This is the story of my experience with the California State University San Marcos research competition that was held during the Spring 2011 semester and in February 2011.
After I sent out the research competition questionnaires to all 37 participants I was soon instructed by Dean Gerardo Gonzalez via email that I was violating CSUSM rules, policies and procedures regarding research. Unfortunately I was never instructed about rules, policies and procedures when I was at Gonzalez’s office a few days after the research competition on campus. At this early morning meeting with Gonzalez I addressed some, what I believed to be, discrepancies in the competition, what can be done to correct these discrepancies and a few ideas on improvement for future competitions. Throughout the meeting my intentions were clear that I was going to look into the matter and yet I was never informed about any research rules, hence my ignorance in creating the non-bias questionnaire that I sent out to all 37 participants.
While the questionnaires that everyone sent back were incredibly insightful, useful and important to the research competition it is unfortunate that at this time I am wary to release the compiled experiences / stories due to the position I now find myself. However, I believe I am within my rights to write about “my experiences” and distribute it without worry, as long as I stick to the facts. This is not research. I was inspired to write my story because I felt it of dire importance to discuss some major concerns with the CSUSM research competition 2011 that if go unaddressed might detrimentally effect those who participated and who will participate in the future.
Some people might determine that I should have gone quietly into the night and believe me I tried. After receiving the email about violating rules, that I had no prior knowledge of, I decided to drop the whole thing. It wasn’t worth the trouble. Then I received a few questionnaires back, despite the email everyone was sent by Dr. Gonzalez warning my fellow research participants of me and not to respond (which I received as well). My faith was suddenly restored. Fellow research competition participants were voicing similar concerns and feelings. So, I turned again to my gut with my instinct crying out for resolution.
By the end of my recollection you will be left to answer the questions, “Am I being a bad sport or do I have legitimate concerns about the CSUSM research competition, perhaps even, do you now have concerns?”
PREPARING FOR THE RESEARCH COMPETITION
During the Fall 2010 semester is when I first heard about the CSUSM research competition and I began preparing for it months in advance. Night and day I practiced my speech because I planned to give it no less then my 100 percent. At the end of the Fall 2010 semester and with only a few months left until the competition I felt ready for it. I had my application filled out and signed, my speech, PowerPoint and everything else all ready to go. All that was left was to memorize my routine and rhetoric.
The rules of the competition on the Research Competition Application I signed were very simply spelled out: “Submit 5 copies of the written presentation along with the bibliography.” I was the first person to submit my written presentation weeks in advance of the deadline date and I think I looked over those simply stated rules around 100 times before the competition arrived. They were pretty straight forward.
Soon a “Prep Session” was set up on February 17, 2011 for the research competition where a past finalist, a past judge and Linda Collins (who used to run the competition and is an absolutely delightful woman) would give an overview of the competition and answer any questions participants might have.
After hearing the first-hand accounts and advice from one past finalist and judges they talked briefly to the almost 37 research competition participants that had come. It was time for questions. After a few scattered questions I asked one of the last questions, “Can we use cue cards?” Their response was that no cue cards were allowed, but nowhere in the handout of rules was there any reference to no cue cards, which is fine, but it is important to note. This rule didn’t affect me, but I mentally noted it none the less because what if someone hadn’t attended the voluntary prep session meeting and missed this information? I spent the weeks leading up to the competition memorizing my written presentation over and over again. Most nights I found myself going to bed around 3am with the words of my speech echoing loudly in my head while I struggled to fall asleep.
THE DAY OF THE RESEARCH COMPETITION – FEB. 19, 2011
On the day of the competition I dressed up in my suit and tie while continuing to prepare for my written presentation outside of my assigned room with my mom, dad and wife there to support me. Professor Matthews, my mentor for the competition, told me just before I was to go in that a few participants had been using cue cards and that it appeared that I was allowed to as well. Should I use them even though I had it memorized?
When I was called into the room for my written presentation I was not nervous and I calmly inserted my F-Drive into the computer. Upon instruction I began to educate my audience on my written presentation. Once I finished the question and answer portion from the judges began, which I felt went extremely well. The videos for my written presentation and the judge’s questions and answers can be viewed here: http://treaty-of-tilsit-hemp.blogspot.com.
After my written presentation all competition participants met in the Dome on CSUSM campus to await the announcement of the 10 finalists. A North County Times reporter proceeded to interview me and was very inquisitive of my presentation, which I guess she had sit in on. The next day I found out that my interview was published in the North County Times and can be viewed here: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/san-marcos/article_7bd79a61-035e-5044-8e24-9fcdf408f0c1.html.
