| 
| 
| |
| Challenge League Tournament ModelGOALS AND MISSION The Roosevelt Challenge Tournaments were conceived as a new way of (1) encouraging students to invent creative solutions to pressing policy challenges, (2) to hone those ideas into well-supported proposals, and (3) to promote them to the public and policymakers. These three goals guide everything that goes into the Challenge Tournaments. They are not, however, an end-all solution to all of the goals of the Roosevelt Institution – the Tournaments are merely one type of event in the constellation of chapter activities that achieve our broader mission. In general, we are always balancing between being a professional think tank and a fun, exciting student organization. Often those two identities are mutually exclusive. We frequently find that being professional and scholarly gives us credibility with academics or policymakers but loses us the appreciation of most students. Likewise, being dynamic and cool raises our membership rosters and engages our peers but may turn off serious politicos or at least fail to attract their serious attention. We must constantly tack from one side to the other, always striving to hit the perfect chord with both. The Roosevelt Challenge Tournaments seek to hit that chord though they will err on the side of catering to students rather than professional adults. We expect to convince adults to attend the Tournaments one by one but we want students to attend in droves. Thus, the model laid out here engages professionals mostly through directly requesting their individual participation in the event and engages students at a broad level through advertising, branding, and a format that caters to their tastes. Other events will cater more to adult community members with formats suited to them but the Challenge Tournaments are designed to attract students. Though Roosevelt is often a very insular community of political wonks, the Tournaments will present us with an effective way to both accomplish our organizational goals and engage more of our peers in important political dialogue. It should be noted that we have very deliberately chosen to add competition to the general format of policy conferences. We recognized early one that one of the things that defines the most successful youth activities is competition. Examples are everywhere in activities like student elections, mock trial, debate teams, business plan competitions, and Model UN. Even sports offer a model for effectively using competition to motivate and engage; football games wouldn’t be half as exciting for either the players or the fans if no one was ever declared the winner. Competition also has the convenient ability to separate items into a hierarchy of achievement. One of Roosevelt’s constant challenges is trying to identify the best ideas and most talented students from a pool of thousands of members. Through competitive forums, the best solutions to the Roosevelt Challenges and the students who craft them will rise to the top. This is impossible through traditional conferences or symposiums. We should again note that this is an unusual type of competition because we will be measuring success based on students’ abilities to craft and implement effective solutions to the Roosevelt Challenges. We have no intentions of turning this into a glorified version of high school debate or mock trial. Whereas those forums seek to train students in skills we are focused on the content of students’ work and the competition will reward participants accordingly. Finally, openly competitive processes are highly effective at defining for participants the strengths and weaknesses of their efforts. While closed-door editing or review models are effective at picking more qualified candidates from the rest of the pack, they fail the test of transparency. Transparency is crucial to motivate even the losers to try again because then (1) they know how close they were or how far they have to go, (2) they know very clearly why they lost and by what criteria they were judged, and (3) they know for certain that the process was fair because they watched it unfold. And if we successfully build this into a full league with many tournaments each year, participants will also be afforded multiple chances at success thereby making losing less of a blow. More than anything, we hope that even the losers will have found the process fun. EVENT OVERVIEW Generally: The Roosevelt Challenge Tournaments will be single, full-day competitive policy tournaments hosted by chapters of the Roosevelt Institution and co-sponsored by Roosevelt National. They will begin early in the morning and finish either in the afternoon or over a gala dinner. They will consist of a morning opening ceremony followed by two preliminary rounds in which teams will present their solutions to the Roosevelt Challenges. Presentations will include a variety of mediums such as advanced written materials, live multi-media displays, and oral argumentation. In each round students will be judged by local experts including activists, scholars, political operatives, and especially elected officials. The preliminary rounds will determine the finalists who will move on to the final round in the afternoon. This final ceremony will be creative and extravagantly produced such that it attracts a large viewing audience. With a final panel of top-level politicos, academics, and elected officials the presenters will again present their policy proposals, engage in dynamic and engaging dialogue about the issues, and make their final plea for why their idea should win. Then, perhaps with help from the audience , the judges will make their selection and announce a winner. This final round might also include a keynote address from a