I love the concept, but one of my friends pointed out that Labor day falls on a inconsistent date. While the policy will still eliminate most confusion, there will be a small fraction of people whose birthday falls within the range of dates that, year-to-year, sometimes are and sometimes aren't Labor day.
A
Audrey Cooper
11 years ago
Featured
This is a reasonable change which protects legitimate seniors who, through no fault of their own, are precluded from competition. I fully support this petition.
J
Joseph Abell
· petition starter
11 years ago
Hey Virginia, appreciating your input. It's impossible to "balance out" the super senior ability for post-calendar seniors by noting that the pre-calendar seniors could've competed earlier when they were 12. We're not saying that the rules let certain people have a longer CAREER, we're saying that it unfairly privileges half of the seniors.
Here's why that's important: Getting an early season at 11 does not compare to competing an extra year as a senior. The privilege to compete at 19 is afforded to half the seniors, because the deadlines run incongruently to the debate season. There are many people who have difficult high-school situations, family issues, etc, and can't graduate at the same time as everyone else. If you're born post-calendar, you can rest assured because the rules have mercy on you. But for everyone who has a compelling situation born before the calendar, they don't.
We're not letting anyone compete longer. Aside from the grace year in the 2015-16 season, the line will be drawn at Labor Day for both the lower and upper age brackets.
Lastly, there are far more legitimate seniors who are excluded under a January 1st model than would be under Labor Day. To be honest, I haven't even heard of someone born before Labor Day and in their senior year of high school. Referring to Objection 3, the policy has comparative advantage.
V
Virginia Stacy
11 years ago
Oh. I don't know why my signature is on the petition.
V
Virginia Stacy
11 years ago
I'm kind of confused, I don't think there's a big issue. School years and birthdays usually work like this: January - August is a normal birthday, September - December is a later birthday (the cut-off date you want to adjust). If you have a normal birthday, you'll be 17 for most of your senior year (normal because that's how the system is designed) and if you have a late birthday you'll be 18 for most of your senior year. Super seniors take an extra year extra senior year for whatever reason they want to.
If you have a normal birthday, Stoa rules give you six years of competition, if you graduate on time. Late seniors have an advantage. Late seniors are in a weird middle area so they actually get seven maximum years of competition while still graduating on time. I suppose normal birthday seniors can super senior and still compete while late seniors cannot, but that only balances things out. Super-senioring allows normal seniors the 7 years of competition that late seniors are allowed. There's nothing broken here. Late seniors can't super-senior and compete under the current rules, but that only keeps things balanced. Even the new plan would 'cut people off' because kids born in the first few days of September, who would be late seniors that super-senior, wouldn't be able to compete. That doesn't make any sense to me. There's always a cut off of some kinds.
My birthday is at the end of September, so under this system, I could debate for 8 years! I don't get this. There's always going to be some weird outcomes, but random deadlines always do that.
G
Georgia Vertican
11 years ago
yes Indeed!
D
Daniel Sides
11 years ago
Featured
I would agree with Anon above as well as adding the caveat that a competitor has a total of six years of eligibility encompassing 7th grade through 12th grade. I would argue there isn't that much advantage in simply being older but most of the advantage is in how many seasons of experience.
B
Barbara Winchel
11 years ago
Featured
Makes much more sense to have cut off date match beginning of school year! Should have been changed long ago.
A
Allyn Winchel
11 years ago
Great idea!
D
Dusty Ward
11 years ago
This makes sense to me that if a student is 18 at the start of the season- when he turns 19 should have no impact other than a postive one, for those students who currently can't compete due to a later birthday.
D
Dusty Ward
11 years ago
Featured
This makes sense to me that if a student is 18 at the start of the season- when he turns 19 should have no impact other than a postive one, for those students who currently can't compete due to a later birthday.
G
Griffith Vertican
11 years ago
I have personally seen the harmful effects of the current age policy in the lives of two of my students, as it does not take into account students who are held back because of learning disabilities (such as dyslexia) or take into account dramatic life events (such as the death of a parent). The student with a learning disability was rejected last year, and the student who is going through a tough life events will be denied access to the league this year if the current policy remains.
It's undeniable that the current policy punishes them for these life events that were no fault of their own. Any policy that does not take such circumstances into consideration must be reevaluated. Now is the time for change… I hope you will join me in supporting the reformation of the age limit policy.
Best Regards
Griffith William Vertican
P.S. So why does this even matter... the student(s) I speak of have a lot to gain from another year of competition, as it would further allow them to develop their critical and apologetic skills and it would allow the league to benefit from their willingness to mentor the younger students and in some cases even coach those when needed.
Thus the mission statement of our league is best served by allowing such students the opportunity to compete.
Those are my thoughts anyways… I hope you will join us and supporting this worthy cause to reform the age limit requirement.
T
Travis Herche
11 years ago
Positive change for the competitive health of the league.
A
Anita Chen
11 years ago
Thanks for investing in and actively seeking ways to improve stoa (:
A
Arik Schneider
11 years ago
An excellent idea!