The award ceremony began and one by one they began calling the 10 finalists. After finalist number 8 had been called Dr. Gonzalez announced that these were the winners for the competition, which inspired the crowd to break into applause snapping pictures and they grouped up for one final photo. Linda Collins placed her hand on my shoulder and asked, “Did they miss your group?” I shrugged at her while my parents and wife nodded at me in agreement to the question.
Linda shouted across the Dome, “Stop, you missed a group!” Lisa Bandong, who now runs the research competition, then frantically runs back behind the see-through curtain and I see her in the background shuffling through the awards like a deck of cards. Seconds later Lisa emerges with the final 2 finalists. The rest of the 27 participants were then called up for their participation awards and then the award ceremony ended. Something else I noticed that might be insignificant and if I remember correctly, was that the awards given to the winners might have been identical to the ones given to the other 27 research participants.
The competition was on a Friday and on Monday I went into Linda Collins and Lisa Bandong’s office to inquire about the judge’s feedback and critiques. Dr. Gonzalez runs this office area; Graduate Studies and Research. Linda was the only one there and informed me that Lisa has the judge’s score sheets and should be contacting people soon. Linda also informed me that she heard that this year one of the judges refused to provide critiques and feedback to the group they judged. I expressed to Linda how disheartening and terrible that would be if it was my group and I was denied feedback / critiques for something I had worked so hard on.
PICKED UP MY SCORE SHEETS, MISSING 1. 11am, MARCH 4, 2011.
The next day I went in and was the first person to receive my judge’s critiques and feedback… well almost. There are only 2 / 3 judge’s score sheets and I asked Lisa where the final score sheet was to which she had no idea. I went home and reviewed the score sheets and I found, what I feel, are clear discrepancies in the judge’s score sheets and the written guidelines of the competition handed out to participants and posted online.
At first I felt like I was being a bad sport over the whole thing and that perhaps my personal bias was clouding my ability to see these supposed discrepancies in the proper light. After showing and sharing documentation and my concerns with my family, my wife, my classmates and a few past Professors there became a consensus that there was something indeed to be concerned about.
After finding out who my three judges were I proceeded to email the Professor whose score sheet I was missing. Each score sheet has the judge’s name on the corner which is how I knew what Professor I was missing. Professor Stoddard-Holmes immediately responded back to me and informed me that she had turned in the score sheet on the day of the competition, but that she would check at home and get back to me on Monday. I called Lisa Bandong and I informed her that Professor Stoddard-Holmes said she is confident she turned it in on the day of the competition.
I politely asked Lisa to check the office once more for me in the event that my 3rd and final score sheet had been misplaced, but Lisa insisted that it wasn’t there. The score sheet was acquired by Professor Stoddard-Holmes about two weeks later.
Over the next few days I find a few additional concerns about the competition that inspire further inspection. The first few items are minor but should be addressed first. The major items will be last.
First off, the judge’s score sheets are ambiguous to say the least. The score sheets are broken down into two sections:
1) Written Summary. 2) Oral Presentation.
Section 1) is broken down into 6 judging criteria and section 2) is broken down into 7 judging criteria.
If you look at the Rules and Guidelines of the competition via the handout given to each research competition participant it is clearly detailed that participants will be judged off 7 criteria, but the judge’s score sheet is broken down into two sections with written summary containing 6 criteria and oral presentation containing 7 criteria. On the Student Research Application I signed the research competition has 2 guidelines that are as follows:
Submit 5 copies of the following documentation:
1) WRITTEN PRESENTATION The written presentation is limited to five pages using one inch margins..... These guidelines recommendations follow the CSU statewide competition requirements.
2) APPLICATION FORM Complete and Submit this application form with the written presentation...
It clearly states written presentation and has no mention of a written summary.
Also, I find out that the final scores for each research competition participant are not recorded down and this has been the routine for years. That means that my lost score sheet is lost forevermore. It also raises the question, “What if there was a lost score sheet that had never been counted in the final count?” This current system prevents the ability to double check contested scores or possible errors or lost scorecards made during the scoring process.
Months later it suddenly occurred to me to check the other California universities who are part of the state-wide research competition. After collecting 2011 research competition applications from Fresno, California, Los Angeles, and Bakersfield there is one clear difference in all those universities and CSUSM – San Marcos.
