Time and space. Drill competitions across the country are underway each school year. School campuses are taken over for one day out of the year with different drill decks on various grassy fields, the football field, and even inside the gym and field house.
The Complaint
For that one day, the school is overrun with cadets in uniform marching several sequences, running, and testing. Someone is bound to complain that they can’t sip their soy latte, no foam, no whip, under the shade of their favorite tree while giggling with their friends.
That complaint can be dealt with by a school administrator telling students that it’s only for one day each year and that everything will be back to normal by later afternoon. Or the administrator can buckle under the pressure of the toothpick on his/shoulder and demand the ROTC/JROTC department speed things up and clear out of the campus as quickly as possible.
The Demand
That demand leads to a really bad decision in order to speed up the process. Senior ROTC drill teams are relatively few, but every unit has a colors guard, and that color guard category becomes a long list of teams wanting to compete. It’s the same for JROTC color guards.
The simple fix is to split the list in half and run two colors decks simultaneously, which is a great solution, but to have both decks compete for the same trophy is inappropriate. In this article I will explain why.
The Bad Fix
With half the competitors judged by one panel of judges and the other half by another panel, there are fundamental problems of fairness and consistency. Here’s why that scenario is problematic (at best):
- Variability in Judging Standards:
- When you split the competitors, the core issue is that different judges will inevitably have different interpretations of the judging criteria. This means that a performance judged by one panel might receive a significantly different score from the same performance judged by the other.
- This introduces an element of chance, where a competitor’s final score is influenced by which judging panel they happen to be assigned to.
- Unequal Playing Field:
- The goal of a competition is to provide a level playing field for all participants. Splitting the judging panels creates two distinct playing fields with potentially different standards.
- This can lead to situations where one group of competitors faces a more lenient or strict panel than the other, resulting in an unfair advantage or disadvantage.
- Difficulty in Meaningful Comparison:
- Even if the judges are highly qualified, subjective elements in judging will always exist. This makes it difficult to accurately compare scores between the two groups.
- It becomes very hard to say with certainty that the competitor who scored the highest was truly the best, or if they just had the “better” panel.
- Perception of Unfairness:
- Competitors and spectators are likely to perceive this system as unfair (because it is), even if the organizers attempt to justify it.
- The perception of fairness is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the competition.
- Essentially, even when splitting the competitors, you are still splitting the standards. To have a fair competition, all competitors should be judged by the same standard, which means the same judges.
Additional Nuances to Consider:
- Attempts at Calibration:
- Sometimes, organizers try to mitigate the issue by having judges “calibrate” beforehand. This involves discussing the judging criteria and watching sample performances together. However, even with calibration, subtle differences in interpretation will persist.
- Calibration can lessen the gap, but it cannot completely eliminate the problem.
- The Impact of Category Type:
- The level of subjectivity in the judging criteria matters. For example, in a science fair where measurements are objective, the impact of different judges might be less significant. However, in artistic performances (military drill, dance, music, etc.), where subjective interpretation plays a large role, the impact is much greater.
- Even when using the World Drill Association adjudication system, the most analytical system developed for the military drill world, there is still the human, subjective, factor.
- The Size and Scope of the Competition:
- In very large competitions, logistical constraints might make it seem like splitting judging panels is the only option. However, organizers should prioritize finding alternative solutions that maintain fairness, such as staggered performance times or multiple rounds with consistent judging.
- Having the two-deck system with 20 teams per deck and then a final round for the top five teams from each deck would be a good option.
- Transparency and Communication:
- Even if organizers choose to use multiple judging panels, they should be transparent about the process and communicate how they are attempting to ensure fairness. This can help to alleviate some concerns among competitors and spectators. However, it does not remove the core issue of inconsistent judging.
- Alternatives:
- When possible, alternatives should be strongly considered. For example, having panels rotate through different groups of competitors, or as mentioned before, staggering performances to allow one judging panel to judge all competitors.
- In short, while splitting judging panels might seem like a practical solution in some situations, it fundamentally compromises the fairness and integrity of the competition. Organizers should prioritize finding alternative solutions that ensure all competitors are evaluated under the same standards.
The Good Fix
The simple fix, as stated above, is to split the list in half and run two colors decks simultaneously. You then have two options to keep the competition fair:
- Option 1, Two Categories: Create two different categories, one for each deck, with a set of awards* in each category.
- This is quite common within JROTC color guard competitions. Many schools will field two color guards and enter one each in “armed” and “unarmed” categories, even though the teams are always armed. See the article, The OTHER Unarmed Color Guard, for further information.
- Option 2, One Category: Keep the two-deck system with both decks vying for one set of trophies. You then have a final round for the top five teams from each deck and take half the judges from each deck as well.
*Trophies are nice, but I really think we need to move to award streamers. Streamers fit in with the military system, are easily transported, and better displayed without taking up unnecessary room.
Tulane
I wrote this for the NROTC department at Tulane University, specifically, but this applies to anyone who might find himself in a similar situation.