Coaching

With the first year of UConn mock trial under my belt I can reflect on all the ways we succeeded. More importantly, I would like to address the way we sucked (or more appropriately, the way "I" sucked).

I was inspired after learning how UVA runs auditions (Lawyers must give a statement prosecuting a famous fiction character and witness must perform a monologue) and I am curious as to what else some of the more successful teams have done that work well or that might be equally interesting.

Please help this sorry bastard. 

This is an issue that teams, or rather programs, need to take very seriously.

First of all, you have to decide if tryouts are even helpful. Here at the University of Minnesota, Morris, we often barely draw enough students from our body of 1,650 to fit onto our two teams. We previously conducted tryouts, but this next year will be different. We're going to give everyone a role on one of two teams (or three if by some miracle that many new folks show up), and we're going to assess each member's strengths based off their performance at the first invitational we attend.

This has other benefits to this as well. Our A and B teams have a very significant difference in skill and experience levels, and drawing the first set of teams at random will ensure that the inexperienced members have the opportunity to practice and plan directly in tandem with the more experienced members; they will learn a lot.

Because your mock trial program has just started, I don't see any reason why you would not want to go with the strategy above. If you're still inclined towards tryouts, though, your program will really have to hammer out the details on your own. Personally, I've yet to lead or participate in a tryout program that is all that accurate. Even tryout strategies like UVa's don't always work. At UMM last year, I tried out for a lawyer position by giving a two minute speech, but I absolutely bombed it. I actually froze for 45 full seconds after forgetting my lines. In the end, the A team captain chose to disregard my tryout performance entirely and granted me the position based off his getting to know me beforehand, a decision that was ultimately vindicated when I took home an attorney award at the first invitational.

Unfortunately, some programs need tryouts. At Harvard, something around 50 people try out each year, but with AMTA's team limitations and for perhaps more practical reasons, they can only afford to let eight or ten new individuals on board.

But, again, because your program is in such a fledgling stage, I don't think I'm going out on a limb by assuming your situation isn't quite on par with UVa's or Harvard's. I suggest you have everyone work together for the first invitational and then take a moment to review their performances before making any concrete team placement decisions.

Thanks for the great reply. We will have about 40 (as of right now) people trying out for at least two teams (not sure how many to register yet). I just wanted to get an idea if there might be a good way to place kids in one category or the other appropriately and as objective as is possible with something that is subjective...there is a Woody Allen movie that goes into that...

Rogue:

The AMTA community typically addresses your question without sensitivity to the function that requires auditioning.  An "audition" often communicates the unintended message that cuts will be made as a result of the auditioning process. ("Cuts" may or may not be needing depending on program resources and strategies.) Alternately, "auditions" can be posed as an initial determinant of the team to which the student will be assigned.  It is obvious that coaches and/or team leaders must at least some how see how far the new student will need to be developed.

I have coached since '87 and the only time I did "auditions" was once in the earliest years when a returner decided to "recruit" and more than 70 showed up for what was then a max of 16 slots some of which were already filled by returners. Having no idean how to "audition" efficiently, I have come to believe that natural attrition is a superior approach. I don't know how to accurately learn whether the prospect will be willing to adapt, whether s/he will keep the time ciommitment, whether s/he who looks good alone will be compatible in the team format.

If you must employ a "cut" strategy, I suggest you seek the input of outside volunteers who know AMTA trials. In CT, I'd be calling all of the Manchester CC alums like Hicks, Tom Martin, etc.. (I bet they'd come in uniform - and I'd insist Hicks brings his dog.)  That kind of "audition" inherently has friction leftover and no one needs that at the start of the season.

I think if you"re intent on "auditions" that you check others' program websites many of which have descriptors of the process notifying theuir recruits.

To clarify for everyone: I am not auditioning to CUT, I am auditioning to AUDIT.

When I was at Notre Dame, we used the previous year's case materials to audition people. We'd typically give them 3 affidavits, and ask them to give an opening, direct a specified witness, and play that same witness for someone else's direct. This last part let us sort of double-up on audition slots, though if there were times when two people weren't auditioning back-to-back, a current team member would sit in as the witness being examined.  We didn't do separate witness and attorney auditions.

Student names were initially gathered at a big student activities fair, where every group or organization had a table and representatives.  People put their names on the e-mail lists for all sorts of things that might seem interesting at the time -- doesn't mean they're making any kind of real commitment.  So, we hosted an information session after activities night that (I think) was mandatory, where we would talk more about the club, what we do, what was expected, and explained how to do a direct and opening for the audition.  This did a good job of making sure that the people who were auditioning were serious about it.  From there, we felt that the auditions were pretty good at determining who would be strong competitors and performers -- though we did get it wrong on occasion.

I don't know anything about the program that Block coaches, but with all due respect, I feel like a "winnow by natural attrition" method would be very poor.  At least, it would not have worked for us, and I suspect it would not work for programs whose goal is to make themselves serious national contenders.  But, given our resources, such an approach would have meant either 1) taking on more people than we could reasonably teach, or 2) putting the competition teams in a bad spot. A little bit of attrition happened every year, and it always caused some havoc on the teams.

Cornell does something similar to what Golden Skull has just described. But to each his own rogue. However, if you do plan on having tryouts, then I would definitely take Blochs advice and have outsiders who are well-versed in the activity come in for the auditions.

My own post is making me squirmish.

Why?

I don't know anything about the program that Block coaches, but with all due respect, I feel like a "winnow by natural attrition" method would be very poor.  At least, it would not have worked for us, and I suspect it would not work for programs whose goal is to make themselves serious national contenders.  But, given our resources, such an approach would have meant either 1) taking on more people than we could reasonably teach, or 2) putting the competition teams in a bad spot. A little bit of attrition happened every year, and it always caused some havoc on the teams.