All other universities have their research competition application worded with:
“Each entry (oral presentation plus written summary) will be judged.” ~ Fresno, Bakersfield, Los Angeles.
“It is expected that the student will not make an oral presentation by simply reading directly from the summary.” ~ Fresno, Bakersfield and Los Angeles
This is not the wording on the California State University – San Marcos research competition application, hence all 37 participants were provided the wrong instructions. What instructions were the judges given? We will come to that soon enough.
MEETING WITH DR. GERARDO GONZALEZ – MONDAY 8AM, MARCH 7, 2011
After coming across, what I feel are, these legitimate concerns I decided to go talk to Dr. Gonzalez who runs the office with Linda Collins and Lisa Bandong, Graduate Studies and Research. I went on Monday March 7, 2011 at 8am right when the office opened. I got lucky and I had an opportunity to talk with Dr. Gonzalez immediately, unfortunately the outcome did not appear productive in my mind.
I calmly laid out all my concerns about the research competition: 1) My concern for accuracy of the results of the competition due to the vague wording of the Application, The Guidelines and Rules VERSUS the judge’s score sheet. I will use my 2 / 3 score sheets as an example of the possible misinterpretations with the rules and guidelines via the participants and the judge’s score sheet via the judges. If you observe my score sheet labeled #1 you will see an obvious concern in relation to the scores. My written summary scores are all 3’s, yet my oral presentation was almost all 5’s.
Why is this important and why does it raise concern over the legitimacy of the competition? Because my oral presentation is identical to my written summary. In other words, the written presentation I submitted, I had memorized and is exactly what I did in my oral presentation. So, how can I say exactly what is written and get an almost perfect score with my presentation, yet the paper that I just orally presented receives all 3’s? There is an obvious confusion here. I was following the written rules and it is very clear that there is ambiguity present within the CSUSM rules for the research competition.
Dr. Gonzalez informed me at this point that there is no appeal process for the research competition and that there has never been an issue in the past 5+ years they’ve done the competition. Gonzalez also tells me that these are the rules that all California State schools use and there is not much that can be done regarding them. I inform Dr. Gonzalez that even if nothing can be done at this moment, despite all the concerns I addressed, if something can be done for future reference, so no other future research competition participants have to come into his office and have this conversation with him all over again. I let Gonzalez know that I would be glad to provide my perspective in order to create clearer rules and guidelines for future competitions with our fellow CSUSM student’s benefit in mind.
After him shrugging off the idea of investigating the rules and guidelines I asked if there was anyone above him that I could talk to that might be able to assist. Gonzalez informed me that there was no one above him. At this point I can tell that I’m talking in circles and I sense no compassion or apparent interest regarding my concerns. It doesn’t appear that I’ve inspired any concern within Dr. Gonzalez regarding if the finalists who were picked were actually the correct finalists and it doesn’t even appear that I’ve inspired a need within Gonzalez to update and make clearer rules and guidelines let alone look into it.
I told Gonzalez that the judge’s score sheets were still on the file cabinet right outside his office which would make a recount possible to check the accuracy. However, Gonzalez informed him that participants had been informed to come in on Monday, today, and pick up their score sheets. The opportunity to test the accuracy and legitimacy of the competition could have been done, but I was again reminded by Gonzalez that there is no appeal process.
I left Dr. Gonzalez’s office feeling like I had done something wrong and I felt like I had somehow offended him or something. It really didn’t make much sense why Gonzalez had so little concern over my clearly laid out discrepancies. Despite my point of view I was beginning to feel that my quest for truth was in vain. Perhaps I should just shut up and sit down even though every instinct in my body knew that something was amiss. However, my faith was completely restored a few hours later when I met with one of my judges, Professor (desired anonymous) who had graded my written summary with all 3’s and oral presentation with almost all 5’s.
MEETING WITH PROFESSOR (anonymous) – JUDGE 1 / 3 – MARCH 7, 2011, 12:30 pm.
After the meeting with Dr. Gonzalez I had a meeting with Professor (anonymous) who was one of my three judges. After discovering the many discrepancies and explaining my concerns Professor (anonymous) began seeing things in the same confusing light. Professor (anonymous) scored my Writing Summary portion of the judge’s score sheet with all 3’s and my Oral Presentation with almost all 5’s.