S
Sarah Busler
11 years ago
I love this idea!
B
Benjamin Green
11 years ago
I recommend this petition to everyone
A
Anonymous
11 years ago
Featured
I would be in favor of this petition if there's also a requirement that the parent/legal guardian sign a statement that their child has not completed their high school academic studies and will remain a full time, high school, student for the entirety of the upcoming academic year.
Good luck with this!
Good luck with this!
I love the concept, but one of my friends pointed out that Labor day falls on a inconsistent date. While the policy will still eliminate most confusion, there will be a small fraction of people whose birthday falls within the range of dates that, year-to-year, sometimes are and sometimes aren't Labor day.
This is a reasonable change which protects legitimate seniors who, through no fault of their own, are precluded from competition. I fully support this petition.
Hey Virginia, appreciating your input. It's impossible to "balance out" the super senior ability for post-calendar seniors by noting that the pre-calendar seniors could've competed earlier when they were 12. We're not saying that the rules let certain people have a longer CAREER, we're saying that it unfairly privileges half of the seniors. Here's why that's important: Getting an early season at 11 does not compare to competing an extra year as a senior. The privilege to compete at 19 is afforded to half the seniors, because the deadlines run incongruently to the debate season. There are many people who have difficult high-school situations, family issues, etc, and can't graduate at the same time as everyone else. If you're born post-calendar, you can rest assured because the rules have mercy on you. But for everyone who has a compelling situation born before the calendar, they don't. We're not letting anyone compete longer. Aside from the grace year in the 2015-16 season, the line will be drawn at Labor Day for both the lower and upper age brackets. Lastly, there are far more legitimate seniors who are excluded under a January 1st model than would be under Labor Day. To be honest, I haven't even heard of someone born before Labor Day and in their senior year of high school. Referring to Objection 3, the policy has comparative advantage.
Oh. I don't know why my signature is on the petition.
I'm kind of confused, I don't think there's a big issue. School years and birthdays usually work like this: January - August is a normal birthday, September - December is a later birthday (the cut-off date you want to adjust). If you have a normal birthday, you'll be 17 for most of your senior year (normal because that's how the system is designed) and if you have a late birthday you'll be 18 for most of your senior year. Super seniors take an extra year extra senior year for whatever reason they want to. If you have a normal birthday, Stoa rules give you six years of competition, if you graduate on time. Late seniors have an advantage. Late seniors are in a weird middle area so they actually get seven maximum years of competition while still graduating on time. I suppose normal birthday seniors can super senior and still compete while late seniors cannot, but that only balances things out. Super-senioring allows normal seniors the 7 years of competition that late seniors are allowed. There's nothing broken here. Late seniors can't super-senior and compete under the current rules, but that only keeps things balanced. Even the new plan would 'cut people off' because kids born in the first few days of September, who would be late seniors that super-senior, wouldn't be able to compete. That doesn't make any sense to me. There's always a cut off of some kinds. My birthday is at the end of September, so under this system, I could debate for 8 years! I don't get this. There's always going to be some weird outcomes, but random deadlines always do that.
yes Indeed!
I would agree with Anon above as well as adding the caveat that a competitor has a total of six years of eligibility encompassing 7th grade through 12th grade. I would argue there isn't that much advantage in simply being older but most of the advantage is in how many seasons of experience.
Makes much more sense to have cut off date match beginning of school year! Should have been changed long ago.
Great idea!
This makes sense to me that if a student is 18 at the start of the season- when he turns 19 should have no impact other than a postive one, for those students who currently can't compete due to a later birthday.
This makes sense to me that if a student is 18 at the start of the season- when he turns 19 should have no impact other than a postive one, for those students who currently can't compete due to a later birthday.
I have personally seen the harmful effects of the current age policy in the lives of two of my students, as it does not take into account students who are held back because of learning disabilities (such as dyslexia) or take into account dramatic life events (such as the death of a parent). The student with a learning disability was rejected last year, and the student who is going through a tough life events will be denied access to the league this year if the current policy remains. It's undeniable that the current policy punishes them for these life events that were no fault of their own. Any policy that does not take such circumstances into consideration must be reevaluated. Now is the time for change… I hope you will join me in supporting the reformation of the age limit policy. Best Regards Griffith William Vertican P.S. So why does this even matter... the student(s) I speak of have a lot to gain from another year of competition, as it would further allow them to develop their critical and apologetic skills and it would allow the league to benefit from their willingness to mentor the younger students and in some cases even coach those when needed. Thus the mission statement of our league is best served by allowing such students the opportunity to compete. Those are my thoughts anyways… I hope you will join us and supporting this worthy cause to reform the age limit requirement.
Positive change for the competitive health of the league.
Thanks for investing in and actively seeking ways to improve stoa (:
An excellent idea!
I love this idea!
I recommend this petition to everyone
I would be in favor of this petition if there's also a requirement that the parent/legal guardian sign a statement that their child has not completed their high school academic studies and will remain a full time, high school, student for the entirety of the upcoming academic year.