prominent speaker. Schedule: The best day for the tournaments has yet to be determined . Originally a Saturday was deemed ideal so that student and adult participants alike were sure to have the day off. However, it is difficult sometimes to get adult participants to give up their weekends for a student project. This is especially true if they live in the suburbs and would not otherwise be in town. Political staffers in particular might prefer a work day. Thus, Friday is also an attractive option and certainly brings the advantage of allowing us to start earlier in the morning than we could on a Saturday. At this point we consider the two days’ pros and cons to be about the same and will likely try both. The night before the Tournament will likely include a reception for the event participants, judges, organizers, and outside supporters and advisors. This should take place at the home of a local benefactor, or else at a restaurant, or else on campus in a nice venue. This event might also make an effective fundraiser. Basic Schedule Outline: Day 1
Day 2
Topic: The subject of the conference will be either one of the Roosevelt Challenges or all three. If all three the program will need to be split amongst three tracks which will then come together in the final round. Audience: The target audience for a Challenge Tournament is students. One of the goals of the Roosevelt Institution is to engage our entire generation in a conversation about our political future so we feel inspired to try and attract as many students to these events as possible. Thus, the Tournaments are designed to be more attractive to a student audience than, say, a professorial one. While we expect professors to attend, the Tournaments will in no way resemble your average gathering of academics. This is first and foremost a student forum. Thus, all branding and promotions should target a student audience (this is part of why we’re hosting these on campuses rather than in city venues). One outstanding question is whether a larger audience will be invited to the whole day or just the final ceremony. The final round will likely be the only truly exciting part of the day unless the audience happens to be highly interested in the given topic. Though in any case it might be hard to engage an audience for an entire day. It will depend how the event is structured and what kind of opportunity for audience participation will be included. There should certainly be a way to have people attend the full day like they would at a conference. Participants: Participants will be organized into teams. Teams can consist of up to 5 people. Teams will be allowed to organize in any way they see fit and use their presentation time as they wish as well. As with all Roosevelt activities, anyone presenting must be a current student. However, participants needn’t necessarily be an active part of a Roosevelt chapter. As always, we are seeking to engage all college students to help solve the Roosevelt Challenges and the tournaments should be seen as an opportunity to recruit new students to the cause. Many students will likely have some materials already prepared having done similar work for classes, theses, or in their work lives. We should actively seek out these outside individuals and encourage them to participate. Then, after the fact, we should try to keep them involved with the chapter. Chapter involvement will certainly give a leg up to participants but it shouldn’t be a requirement for entry. Again, active recruitment of non-Roosevelt members will be crucial to making these events a success. Judges: Tournament judges will be selected by the hosting chapter based on:
Part of the benefit of having judges is to provide feedback for students about their work. But the best externality comes from having prominent people sit and listen intently to students’ ideas. Therefore it is very important that we select judges who can help move those ideas beyond this event and beyond academia to effect real change. Most likely the judges will include:
The judges will be given a specific rubric to follow (see “The Rubric”) but at some point they will nonetheless have to make simple judgment calls about which proposals they prefer. Public policy is not formulaic like a baseball game or chess tournament where the winner or loser is determined solely by the rules of engagement. Though we will provide a rubric to guide their thinking, at some point such subjective decisions will have to be made by subjective decision-makers. Note: We will also form a small committee of “Rule Judges” made up of the hosting chapter president, the president of the Roosevelt Institution, and another event organizer. This group will be on hand to clear up any confusion over the rules or the program. Like in Jeopardy. Entrance Fees: In the long term, the Roosevelt Challenge League and the Tournaments that compose it will likely charge an entrance fee for all participants much like sports and Model UN events charge a fee to cover the administrative costs of hosting a tournament. But it may not make sense to do this right away when no one has any idea what they’d be paying for. One hybrid solution might be to charge an entrance fee but then waive it for 95% of participants. We could waive it for people who sign up early, for those who we are trying to recruit and can use that as a selling point (“I can get the fee waived for you if you’ll do it…”), and for people who just can’t pay it of course. This would set a good precedent of charging a fee for future events and might slightly increase the prestige of the event (people tend to respect things that cost money more than they respect things that are free). TIMELINE This timeline is very general. A much more detailed timeline is also available.
