credited more than any other activity. She knows because she used to be on the admissions committee. There is a correlation because of the qualities of those who do debate such as intelligence, argument formatting, etc. So there is your answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You must not have seen a lot of CX debate rounds then :p</p>
<p>You’re right, I’m not familiar with the quality of debating in American high school leagues (I’m an international student) but you’re missing my point. </p>
<p>If CX debating rounds (whatever they might be) really are that bad, then I would hesitate to call the people who participate in them genuine debaters. </p>
<p>Your response, to return to the unwieldy-violinist analogy above, is a little like saying ‘You must not have heard a lot of absolute beginners trying to play the violin blindfolded.’</p>
<p>“If CX debating rounds (whatever they might be) really are that bad, then I would hesitate to call the people who participate in them genuine debaters.”</p>
<p>Policy (CX) debate is generally regarded as one of the most competitive and legitimate forms of debate (ONE of the forms… don’t the LDers start now).</p>
<p>Even if Yale doesn’t intrinsically value debaters, debate can still significantly help admissions chances. Debate cultivates traits that colleges look for - logical reasoning, clear communication, concise research skills - and that could be the cause of the correlation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I mentioned, I have no idea about American formats; I was only responding to Dbate’s insinuation that ad hominem attacks and ridiculous/implausible counterplans are rampant in that particular league. I can assert only that my retort was logical, not experiential. As debaters, I’m sure you can sympathize but to be safe, I’d like you to know that no offense was intended. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You raise here a valid point that I failed to consider earlier. The argument that the skills picked up as a debater would confer some benefits in a college classroom can also apply in the high school classroom, giving the admissions officer both a promise and a preview of the academic results that debate might promote (albeit, not in isolation).</p>
<p>
This is the takeaway. I have seen similar threads about the value of sports, Scouting, music, cheerleading, you name it–and I think they’re all right, assuming that the individual gets really good at it and, ideally, is recognized for individual achievement.</p>
<p>I’ve never met Minh live and in person, but he is a legend among those involved with high school forensics. He’s done a LOT of good. </p>
<p>Debate and extemp benefit students in a way that other activities do not. The skills you learn in debate transfer directly to the classroom. My favorite debater was a horrible writer. There were lots of great ideas, but they were jumbled and disorganized. That’s the way my kid started debating–the ideas were all there, but they were jumbled and disorganized. Trying to “flow” the round was impossible–so my kid lost a lot of debates. Judges wrote time after time “I can’t follow your argument” or “you jump from point to point and it’s impossible to figure out which of your opponent’s arguments you are refuting.” For lots of years, teachers had tried to teach my kid how to organize writing. Nothing had worked. A few debate tournaments with a bunch of ballots saying the round was lost because the arguments were just too disorganized changed that. My kid still can’t punctuate or spell, but the organization issues were quickly solved. </p>
<p>Many kids also learn how to research through debate. It is a skill that isn’t taught as well as it should be in most US high schools. </p>
<p>So, you really do not have to be a “top” debater to benefit from participation in debate. It does improve the academic performance of “average” and even below average debaters because the skills transfer directly to the classroom. </p>
<p>Forensics are a LOT less elitist than some of the posters in this thread believe. Programs like the Urban Debate League have brought debate into inner-city schools. Forensics programs have always been strong in regular old public high schools in certain states–Kansas, Minnesota and Iowa come to mind.</p>
<p>It’s actually the disadvantaged kid from a horrible high school who benefits the most from participation. I once had a coach at an inner city high school tell me that the biggest benefit of participating in debate for his kids was learning to speak standard English without expletives. He said that most of the kids coming out of the high school where he taught couldn’t get an entry level job because of the way they spoke. Even if the kids quit the team, if he had them for a year, they dramatically improved the odds that they could get a job with a high school diploma because they could handle themselves in an interview. While his <em>stars</em> went on to top colleges, he was also proud of the kids who went directly to work and were often the only people in their families with an “on the books” job. </p>
<p>Go to a state forensics tournament. Attending “States” in New York is a really strange but exhiliating experience. Kids from small towns near the Canadian border compete against kids from the worst projects in the South Bronx and kids who attend private schools in Manhattan. </p>
<p>The kid who goes to an academically weak high school and excels at debate is a hot commodity because colleges know that this kid has the skills to compete on a level playing field against the kids coming from the best high schools–in other words, most of his/her future classmates. </p>
<p>It was in part because people noticed the spectacular results achieved by one extraordinary debate coach at an inner city public school that the the Urban Debate League was founded. By spectacular results, I don’t mean the trophies his kids collected–though there certainly were a LOT of those. I mean the fact that his kids went on to college and graduated at a much higher rate than you would have anticipated given the socioeconomic circumstances in which they grew up. </p>
<p>According to the Urban Debate League’s website:
</p>
