I guess I’ll just go down the list and reflect on both the deliberation I attended and the one we hosted as a class.

First up is creating a solid information base. The deliberation we held on free speech did a really good job of doing this I think. First, our personal stake section was filled with opposing ideas and values that let the entire room know that there would be a clash of opinions during the deliberation, and second, each approach was adequately explained so that most of the time was spent deliberating instead of explaining. The deliberation I attended (which was one on standardized testing) was a little rougher on the edges when it came to this point. The personal stake section was filled with mainly students saying that they’ve taken the SAT, and the few students who came to actually voice their opinion on some unfair aspects of the test, like disadvantages to disabled and foreign college applicants, didn’t really have a chance to explain their personal experience.

I think our deliberation had a somewhat large range of solutions, but it definitely could’ve been better. We did radical free speech, a board based on community values, and a board based on safety, which isn’t too creative looking back on it. However, we did much better than the deliberation on SAT testing. Their solutions were a system where students use a variety of means to apply to colleges (which a lot of colleges already have and use), a state-mandated test, or an abolition of the SAT. I think these choices are kinda narrow when there are a lot of other options and routes you could go with something as complex as the SAT and standardized testing.

Personally, the best aspect of our class’ deliberation was our ability to weigh the pros and cons of the approaches. Each approach basically spent all of our time, and even went over, talking about the ins and outs of each approach, bringing up valid opinions both supporting and opposing them. Furthermore, the participants themselves almost drove the conversation entirely (which isn’t something you can really control), and the conversation wasn’t weighed too heavily on either the pros or cons of any approach. However, for the SAT deliberation, while the pros and cons were weighed, there was definitely some bias among the members that were in the class hosting the deliberation. For example, when weighing the pros and cons of the varied application method, where students can choose to send test scores among other options when applying, a student who moderated a later section of the deliberation steered the conversation heavily towards a way to make his approach look better.

In terms of adequately distributing speaking opportunities, I think both deliberations were pretty spot on, as much as they could be. Our deliberation was lucky enough to have a conference room all to ourselves, so it was easy to see and hear everyone. However, the SAT deliberation was in Webster’s bookstore and cafe, so we were kinda cramped and there was a lot of background noise (but there’s nothing they can really do about that).

Ensuring mutual comprehension was generally not a problem for the free speech deliberation. The concepts aren’t too hard to grasp, and their arguments aren’t either. Furthermore, we didn’t have, nor did we need, an expert with technical knowledge of the topic. The same can be said about the deliberation on SAT testing. There wasn’t any technical or professional knowledge needed since its such a common topic, and understanding everyone’s arguments and ideas was easy.

When it comes to considering other ideas and experiences, I think our deliberation did a pretty good job. While we didn’t specifically think about groups and people who weren’t in the room, our participants were pretty diverse, and we had a variety of opinions in the room when we did the personal stakes section. For the SAT deliberation, I think they did a decent job. There were a few people there with disabilities that wanted to bring that perspective to light. There was a foreign student who brought up ideas and perspectives from an international point of view, and there were students from across the country who all had different experiences with the SAT and ACT.

Overall, I think our deliberation was very well carried out and productive. There was a beneficial exchange of ideas about the topic, and I think the conclusion we reached was reasonable. The SAT testing deliberation could have been better executed, but overall it wasn’t bad.