CHAPTER AND NATIONAL DIVISION OF LABOR Chapter Staff: As mentioned, the host chapter will be expected to form a committee around organizing this event. It is crucial that that committee meet regularly – preferably weekly for the 12 weeks prior to the event. Perhaps this group will simply be the existing leadership of the chapter. The members of this team can vary according to the chapter’s preferences but it should probably include 8-12 members and cover the following roles and responsibilities:
In addition, the three Roosevelt Challenges each have a national coordinator. These three coordinators will help especially with recruiting speakers and judges depending on which of the three (or all three) the Tournament is focused on. Host Chapter Responsibilities:
National Responsibilities:
BRANDING Each event is going to need a brand. Recall that our primary target for mass promotions and branding is students since all the adults in attendance will be recruited individually – not through our PR campaign. Each event of this type is called a Roosevelt Challenge Tournament and the aggregate of all such Tournaments is called the Roosevelt Challenge League. However, these are not necessarily good brands for a major event. Thus, a separate brand (perhaps specific to the issue being addressed if only focused on one Challenge) will be necessary. Think of a few analogies: Thus a particular title for each individual event must be selected though a chapter could certainly elect to simply use “The Roosevelt Challenge Tournament”. The title might be well off with a tag-line as well. Always keep in mind that this title needs to attract students primarily. We’re shooting for as wide appeal as possible. A few suggested examples:
One last thing to keep in mind – if the title is specific to the issue being addressed that might go a long way in attracting people interested in that issue. However, it shortens the lifespan of that name to this one year. If the title is more generic it won’t resonate with as many people most likely but it could be a brand the host chapter uses again and again. Going back to our football analogy – think about the benefit the Rose Bowl and the Orange Bowl have gotten from reusing their brands every year (or imagine how silly it would be for a TV show to change its title every season). Either way is totally fine but the host chapter should make that decision conscious of the future. TOURNAMENT PROGRAM OUTLINE Chapter Breakfast: The morning of the event it would be nice to cater a continental breakfast at the event just to students from Roosevelt chapters and to students interested in starting Roosevelt chapters. The goal would be to hook the new students into forming Roosevelt chapters by introducing them intimately to the rest of the organization. No real programming is needed here besides a quick welcome from the host chapter and a few words about how to start a new chapter. Opening Ceremony: The morning program should include:
Attendance – Mostly just the participants and judges. Maybe some observing attendees if we can figure out how to draw them in. A big speaker would also attract an outside audience. Round Structure: Here is a sample outline of each round. Timing during each team’s turn will be very tight. Going under time is always allowed but we will have zero tolerance for running over.
