I think that overall, our deliberation on whether or not standardized tests should be put to rest and the one that I attended on food insecurity went extremely well.
I think that the food insecurity group had a better setup since they were in the Hyatt lounge area so there setup was a lot more comfortable and spacious. Ours was kind of an awkward setup since we were all put into a crowded circle on the stage at Webster’s cafe. However, in the case of the food insecurity group, there was another group having their own deliberation in the area right next to them. This wasn’t that distracting but there were a few times that they were a little loud. For ours, there were lots of people in the cafe area, but they really had no impact on the discussion itself since we were all packed into such a small area.
In terms of participation, I once again think that both groups did a very good job in making people feel comfortable with sharing and sparking a thought-provoking dialogue. In ours, there were very little if any times where there was an awkward silence. This was mostly because of the fact that we chose a topic that was so relatable to all students since we’ve all had to go through standardized testing as part of our college admissions process. That was probably the biggest challenge for the food insecurity group, to explain what food insecurity is and why it is a problem for students. This didn’t get in their way as they obviously knew that they had to deal with that at the beginning of their deliberation and they handled it beautifully.
For the three approaches, the food insecurity group did a very good job of separating their solutions by size. I forget exactly what they had but they focused on food insecurity on an individual scale, as a Penn State problem, and then as a problem for the whole state of Pennsylvania. This really helped as it showed how this problem can be addressed on several different levels. In contrast, our three solutions were just three different approaches to dealing with the national problem that is standardized testing. I think that this made more sense for our approach because it is a problem that everyone faces and is always thought of on a national scale. In both cases, I think that each group chose the correct scale to compliment the solutions to the specific issues.
I think that the main difference between my group’s deliberation and the one that I went to was the environment. At the Hyatt, it seemed very professional and the group even dressed semi-formal to match. This led to the deliberation feeling like an intelligent discourse. But at Webster’s, the vibes were much more casual and that led to our conservation and dress code being very chill. This didn’t take away from the quality of our deliberation but instead enhanced it by making it more of a natural flowing conversation that we might have actually all had outside of an assignment for our CAS class.