Preparation

Read and considering the cases that will be posted in the UCF Ethics Bowl Cases link on the left.  All of the cases are written in summary format (usually about 1-2 pages each) and have content that is pulled from real-life situations that have appeared in the news, or issues that have occurred involving “real” people in ordinary, every-day circumstances.  Citation is available for the real-life source(s) of each case.

Plan to meet with your teammates at least once a week to discuss the ethical issues involved with the cases and form an agreed-upon, unified stance concerning all possible moral issues.

•Teams should keep in regular contact with their sponsors concerning the team’s progress.
•Sponsors, your primary function is to help insure that your team attends the competition on November 9th. Beyond that, you can be as involved as you wish.  We encourage you to attend the competition, as well as invite you to act as either a Judge or Moderator.

.

Competition:

Depending on the number of teams that apply, changes may be made to the competition schedule.

ROUND OVERVIEW: (65 minutes)

Two teams enter and sit across from each other with three (3) Judges and one (1) Moderator present.

Moderator begins the round by introducing the Judges and Teams and reviewing the rules. Based on a coin toss, one teams chooses to defer (B) or present first (A) for the round. (3min)

Case 1 of the round is distributed to each team and the moderator reads the designated question. (1min)

Team A is given 30 seconds to confer about the case and the question. (30sec)
• Team B may pass notes, but may not speak or disrupt Team A at this time

Team A has up to seven (7) minutes to present an answer to the question for the Judges. (7min)
• Any member of Team A may speak at this time
• Team B may pass notes, but may not speak or distract Team A at this time
• Judges scores are based on the supplied grading rubric

Team B is given 30 seconds to confer about (Team A)’s presentation. (30sec)
• Team A may pass notes, but may not speak or distract Team B at this time

Team B has up to five (5) minutes to critique (Team A)’s answer for the Judges. (5min)
• Any member of Team B may speak at this time
• Team A may pass notes, but may not speak or distract Team B at this time
• Judges scores are based on the supplied grading rubric

Team A is given 30 seconds to confer about (Team B)’s critique. (30sec)
• Team B may pass notes, but may not speak or distract Team A at this time

Team A has up to three (3) minutes to respond or clarify for the Judges. (3min)
• Any member of Team A may speak during this time
• Team B may pass notes, but may not speak or distract Team A at this time
• Judges scores are based on the supplied grading rubric

The Judges are given nine (9) minutes to ask (Team A) questions concerning their presentation: each Judge gets three (3) minutes to ask and have answered as many questions as s/he wishes. Judges may choose to yield their time to other Judges if they wish. (3min + 3min + 3min = 9min)
• Judges may ask questions of (Team A) only
• Any member of (Team A) may respond to the questions asked
• Judges can draw questions from all aspects of the case or real-world scenarios
• Judges can call-out any member of (Team A) for an answer
• Judges scores are based on the supplied grading rubric

The Judges are given two (2) minutes to award (Team A) up to 100points, and (Team B) up to 50points. (2min)
• Judges scores are based on the supplied grading rubric

Case 2 of the round is distributed to each team and the moderator reads the designated question. (1min)

Antithetic to Case 1, (Team B) presents, (Team A) critiques, (Team B) responds/clarifies and the judges are given a chance to question (Team B) about Case 2. (28min)

The Judges are given two (2) minutes to award (Team B) up to 100points, and (Team A) up to 50points. (2min)
• Judges scores are based on the supplied grading rubric

The Judges’ scores from both Cases are tallied, averaged and recorded for each team. (3min)
• A “perfect score” for any one team is 15points per round
• The moderator is in charge of tallying, and signs the master-score sheet for the round
• Each Judge’s score sheet is signed and collected for a record

SCHEDULE: March 1st (9.45-4.00)

(9.45-10.00)
Teams, Moderators, Judges, and Sponsors arrive at the UCF Teaching Academy (TA)

(10.00)
Public Spectators Begin Arriving

(10.00-10.25)
Teams, Moderators, Judges, and Sponsors separate into two (2) General Sessions:
•Teams – receive competition schedules, coffee, and a chance to meet each other
•Judges/Moderators – receive competition schedules, coffee, and instructions for the rest of the day (overview cases, procedures, scoring guidelines)

(10.30-11.35)
Round ONE (1) – All teams compete with the same two (2) cases

(11.45-12.50)
Round TWO (2) – All teams compete with the same two (2) cases

(12.55-1.20)
Lunch – (Provided for all Participants, RedBrick Pizza) Announce Semifinalists

(1.25-2.30)
Semifinal Round – Top four (4) teams compete with the same two (2) cases

(2.35-3.40)
Final Round – Top two (2) teams compete in an “auditorium setting”

(3.45-4.00)
The winning team is awarded (sponsored prize from, Pearson Prentice Hall & Oxford University Press) & closing remarks

.

Judging & Scoring

The four (4) teams with the best win/loss record after the first rounds of the UCF Ethics Bowl will move on to the semifinals. In the event of a tie, the decision will be made based on “head-to-head wins”, by total points earned (higher is better), and then by overall point deferential (higher is better). The semifinals will be announced during lunch and will consist of two matches, one where the top ranked team competes against the 4th ranked team, and one where the 2nd ranked team competes against the 3rd. The winners of these matches will move on to compete in the final round.

We will use the Judges’ Score Sheets that are used in the Southeast Regional Ethics Bowl. These are available here:

2012 SEREB Judge’s A Score Sheet

2012 SEREB Judge’s B Score Sheet


-We
WEpp

Whatever the outcome, we strongly encourage all participants to stick around for the final round. It is through observing others compete that you have the best opportunity to learn and grow.