Early Admission Debate

Another good debate with more personal connection to student life.  Very happy with the development of each debater.  Good to see more creativity and immediacy in opening statements.  Nice structured responses and presented arguments.  Good use of creative arguments from OPP PM with Maslow, and good rebuttals towards it from GOV.  Generally, this debate is blurry and hard to judge, but the GOV was a bit more consistent and had a bit of advantage with time and rebuttals.  How much influence a counselor actually would have in this unclear scenario is hard to determine, and both sides aren't really clear on what "limit" means.  It would seem we almost have this policy already, but for a the debate to be better it would have to be "decide."  What other schools do should have been part of the debate.  As far as I know, Youngin in fact does reserve the IVY earlies for the students whose numbers really speak.   How much influence does an essay or good interview really have?  No body really knows.  But for Ivy schools it seems you need the entire package.  These are all points that could have found a way into the debate.  

All in all, very good. 

THB: KMLA should limit early admission decisions.
Date: May 29nd		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Inseong		Celine
Delivery	9.1 /10	Pretty creative intro and nice breakdown.  Improving steadily and gaining confidence.  More inflection in voice would be the next step (meaningful pauses and aimed comments etc) .	9.2 /10	Good immediate rebuttal to "yes I want to go."  Nice use of outside data and pschology to show the potential for bias.  Good flow and nice delivery but more emotion would help.  Great use of time.
Arguments	9.2 /10	"You really want to go to Harvard...." NICE prelude.  Second person narrative. Define Limit - good.  Weighing pros and cons and longterm reality.  14th wave results - a "disaster" ? Stats vs. reality.  Some students didn't listen and the results show.  Regular was dominated by a few.  We have three arguments: (1) Practical choices/ efficiency: Strategy for the school.  School needs results and utilitarian agenda. School knows best and can weigh the odds.  Limiting this can avoid clusters of applicants. Why compete against each other AND the whole world? (2) Practicality is best for students. Students may not know what is best for them.  Limit risky choices.  It is true that some students surprise either by being accepted or not being accepted, we have to focus beyond "miracles." They are rare.  Safer to play the odds and listen to school.  TIME: 6:00	9.3 /10	First question - yes I do want to go to Harvard! (Interesting).  - Students should not focus or be mindful of the school's agenda.(NICE rebuttal right away).  Start with rebuttals/mention forst two arguments (1) Limiting choices will decrease ambition and enthusiasm.  (2) Should not place limits on students future.  SUMMARY of Govs position (Good) - absurd pracitcality will bury ambition and will.  Students are aware of risks and the choice has to be theirs.  Our arguements are about being practical in a risky way -and (POI Rachel - Aren't our advisors and counsellors MORE informed?) - REPLY - Yes, but they don't know the true character of the student and may underestimate.  Our first argument (1) - Enacting the policy will hurt the students and remove will.  Maslow's Heirarchy - self esteem. (interesting).  If the school tries to limit the goals it's only going to send the wrong message.  Another - "expectancy value theory" - experiment by Atkinson - IQ test and fake results given to a teacher and showed the bias and expectatoions don't match accurately.  We can't decrease motivation.  A college counselor can damage this. Argument 2 - (2) The real role of the counselor is to suggest a school.  Not to force.  Counselor's have limited knowledge and can't have a full view of the student.  6-7 sessions don't amount to real relationship. TIME: 8:50
Notes	Tot 18.3 /20		Tot 18.5 /20
Rebuttal One	Pts	Joowon	Pts	Youngil
Delivery	9.2 /10	Good rebuttals and emphasis on the stats.  Third argument seems a bit muddled and too related to the rest of the stuff.  More creativity needed.  A bit more flavor needed in tone and flow.	9.1 /10	Good.  Just need more emotion. Nice points and elaborations, but some points a bit repetitive.
