THE ULTIMATE QUESTION

[nirorivers6]

Would you rather be a National Champion in HS or college?
If you don't plan on competeing in college answer anyway.

[Steve Perry]

The college I'm going to, to my dismay, does not have a forensics team.

[Chewie]

42

[Josiahzacks]

42

exactly.


This is obviously going to be an overwhelmingly one sided poll, since:
1) This is a high school forensics site
2) Most high school competitors do NOT compete in college, and have never seen a college round.

I'm just going to throw it out there, as someone who has speech on the periphery of his activities and attention, that college speech is much, much harder than high school speech. And I mean much harder. As in, college basketball is much harder than high school basketball. Seriously. Take a winning prose from high school local and enter it in a college local tournament and it is likely to get creamed. Enter a mediocre prose from a local college tournament, and it will go straight ones.

Anyone who has competed to serious competition will agree with me. It's not that the competitors are immeasurably better (although most are, and not just from experience: some of the best college competitors never competed in HS), it's that the standard of intellectual activity and performative quality is incredibly higher.

So, obviously, the vast majority of this website will pick a high school championship, while a college one is much harder to achieve.

[Ryan]

I'm going to second Josh there on that College is much harder than High School. When you take a high school national champion and give them 4 more years of dedicated forensics work, you get college forensics. I've seen numerous high school national champions take a good 2 years at least before they started having strong national success in college. Overall, there are more competitors in high school, but the quality of competition is much stiffer in college.

[torn]

is it true that most of college pieces are dramatic, and that there's not really even an Humorous category?

[Ryan]

Absolutely not. Your assumption probably comes from the differences in event names and descriptions. High school has: HI, DI, Duo, and in certain regions OI (prose/poetry) and Storytelling (as well as a variety of other events). College has: Prose, Poetry, DI, Duo, POI. The biggest difference is that high school separates HI and DI by if something is humorous or dramatic, leaving little opportunity for a piece that blends the two.

College bases the different events around the actual genres. Prose is material from a book, intended for the printed page, and based around the telling of a story. DI is material from a play/movie, intended for performance, and based around the creation of a character. Poetry is rhythmic-based and frequently is built through a program of multiple pieces. POI is Programmed Oral Interpretation and requires an interper to combine together prose, poetry, and drama into a program around a central theme or argument.

So the better DIs in college show an interper's versatility by often starting off funny and then gradually going dramatic. All interp events focus more on realistic portrayal of characters instead of cartoon characters that have gain prominence in events like HI.

[nirorivers6]

I created this poll not really caring about the results so much as the conversations it might spark. I'm glad that it got some attention. Can someone describe the differences in the judging pool in the HS vs College?

[worsethansex]

For me, even though I'd probably feel more accomplished winning in college because I'd be up against better competition, I'd still rather win in high school. High school forensics has more of an atmosphere of youth and learning, rather than in college, where many of the people are highly polished and likely to go into professional fields involving their speaking skills. It's more of a professional competition than a friendly competition between a bunch of people who are just trying to do well in something out of a wide field of options, and you can really track the improvement and grow up with high school competitors, which you can't do as much with people you're just trying to beat- not mature with. A high school championship would feel more like an end of the road with friends- a college championship (not to insult college forensics at all, I respect it and have many friends who compete in it) would feel like an industry award.

[Josiahzacks]

For me, even though I'd probably feel more accomplished winning in college because I'd be up against better competition, I'd still rather win in high school. High school forensics has more of an atmosphere of youth and learning, rather than in college, where many of the people are highly polished and likely to go into professional fields involving their speaking skills. It's more of a professional competition than a friendly competition between a bunch of people who are just trying to do well in something out of a wide field of options, and you can really track the improvement and grow up with high school competitors, which you can't do as much with people you're just trying to beat- not mature with. A high school championship would feel more like an end of the road with friends- a college championship (not to insult college forensics at all, I respect it and have many friends who compete in it) would feel like an industry award.


Interesting, but I think the same sense of camaraderie exists in college-- perhaps to a much greater effect. Not only are there fewer college competitors in any given region (hence, you see the same people a lot), but you are also competing in a lot more events, ergo you have a chance to spend more time with people. The same is true of the two-day swing format and travel necessities.

As for the judging question, there are no lay judges in college forensics.
In order to judge a round, you have to be a coach or former competitor.

Judges ballots (the good ones, anyway), are loaded with really really helpful criticism, because:

1) the judges are all really really familiar with the events and techniques involved.

2) there are, more or less, the same judges at every tournament, so they can give notes about your progression with a piece and more personalized suggestions and explanations, because they actually know you personally.


High school speech doesnt allow this type of judging because there are way too many competitors and way too few coaches.

[Josiahzacks]

The counterargument to a HS championship being less impressive than a college one is, obviously, the effectiveness of that award.

A HS championship will get you scholarships, acceptances, etc. at colleges.

A College championship will get you.......well, maybe a job in forensics?

[Cinderella]

Here's another argument for a HS championship: I can tell you (probably in a great deal of unecessary detail) about all of the NFL and CFL final rounds I ever watched - who won, what pieces there were, etc. I cannot, however, tell you much about about the AFA and AFA final rounds I've seen aside from my agreement with Ryan and others that these rounds were FAR SUPERIOR to the high school final rounds I saw. Maybe this is because there are more events in college, and because you can enter in several, its a lot of the same people that you're seeing over and over. Maybe its also because for me, forensics was LIFE in high school and in college I've had other interests - so when I got back from nationals in high school, they were all I was talking about for months, and in college, most of my closest friends don't do forensics so I sort of push the rounds to the back of my mind unless I'm working on forensics. Just a bunch of speculation.

[nirorivers6]

If Ryan doesn't mind, I'm going to post something he said.

"The biggest difference in how tournaments work from high school to college is that, in high school, you can win a tournament like Harvard or Crestian (at least in past years) and everyone knows your name. You don't even have to go to NFL Nationals for you to be considered a top competitor. However in college, everything is about Nationals. Once you qualify an event, you stop competing with it (except at showcase tournaments) until nationals."

and

"NFA is supposed to be more accessible tournament. To qualify for NFA, all you have to do is final an event at a tournament. But to qualify an event for AFA, you have to have 3 "legs" (or ranks) that add up to less than or equal to 8. Like a 1st, a 2nd, and a 4th add up to 7 so that would qualify, but a 3rd, a 5th, and a 6th equals 14 and wouldn't qualify that event."


In AFA, it seems like "flukes" are eliminated as you have to display consistency.

[Cinderella]

Eh. There are certainly exceptions. Easy districts and such. But yeah, that's pretty much accurate.

[Ryan]

In AFA, it seems like "flukes" are eliminated as you have to display consistency.

Nic, I don't mind you reposting my comments as long as you don't mind me doing the same.

While AFA's more rigorous qualifying procedures do ensure less flukes, they also make it harder (esp. in tough districts) to qualify a new but strong event late in the year. Case in point, a couple years ago there was an excellent duo that didn't qualify for AFA but ended up taking 2nd at NFA.

[Josiahzacks]

Maybe its also because for me, forensics was LIFE in high school and in college I've had other interests

Yeah, this is definitely true.
Forensics, for me, has always been something I've enjoyed, but it's secondary to my work as an actor. In high school, it was maybe 45-55 speech/acting. I would usually use this site to keep up with who was doing well around the country and what pieces were running well, but it was never a real obsession.

Now, it's more like 98-2, and I dont really know anything that's going on when I'm not actually AT a tournament, but that's also just my own professional and college situation.