<p>You can argue that this is in part because of the kinds of kids debate attracts. That’s partly true–but it’s not the whole explanation. Lots of kids who go to lousy high schools do very little reading. Debaters have to read. Reading a lot tends to improve reading comprehension.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is absolutely not true. At the upper level tournaments almost ALL of the competitors come from suburban schools or private schools. Debate is awesome, but egalitarian it is not.</p>
<p>I agree partially but with the qualification that all of us might be familiar with different spheres within the huge community of debaters worldwide. The British tradition, for example, favors a certain sort of Eton and Oxbridge educated elite who may move on to the famed British parliamentary system. In Singapore meanwhile, people from all sorts of schools do debate although tournaments are dominated without fail but the same elite institutions. I thing that an argument about whether debate is an inherently elitist activity is moot, although most keen debaters (myself included) would agree that for better or worse, Dbate is right in saying that debating is not egalitarian.</p>
<p>First, if you read my message, I talked about the Urban Debate League. Based on his post, I doubt very much that Dbate has much exposure to it. </p>
<p>There’s a big difference between saying that forensics as an activity is limited to suburban and private schools and saying that the schools that participate in most or all of the national circuit tournaments are private or suburban. Very few of the UDL teams participate in national circuit debate. Since I know that Dbate is at Yale, I’ll point out that many New Haven public schools have debate teams which participate in UDL debate. Some are coached by Yale students. Additionally, they participate in the Osterweis tournament which is sponsored by the Yale Debate Association–and has been for many, many years. One heck of a lot of Osterweis winners have ended up as Yale students. (I’m almost positive that one is currently competing for Yale. )</p>
<p>Second, there are a lot of public and parochial schools which participate in local tournaments and an occassional “national circuit” tournament which is held near by. If you look at the list of participating schools at the Harvard debate tournament this year, you’ll see a few public high schools in Massachussets. For example, I saw Frederick Douglas Academy on the list of participants in this year’s Harvard tournament. From the name, I assume that’s a public school.That’s a typical pattern. NYC public schools that don’t have the money to fly teams to Stanford or Emory might compete in the Princeton, Columbia, or even Yale tournaments. </p>
<p>Third, even in national circuit debate, there are city schools which are power houses. These would include the public magnets–I live in NYC, so I’m most familiar with Hunter, Stuyvesant, and Bronx Science, all of which have had excellent debate teams. Add Regis to that list. Yes, it’s Catholic and thus private but it is a FREE, all scholarship school. I can’t remember the name right now, but there is a minor seminary in Pennsylvania which competes in many tournaments. Yes, it’s private, but the boys are preparing for the Catholic priesthood and many of them are from families that are from from wealthy. From Iowa, West Des Moines High School was a power house.(I don’t know if it still is.) Little Rock Central, a public magnet in Arkansas is another team that participates in at least some national circuit competitions. I don’t know if Newark Science is still a powerhouse, but it was for many, many years. Yes, it was a public magnet, but a public magnet attended only by kids who lived in the city of Newark. They sold home made desserts at lunch every day to fund their participation in debate tournaments. </p>
<p>So yes, if your debate experience consists of debating at St. Mark’s, you might have the impresson that debate is an elitist activity. If you were to observe the Osterweis tournament, you’d come away with an entirely different impression. Oh, and if the name Osterweis seems familiar, he was the legendary Yale debate coach who coached both George W. Bush and John Kerry. The tournament is named for him.</p>
<p>…“CX debating rounds (whatever they might be)”…</p>
<p>CX stands for cross-examination. After each of the first four (constructive) speeches, a member of the other team has several minutes to ask questions of the speaker.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have never heard of the Osterweis tournament. I went to a public school so we mostly went to in-state tournaments such as St. Marks, but I don’t really consider most tournaments to be anywhere near real debate. The only tournaments that count are TOC-qualifers, NFL Nats, CFL, and the TOC. Other tournaments don’t really matter. In looking at Debate at that level there is a HUGE preponderance of private and suburban schools.</p>
<p>I guess it’s time I leave this thread. A discussion about whether admissions advantages are afforded to debaters has digressed into a comparison of leagues that I’m not even familiar with.</p>
<p>I always just browse this forum, but I registered just to say: Dbate, that’s a pretty seriously limited view of what counts as “real” debate. </p>
<p>Besides, many of the tournaments Jonri is talking about are “real” debate even by your standard. Princeton, Harvard and Yale are all TOC qualifiers in LD. In fact, a good number of TOC qualifiers are hosted by public schools; yes, some of these schools are suburban, but many of them are far from wealthy: Apple Valley, Bronx Science, Hen Hud, Lexington and Valley all have quarters or higher bids. Heck, Newark Science even hosts a TOC qualifier.</p>
<p>In any case, from the point of view of the article, I bet they’re counting the UDL and local leagues as “real” debate since debate probably has highest impact on the college chances of those leagues’ participants.</p>
<p>Also, from Jonri’s name and earlier posts, I just realized that I can totally guess who Jonri is the parent of and her kid was a seriously good LDer (and even better college debater) who was from an urban public high school and won many of the tournaments you consider “real” – so Jonri definitely knows what they are talking about on this front (not to mention that Jonri judged a lot of debate too!).</p>