Arguments	9.2 /10	"Being a senior myself" - good.  Policy will benefit both sides.  Rebuttals and errors of Opp - practical vs. respecting the student.  - BUT why should a student take such a risk? Early admission is important - and has higher possibility.  This is where practicality goes a long way when it is realistic.  About counselors not knowing the student - I would like to point out IF the counselor doesn't know HOW will the college know?  The application will show who is best suited to each school.  Next point - motivation.  This is not the most important thing.  It might help, but students have to be practical.  Seniors have more to consider beyond motivation and are more wise by the time they apply.  LOP has said that Maslow's Hierarchy is important and has self esteem involved.  BUT the counselor's are actually protecting it by avoiding the crushing blow of rejection.  Next point - limiting future - We are not limiting this.   Our Next argument - School will allow student to focus more effectively and use time more wisely IF they are limited.  IF they are prepared and focused they will have better results.  IF students waste time on an impossible dream, they are not using time wisely.  The counselor is NOT evil, and just wants you to use your time wisely.   Time: 6:23	9.2 /10	Two sides have one thing in common - representing students best interests.  However, gov's idea is not beneficial.  Gives too much power to a counselor who doesn't really know what's best.  (NICE preamble and overview).  (1) Policy is aimed at early decision.  So does that mean more freedom for regular?  If student is excited about their potential school, it will show.  If they are not, it will also show.  (2) How can we trust a counselor's opinion so much?  Some students value this, some do not.  The process limits opportunity.  Some students will end up with higher limits, some will end up with lower limits.  This seems unbalanced.  Strategy must me balanced.  Practical choices don't match illogical amount of power.  POI - Rachel - Isn't that what our PM said? Definitions.  (Not sure what was said?)  This policy will make more limits.  Motivation is not important says the Gov, But we see that the students who are really focused are the ones who succeed.  Effort does count.  Third Point by DPM - Wasting time - We think early and regular are related and the essays will be used again.  It's not a waste of time.  Argument 3 - (3) - Not beneficial as a whole - the policy hurts moral.  It will result in poorer essays and less enthusiasm.  Failure in early is a lesson that can only be learned by the individual.  It's not a bad thing.  TIME: 8:10
Notes	Tot 18.4 /20		Tot 18.3 /20
Conclusion	Pts	Rachel	Pts	Changwoo
Delivery	9.3 /10	Very good content and delivery. Nice rebuttal to Maslow.  Good new info.	9.3 /10
Arguments	9.3 /10	College admission is not a game.  It's not rolling a dice.  It's a process where you don't do it alone.  Counselors are important, and should be valued highly.  How many of you have been to a college?  Lived in the US?  At most maybe 3 years and a vision trip.  So, we don't know what's what.  It is all new, and the counselor knows so much.  It's an advantage to have them and we can't ignore their wisdom.  I'll divide the clashes - 1 - Longterm and short term and "sake of the school."  We don't want to be absolute,  We don't want to say NO.  We just want to encorage more value placed on the counselors opinion.  What we suggest is that students go to early action and not be bound, and then see what happens in regular.  Students can take wiser risks.  Our question - DO students REALLY know the risks?  The admissions officers do know the risks.  Rebuttal to "counselors don't know students."  Not true.  If they counselor doesn't know about you it's YOUR FAULT.  (Good).  Colleges want to know if they are YOUR FIRST CHOICE.  Yale and Harvard don't care.  Smaller ones do care.  We have to consider this.  Ten or more schools later it results in lower admission.  Our policy is pratical and effective.  "Maslows Hierarchy" - it was done on children, not teens.  It doesn't work.  Seniors must be practical.  "Full of dreams" requires feet on the ground.  TIME: 8:38	9.2 /10	As the whip, I will show the clashes. How many of you actually know me and my dreams?  None really.  To be afraid of failure doens't help the student.  Fear of failure.  The school is afraid of this more than the students.  Counselor will "only suggest" but we believe this is not just this.  It's more than that, We challenge her if we go outside of this, and the counselor limits us.  Let's talk about 14th wavers.  A girl fought with the counselor and didnt get a good letter.  The counselor ends up limiting.  POI - Rachel - how can you say that it is a limit?  Reply - Because the application is more than just that.  A moment of choice and inspiration can't be limited.  The gov is being irrational and uninspired.  Scores and essays.  There is more to it than that.  Name value etc.  indeed BUT the school seems to distrust the students.  Ranking etc. don't always determine.  Early decisions and high results aren't the only matter.   Time: Good. Time: 5:40
Notes	Tot 18.6 /20		Tot 18.5 /20