>The problem with this rule is that it's way too complicated.
As much as it hurts to type this... I agree with Henry. :-)
My gut feeling is that this proposal stems from an over-reaction to a
problem we had last semester when a DI couple who were _clearly_ not
beginners, entered some competitions as "Beginners." As I was unable to
attend the comps in question, I heard about it after-the-fact from a number
of other members who felt they were cheated out of ribbons by this couple
(who won all the beginner ribbons). Worse yet, they felt they couldn't
complain to anyone about it, because one half of that couple was a DI
officer at the time.
Admittedly, I never discussed this problem with the members in question.
But, if the real reason for changing the entry level system is to prevent
these members from competing as beginners, I'd much rather volunteer to
have a talk about honesty and fairness with them than to change the way we
run the comp and burden everyone with a complicated point system and more
rules.
I am also a former member of the USABDA YCN committee on comp rules.
This statistic comes straight from my USABDA Youth/College Network comp flyers:
"Using categories in YCN comps of Beginner - under 1 year of training,
Intermediate - under 2 years of training, and Advanced - over two years of
training, works!"
(they also allow Beg - under 18 months of training, Adv/Open - over 18
months of training, to be used - this latter is basically what we have
used, along with a Continental System of judging.)
"In the past 5 years, using primarily this system or a slight variant of
it, YCN has grown from contact with 120 colleges to contact with 428
colleges... "
Back to my agreement with Henry, I don't consider this scheme workable for
anyone but a select few dance comp zealots. If you chose to adopt this
system, come comp day I predict you will have confusion the likes of which
has never before been seen at a college comp.
For college students, a system like this just doesn't make sense.
There are too many competitors, too many dances, too few comps, and too
little time involved (students graduate).
If you win in Beg. Waltz but not in FT, does that mean you become Adv Waltz
but stay Beg FT? That would be a logistical mess, and does not address the
fact that the majority of the skills required to "dance" are the same for
_all_ dances. You really can't be a beginner in one dance and advanced in
another. Look at Henry's example of people with ballet backgrounds!
This statistic comes straight from USABDA:
"...college (students) who are often with the (dance) program for only 18
months and then leave for a variety of reasons.... Let us not ask that
students follow too many constraints. Let us not let college club teachers
impose a structure on the students to which they are resistant."
Since this is the DI comp, put on primarily for DI members, and funded by
the same, we should first and foremost create a system that works for _us_.
If you must fix something that ain't broke, why not adopt the USABDA YCN
rules that are already standard for the majority of college dance comps in
the USA? Why create yet another system?
--
Jay writes: >A more detailed version of the rough proposal is available >in a paper format upon request.
I agree with Sheena that it would be great to have the entire proposal available for review (posted or on the DI web page) before the thursday meeting.
I attended the June officer meeting and picked up a printed copy of the comp proposal. It also includes a proposal to replace our individual dance categories (eg. Waltz, FT, Tango, QS) with a breakdown by style - International or American - and then combining dances within styles (eg. Amer. W/FT in one heat, Int'l QS/T in another, etc). Here are my comments on that:
Old Entry Levels - New Entry Levels/Divisions --------------------------------------------- Newcomer and rookie-vet divisions are good ideas.
The DI does _not_ teach our members different styles (American and Int'l) of dancing, and we _do_ teach about 1/3 nightclub (because it is so popular). So why institute a separation of styles? Exactly who will benefit from this? Dance majors? Certainly not the 99% of our members who are full time college students working towards degrees in non-dance programs.
This advice comes straight from USABDA:
"Many USA teachers as well as many of the YCN staff feel strongly that teaching students multiple levels such as... is counterproductive. This is not consistent with the USABDA/YCN goal of low cost lessons. This over-emphasis on syllabi restricts and denies young dancers the opportunity to pursue really elegant dancing. The students only need five or six steps in each dance... "
--
The printed copy of the proposal also provides a couple of tentative comp schedules. Here are my comments on them:
Tentative Schedule (saturday) version 1 ---------------------------------------
Combining dances to allow time for separation of Amer. and Int'l. dance events is counterproductive because:
You can't enter that event unless you know _all_ the dances which have been combined.
You can't enter that division unless you know that style (Am or Int'l)
Result - more dancers will be sitting (not dancing) for more time than ever before.
There is no Salsa (our most popular dance)
There is Merengue (which we don't teach)
The team match includes "Jive" (should be Swing/jive)
Why are you dropping the Continental System of judging (A and B groups, 2 levels) in favor of four levels (Newcomer, Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced) ?
USABDA says that college students are typically with the dance program for only 18 months before they leave. What is the point of separating these relative newbie dancers into so many levels, and then pairing up dances that you know they won't be equally adept in? The continental system solves this problem, which is why David Lin fought hard to have all the local colleges adopt it. Call him (359-5333) and ask him to explain it to you (and/or see Henry's post).
Tentative Schedule (saturday) version 2 ---------------------------------------
I like this version better, but "Polka?" Is that a joke?
The team match includes "Jive" (should be Swing/jive)
Why are you dropping the Continental System of judging (A and B groups, 2 levels) in favor of four levels (Newcomer, Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced) ?
USABDA says that college students are typically with the dance program for only 18 months before they leave. What is the point of separating these relative newbie dancers into so many levels, and then pairing up dances that you know they won't be equally adept in? The continental system solves this problem, which is why David Lin fought hard to have all the local colleges adopt it. Call him (359-5333) and ask him to explain it to you.
--
And finally, some general comments:
The "Jack & Jill" contest which brings strangers together and rewards real lead-follow dancing has been removed and replaced it with a "team" contest that rewards rehearsed routines that either partner could do individually (not real dancing). Sorry, but I don't like that one bit.
I've been to a lot of college comps. I really like our comp. I think it could use a little fixing up*, but it does _not_ need an overhaul like this.
Mark
*specifically, we need to work at spending less money by: 1) continuing last year's practice of using our own sound system rather than renting one, 2) purchasing less expensive awards than last year, and 3) taking the volunteers to lunch at (for example) the St. Louis Bread Co. instead of buying a catered lunch in the Union.