Well,  I do not want to wave a flag claiming that "winnow(ing) by natural attrition" is the only way to go but the program I direct may have distinctions that are material.  Certainly a difference between my public university and Notre Dame may be that I operate with some obligation to teach "all-comers."  The great majority in my program start with it as a three-credit academic course with the possibility of securing nine credits over the longer term.  (Last Fall, I taught a Freshman Seminar which would make the total 12 credits.)

Our regs say that if we pay for part of program expenses through some funds, the activity is expected to be available to all interested students -  which I narrow necessarily adding "undergraduate."

What I have called "natural attrition" essentially has meant that we can field two teams a season although I coached three in 1991-1992 and reached three this Spring.  (I moved from the Department of Communication to the Department of Political Science in the Fall of 2006 and there seems no question that interest has perked up since I got closer to the larger numbers of pre-laws in the DPS.)

Of course, Golden Skull's one-way street to national contender status is not the super highway I would care to travel but it appears that our difference lies in what we think we can learn from auditioning.  I admit that I have seen my share of students who have not impressed me at all in initial practices but have bloomed over time. I guess I would permit the possibility of a bloom recognizing that even "national  contender" programs do not translate into requiring every team to be an instant national contender.

Today, AMTA effectively permits one ten-person team plus five more up to eight. That's 50 and I need to worry about those kind of numbers only when more than 50 have interest. 

Well,  I do not want to wave a flag claiming that "winnow(ing) by natural attrition" is the only way to go but the program I direct may have distinctions that are material.  Certainly a difference between my public university and Notre Dame may be that I operate with some obligation to teach "all-comers."  The great majority in my program start with it as a three-credit academic course with the possibility of securing nine credits over the longer term.  (Last Fall, I taught a Freshman Seminar which would make the total 12 credits.)

Our regs say that if we pay for part of program expenses through some funds, the activity is expected to be available to all interested students -  which I narrow necessarily adding "undergraduate."

What I have called "natural attrition" essentially has meant that we can field two teams a season although I coached three in 1991-1992 and reached three this Spring.  (I moved from the Department of Communication to the Department of Political Science in the Fall of 2006 and there seems no question that interest has perked up since I got closer to the larger numbers of pre-laws in the DPS.)

Yes, that is quite different.  And a very significant restraint on Notre Dame is the coach's availability.  Unless things have changed, Bill drives in from Chicago once a week to teach a class, which is when the whole team gets together (and additional times for scrimmages and such as we approach tournaments, of course).  There are certainly restraints on his time and on the number of students that he can teach, and that limits who we can take.  While I was there, we did four teams in one of his years as coach, but that was mostly because graduation would have gutted the program had we not taken in more students than we normally do.  His preference was generally for three teams, it made things more manageable.

Not that auditioning people was purely a class size issue, but if Bill had been willing to field another team or if we had someone on campus who taught a mock trial course for all interested students, regardless of whether they'd eventually compete, we could have taken a lot more people.

Of course, Golden Skull's one-way street to national contender status is not the super highway I would care to travel but it appears that our difference lies in what we think we can learn from auditioning.  I admit that I have seen my share of students who have not impressed me at all in initial practices but have bloomed over time. I guess I would permit the possibility of a bloom recognizing that even "national  contender" programs do not translate into requiring every team to be an instant national contender.

Today, AMTA effectively permits one ten-person team plus five more up to eight. That's 50 and I need to worry about those kind of numbers only when more than 50 have interest. 

Certainly not every person is required to be an instant national contender, but we certainly looked for people who had a lot of potential and could be competitive that year.  I think that's part of the reason that for so many years there were ND sweeps in South Bend: strong freshman teams finishing 3rd or 4th.

But I think you really can tell a lot from auditioning people.  You get a sense for their communication skills, their presence, their analytical skills, and how motivated they are.  You also get a feel for whether they have MT experience, which helps (but was in no way a prerequisite).  It's certainly possible that people would bloom over time, but I think auditioning lets you make the best decisions based on the information you have on hand right then.

I also recognize some irony in my position.  I came to be strongly in favor of auditioning and taking the best to improve the talent and competitive level of the team, but I was a late bloomer myself.  I gave a horrible audition and was put on the all-freshman "D" team, and this was all pre-Bill.  If I had judged a freshman giving that same audition, I probably would have voted not to take him.  And yet, I feel like I did pretty well for myself during my time in mock trial.  So, what can you do.  It's not like auditions are infallible.

However, if you do plan on having tryouts, then I would definitely take Blochs advice and have outsiders who are well-versed in the activity come in for the auditions.

What would be a suitable alternative? What if MT knowledge in your part of town is scarce, should a student (a senior, perhaps) who does know what they're doing judge auditions?

Absolutely!...As long as that person is an experienced mocker whose opinion you trust.

If you're going with try-outs, and I think you should, heres my two cents:

For me, the best tryout format is one that shows raw talent and not much else.  This is why I like UVA's approach.  If you tell folks to prosecute a fictional character, they're just gonna tell you the best story they can about why the Big Bad Wolf should go to prison.  And that's great.  I never wanted to see if someone can explain the burden of proof, ask close ended questions on CX, or not lead on DX.  You can teach them all that shit once they're on the team.  Just give them a chance to grab your attention with an engaging story.  If they grab it, put them on the team.

-Ed 

Use a format that requires them to put in some effort and time before their audition as well.  That way you can judge their dedication and ability to work hard.  In my experience, mock trialers with a lot of raw talent who don't/can't put in the time and effort are a worse burden on a team than anyone else. 

And I agree that there is no value in judging whether a new person with no mock trial experience knows about the rules of evidence etc...  Even people who come in with a lot of high school mock trial experience are going to have to relearn how everything works in AMTA.  I learned that one the hard way.