After informing (anonymous) of the guidelines and rules for the competition (submit a written presentation) and that my oral presentation was identical to my paper (written presentation) she offered to look over my paper again with this new context in mind. One of the last things Professor (anonymous)’s said to me before we departed was, “Jeff, your concerns are legitimate.” With those words my faith in my concerns was restored. (anonymous) agreed to assist me in working towards suggesting changes in the research competition for future’s sake and with a little luck changes will occur sooner rather than later.
When I got home I sent out a few emails to students who participated in the research competition and inquired if they would like to do an interview regarding their experiences, feedback, input, judge’s scores and advice to future research participants. One of these participants who I found out later was one of the finalists for the competition, Mr. Ned Imming, responded within minutes. Ned’s responses were nothing short of paranoid and condescending. The conversation went from what are my true intentions regarding this interview to being completely against the interview to insulting my grammar and slamming other student’s intelligence for not questioning my email for the interview and finally, to agreeing to have the interview. Yes, I know. Granted all this happened without me ever once pursuing further the possibility of an interview with Ned other than my first email.
After being insulted and interrogated by Ned, I apologized for bothering him and let him know I no longer desired an interview with him and it wasn’t long before I was soon forced to request that Ned please not contact me again with it underlined, italiced, and bolded. So, of course Ned responds back with insults combined with apologies, so I blocked him from my school email. The first person I’ve ever blocked in my school email to date. I have kept all documentation just in case any disputes arise from this.
After removing Ned from my life, so I thought, I began to feel good about everything again… until later in the evening when I received an email from Professor Matthews asking for a meeting on Tuesday. For some reason I knew what the meeting was about.
MARCH 8, 2011 – 4 pm – MEETING WITH PROFESSOR MATTHEWS
Requested anonymity so to summarize, Gonzalez was contacted by a participant about me asking questions about the competition with regard to “scores.” Gonzalez contacted Matthews, Matthews contacted me and we worked it out and I alleviated any concerns about why I was asking questions. Man oh man, first it is warning all 37 research participants about me and now it is warning my Professor and mentor. This sure was turning into a big stink over something that supposedly had no validity.
On a side note, one might speculate which participant contacted Gonzalez and stirred this pot, but I won’t.
After our meeting I composed a non-bias questionnaire that I then sent out to all 37 participants. 10 questions ranging from, “How long did it take to create your presentation?” “What was the most challenging part?” “How would you improve the research competition?” Etc.
Almost an hour after sending out the questionnaire I received an email from Gonzalez telling me that I am breaking CSUSM rules and to cease and desist all research gathering. Gonzalez requested that we set up a meeting to discuss everything.
In my 2ndary email, I then receive an email that had been sent out to all 37 research participants including myself. It warned all 37 participants of a student who was attempting to request and gather their personal experiences and information about the research competition. The email then informed all participants that this student does not have permission and they are not obligated to respond. I sure felt like a schmuck. Two times now Gonzalez made me feel like I was the bad guy and I was the one doing something wrong, and all for desiring to improve the research competition for everyone’s benefit. That is about the time when the first questionnaire responses began rolling in and wow were they insightful. They could improve the competition greatly if they were allowed to be viewed and distributed, but alas,
March 19-23 –RESEARCH COMPETITION RULES VIA OTHER UNIVERSITITES
This was when I suddenly became curious on other California universities that engage in the research competition, so I looked up the following universities to look at their Research Competition Application, rules, etc.
Fresno, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, California State, San Marcos
Out of all these schools, CSUSM – California State University of San Marcos, was the only university whose Research Competition Application laid out differing rules from the other universities. All other universities, Fresno, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, and California State, had within the application: “There rules governing the “written summary” – also there is the wording, “It is expected that the student will not make an oral presentation by simply reading directly from the summary.”
However, CSUSM – San Marcos has no wording regarding written summary AND oral presentation, but only has “written presentation.” An anonymous judge I talked to stated, “I see your confusion. Your concerns are legitimate” with regard to the rules for participants and the rules for the judges.
April 12 – APPOINTMENT WITH GONZALEZ SET
After setting up the appointment for April 18 because Gonzalez was busy the week prior I felt prepared and content for once that I was going to get everything squared away. I would get the information I required to research this legitimately and Gonzalez would be content that I was doing things by the book. Besides, I was turning 30 in 2 more days, so how bad could it get?
April 18 – APPOINTMENT WITH GONZALEZ AT 4:30 pm
On the day of the appointment with Dr. Gonzalez, April 18th at 8:49 am, I received an email from Lisa Bandong at about 9am stating that Gonzalez would have to cancel my appointment and reschedule. Understandable… until I saw his next availability: mid May. Long after the competition would be over and done with.