Each round should consist of relatively the same structure and programming. There are several reasons for this:
Compromise – “Emphasis Points”: But there is a compromise to be found here . Though we should structure each round identically, we can certainly designate slight differences in the emphasis for the round. We could easily weight those sections of the Rubric differently for different rounds making each category the “core issue” for one round and less significant for the others. For instance, the first round could focus on Originality and Creativity, the second round could focus on Feasibility and Support and the third round could focus on Relevancy and Impact. One way to do this would be to designate 20 “Emphasis Points” that would rotate between the top two or three categories of the Rubric. Those categories would be included each time on the Rubric but the Emphasis Points would be given just to one category at a time. See the Rubric section for more details about how this might work. Judging: Each round will be judged by as many judges as possible but one judge will of course be the bare minimum. If at all possible, no judge should see the same team present twice and no two teams should twice present in the same room together. These judges will be of the highest caliber we can find as designated in earlier sections. Also helping to facilitate the round will be a Roosevelt staff member who will be primarily charged with timing speeches and helping to clarify rules. Lunch Final Round Extravaganza: This is still an area for development. Here’s what we know:
THE RUBRIC The written proposal should follow the submission guidelines for the 25 ideas publication. The written proposals will be due a week or ten days ahead of time and the Editorial Board will pass quick judgment on each proposal in time for the event itself. Teams will receive their written proposal scores when they arrive at the Tournament. Background: What differentiates the Challenge Tournaments from mock trial, debate, or other such groups, is that the Challenge Tournament will judge students based on exactly the same criteria by which the real world judges real public policy. Thus, by creating a virtual version of the process an idea might go through to come to fruition, the Challenge Tournament will both hone that idea into an effective proposal and encourage the teams pushing the idea to do much of the same work they would need to actually enact it. The bottleneck for this whole scheme is the Rubric. This document will be the cornerstone of each team’s efforts while building their proposal and each judge’s thoughts as he’s evaluating them. The goal is to make the Rubric reward participants for the characteristics or actions we deem virtuous. If this is properly done then the winners of the Tournament will indeed be the best team with the best idea. Below is the draft Rubric. It considers that perfect would equal 100 points and each characteristic we value is worth some portion of that. The judge is charged with evaluating each team based on these criteria. He can give full, none, or partial credit in each category. It also includes a “personal evaluation” section for each presenter which does not factor into the team score. The Rubric also includes 20 “Emphasis Points” as described under the Tournament Program Outline section above. These points will be allocated alternately to the three most important categories: Originality and Creativity, Relevancy and Impact, and Feasibility and Support. Thus, for each Emphasis Category’s designated round, that category will be worth 30 points making it the primary focus for the round. Draft Rubric (__/100): Written Portion (__/15)
Presentation Portion (__/85)
Personal Evaluation (not cumulative and does not contribute to team score):
AWARDS AND AFTERMATH Since we plan to have the final extravaganza include the final round of competition, it only makes sense to also present awards at that time. As indicated previously, it would be easy for the final votes to be tallied while we present the individual and special awards. Trophies: The physical awards themselves should be a standardized type of trophy that ideally evokes the Roosevelt heritage in some way. Perhaps we should consult the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute about possible trophies. These should be the same for each Challenge Tournament with different engravings indicating the host chapter. Chapter Award: Each host chapter should be encouraged to award an award of its own choosing to the team of its choice. The award should evoke a value their school holds dear. So the Berkeley chapter might give the “Hippie Award” to the most idealistic, happy-go-lucky team. Or the University of Chicago chapter might give a “Mayor Daly Machine Politics Award” to the team most apt at moving their idea through the ranks. The chapter leadership will designate the award in advance of the event and the chapter president and Tournament Czar will be responsible for administering the award. This award should probably repeat every year to give the award value. People’s Choice Award: If the final round includes more than two teams it might be cool to take a poll of the audience and award a “People’s Choice” award to the winner of the most applause. This might just be a good tactic to raise energy and kill time. Individual Awards: In order to encourage individual efforts and improvement as well as teamwork, we will administer individual awards that will be scored by the judges about each participant individually. These will often go to presenters who do not even make it to the finals. E.g.
Re-wards : The more complicated part of this is with what, tangibly, should we actually reward the winning teams? Naturally, the opportunity to present your idea in front of an elite panel of judges and a large audience is to some degree a reward in and of itself. But we don’t want these ideas to stop here. We want the projects to extend beyond this event and eventually get enacted into law. But how to do that? There are a few ideas we might want to consider:
GLOSSARY
|
The Roosevelt Institution is a nonpartisan, nonprofit national think tank devoted to bringing students' policy ideas to the policy process. The opinions expressed on this site are exclusively those of its members. DC Headquarters: Roosevelt Institution / 2100 M St NW Suite 610 / Washington, DC 20037 || (202) 833-1359 |