The responses of teams should be evaluated solely in terms of the following four criteria:
(a) Clarity and Intelligibility
Has the team stated and defended its position in a way that is logically consistent and which allows the Judges to understand clearly the team's line of reasoning?
(b) Focus on Ethically Relevant Factors
Has the team identified and discussed the factors the Judges consider ethically relevant in connection with the case?
(c) Avoidance of Ethical Irrelevance
Has the team stayed on track by avoiding preoccupation with issues that the Judges do not regard as ethically relevant, or as only having minor ethical relevance, in connection with a case?
(d) Deliberative Thoughtfulness
Does the Team's presentation of its position on a question indicate both awareness and thoughtful consideration of different viewpoints, including especially those that could loom large in the reasoning of individuals who might disagree with the team's position?
Three elements of team responses to each case are evaluated:
1. up to 40 points for the response to the initial case question (i.e. step 2 and step 4 in the "Brief Snapshot" outline) AND for the responses to the judges? questions
To arrive at the score for this item, up to 10 points should be awarded for each of the criteria noted above. For example, the score for Team A on this item might be: 6 points for clarity, 8 points for relevance, 7 points for avoidance of irrelevance, and 8 points for deliberative judgment, for a total of 29 points out of a possible 40.
2. up to 10 points for the comment on the response (i.e., step 3 in the "Brief Snapshot" outline)
This score should reflect an overall evaluation of the team?s response, taking into account all four criteria but not according to a fixed weighting.
3. up to 10 points for the final summary (i.e., step 5 in the ?Brief Snapshot? outline).
This score should reflect an overall evaluation of the team?s response, taking into account all four criteria but not according to a fixed weighting.
This means that on the first case in a round you?ll give a score on items 1 and 3 to Team A, and a score on item 2 to Team B. On the second case in a round, you?ll give a score on items 1 and 3 to Team B, and a score on item 2 to Team A.
A sample score sheet is attached. Please complete a score sheet for each match, and use your totals from each match to calculate the total scores for the round. After the round is complete, you should read aloud the scores you assigned in each match, and then the resulting totals for the round.
The "chief" judge will add up the scores for each team give by each of the three judges. The team with the most points will be declared the winner of the round. If the scores are equal, the round will be declared a tie. When the round is over, please give your score sheets to the chief judge, who is responsible for recording the total scores for the round.
While it is tempting to give every team very high scores to acknowledge and reward their hard work and their earnestness, it is critical that we have a sufficient point spread to discriminate better teams from worse ones. With that in mind, I?d suggest the following guidelines for assigning point values to teams? responses:
10 points absolutely stellar (A+ equivalent; Expect to see very few, if any)
9 points excellent (A equivalent; again, these should be rare)
8 points very good (B+/A- range)
7 points good (B range; this should probably be the most common score given)
6 points fair (B- range)
5 points and below poor (C range and lower)
So, for example, a typical score for a good response to the initial question ? a response that is reasonably clear and coherent, touches on the major considerations, etc. ? should be about 28 out of a possible 40, and an overall score for a round should be about 42 out of a possible 60. These may seem low on their face, but it is the relative numbers that will matter to the students rather than the absolute ones.