FINAL PROBLEM WITH THE RESEARCH COMPETITION – SUBJECT GROUPING
Appendix E and F are attached below and show the 37 participants and 5 groups created that competed against one another in the CSUSM 2011 research competition. I have broken down each participant’s subject and tallied who the total of participants in each subject. I listed each groups finalists and judges along with the judge’s subject aka profession.
There are clear concerns when looking over these breakdowns and questions immediately begin to arise. “Why in group MARK 106 is there 6 psychology participants and 1 sociology along with 2 identified psychology judges? Shouldn’t it have been a full psychology group?” Or, “Why did the 3 Kinesology participants get separated into 3 separate groups (Biochemistry too) while the 2 political science and 2 educational leadership participants went into same groupings?” “Why group some and separate others?” The final question that arises in my mind, “Who picks these groupings?”
The purpose of this paper is to educate and hope that my experience will enhance future experiences. While some might think that I should have dropped this or sat silent I believe that to sit by and do nothing while you deny what you feel is right and just will only ensure that things will not improve and progress for the competition and those participating. I feel that I am simply doing my incredibly small part to see that all this doesn’t go unresolved and that someone doesn’t feel like I did. Or like a few of my fellow research participants did. Their concerns and insights were incredibly helpful and valid in improving the California state-wide research competition at CSUSM, but with everything that has occurred I am not sure it is safe that I reveal their powerful words.
None of this in anyway should be considered “research,” but simply my story. All information I provided within this letter was emailed to me without me requesting it be emailed, hence I did not gather it and it cannot be considered research placing me well within my right to publish it. Again, my intentions have always been to improve the CSUSM research competition for future research participants.
The choice is now left in each of your minds and in your hands to determine if my story is a simple case of someone being a bad sport in a statewide public research competition or if my story possesses a solid foundation for concern over the legitimacy of this competition with the goal in mind simply to fine tune this process. Something needs to change for everyone’s benefit. If I had more time then I would pursue this fully but there are other things I must focus on unfortunately.
I’d like to thank those research participants who provided me with like minded thoughts and concerns along with a few “thank you's.” If you agree or disagree I encourage you to email me at email@example.com and insert your two cents. If you think I’m being a bad sport don’t hesitate to tell me and if you happen to think that my concerns are warranted and that something should be done for future participant’s sake then please don’t hold back your thoughts. I know we are in a recession, but your two cents means a lot to CSUSM. If you feel it necessary to email Dr. Gerardo Gonzalez with your thoughts and comments you can do so at his publicly viewable school email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thank you for your patience and input regarding my experiences with the CSUSM research competition.
Jeff Meints – 05-10-2011
•Below is a list and recap on my concerns for the CSUSM research competition in hopes that someone will read this and perhaps use it for the betterment of the research competition:
A)CSUSM, California State University – San Marcos, Research Competition Application Form, signed by participants.
Reference 7 criteria:
WRITTEN PRESENTATION - Application submissions instructions
Submit 5 copies of the following documentation:
* WRITTEN PRESENTATION The written presentation is limited to five pages using one inch margins..... These guidelines recommendations follow the CSU statewide competition requirements.
* APPLICATION FORM Complete and Submit this application form with the written presentation....
All other California State universities have instructions to not memorize the written summary, as well as clearly stating that there is an oral presentation AND a written summary unlike CSUSM. CSUSM’s rules are ambiguous, hence are not currently legitimate.
B)The following issues are only addressed to further reiterate that disarray might be an appropriate way to describe this research competition.
1)Stating in the Prep session before the competition that cue cards are not allowed yet having it nowhere in the rules. What if someone didn’t go to this voluntary prep session and did not know of this rule and was marked down for it? Write this somewhere in the rules.
2)Picking 8 / 10 finalists during the award ceremony and announcing those 8 as the winners. If it had been an isolated incident then it could be viewed as a simple mistake. Maybe you should announce the losers first so they don't have to go up in front of everyone after sitting through all the winners. Just a thought.
3)Misplacing one of my three score sheets. Again, one might argue a simple mistake, but how many mistakes can be made before a greater picture is formed. One lacking organization, oversight and care. One might wonder if the misplaced scoresheet was ever counted? Organization people.
4)Judges currently can refuse to submit feedback and critiques, yet they judge your presentation and decide if you move forward or stay behind. To deny input to a participant who put their time and hard work into it is unproductive and unreasonable. This is unacceptable. Judge’s must be required to fill out and return score sheets with critiques and feedback.
5)No records kept of the scores of the competition afterwards. This begs the concern of accuracy when participants and judges can’t go back and view all the scores. I believe that scores should be documented in the event any disputes arise.
6)No way to contest the findings or an appeal process to check the accuracy of those findings. This presents the greatest concern in my mind because even elections and other types of competitions have the numbers / statistics of the outcome stored somewhere and visible to the public. Whether the participants are ranked accordingly to score or they are provided a list comparing their scores to other candidates to not hold onto this information is irresponsible and inconsiderate. This also means that if a mistake was made, like losing a score sheet, then all concepts of “fairness” and “equal treatment” go out the window.
7)Subject Groupings and Judge Groupings. Check on next page to see what I mean.
It is a simple case of all subjects should be in same group and when mixing subjects be sure that you aren’t singling out any one subject. Best example is MARK 106 – 6 Psychology and 1 Sociology with 2/3 judges as Psychology professions.
Also, judges subject professions (PHD in Pscyhology, Biological Science, etc.) should be either judging their own subjects or make sure they do not judge their own subjects. It could appear bias in the case of MARK 106 that it is no surprise that a sociology participant wasn’t picked when 2/3 judges were psychology and all other participants in the group were psychology. Perception is everything.
37 PARTICIPANTS, 5 GROUPS, COMBINED SUBJECTS:
Psychology = 11 Participants - (3 SEPARATE GROUPS)
Biological Science = 10 Participants – (3 SEPARATE GROUPS)
Kinesiology = 3 Participants – (3 SEPARATE GROUPS)
Biochemistry = 2 Participants - (2 SEPARATE GROUPS)
Educational Leadership = 2 Participants – (SAME GROUP)
LTWR = 2 Participants – (SAME GROUP)
Mathematics = 2 Participants – (SAME GROUP)
Political Science = 2 Participants – (SAME GROUP)
Applied Science = 1 Participant – (SOLO IN SUBJECT)
Communication = 1 Participant – (SOLO IN SUBJECT)
Sociology = 1 Participant – (SOLO IN SUBJECT)
SUBJECT GROUPINGS AND JUDGES
MARKSTEIN 103 – 7 PARTICIPANTS, GROUP:
(Biological Science = 4. Kinesiology = 1. Biochemistry = 1. Psychology = 1.)
FINALISTS FOR MARK 103:
1)Andrew Cooper (Biological Science)
2)Michelle Calderwood (Psychology)
JUDGES FOR MARK 103:
MARKSTEIN 105 – 8 PARTICIPANTS, GROUP:
(Biological Science = 5. Kinesiology = 2. Applied Science = 1.)
FINALISTS FOR MARK 105:
1)Dalziel Soto (Kinesology)
2)Samantha Lang (Biological Science)
JUDGES FOR MARK 105:
1) Professor Witzke (Kinesiology)
2) Professor Escobar (Biology)
MARKSTEIN 106 – 7 PARTICIPANTS, GROUP:
(Psychology = 6. Sociology = 1.)
FINALISTS FOR MARK 106:
1)Anna Hood (Psychology)
2)Eleuterio Lima (Psychology)
JUDGES FOR MARK 106:
1) Professor Fitzpatrick (Pscyhology)
2) Professor McWilliams (Pscyhology)
3) Professor Eliza? (
MARKSTEIN 203 – 8 PARTICIPANTS, GROUP:
(Political Science = 2. Educational Leadership = 2. LTWR = 2. Communication = 1. Biochemistry = 1.)
FINALISTS FOR MARK 203:
1)Ned Imming (Biochemistry)
2)Maria Isabel Rocha (Communication)
JUDGES FOR MARK 203:
1) Professor Arnade (History)
2) Professor Ribble (Communication)
3) Professor Stoddard-Holmes (LTWR)
MARKSTEIN 208 – 7 PARTICIPANTS, GROUP:
(Psychology = 4. Mathematics = 2. Biological Science = 1.)
FINALISTS FOR MARK 208:
1)Marianne Klumph (Psychology)
2)Gina Merchant (Psychology)
JUDGES FOR MARK 208:
1) Professor Calvillo (Psychology)
3) Professor (Physics)
4) Professor (Biology Prof.?)