The following policy should be considered to be in effect for all IDIA-sponsored conferences, including Rutgers Model United Nations, Philadelphia Model United Nations, and Rutgers Model Congress, unless otherwise stated in conference materials.
IDIA’s Awards Policy
The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA) is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation dedicated to providing innovative educational opportunities to students of all ages so they may better understand their role in global and domestic civil society.
IDIA’s primary programming consists of diplomacy simulations and debate conferences designed to activate students’ critical thinking and cooperative problem solving skills. Like any debate program, Model United Nations and Model Congress are inherently competitive. Awards like the ones granted at the end of most of our conferences exist to recognize those students who most effectively advanced the conversation during the course of the conference.
However, it has long been both the informal culture and formal policy of IDIA conferences to emphasize compromise, cooperation, research, and substantive development in a much more significant way than pure competition amongst students. This principal is embedded in our staff training procedures.
We are proud to be able to recognize the hard work of an exceptional group of students each weekend. But it is IDIA’s official stance that the learning opportunity available to all students at our programs, and their willingness to avail themselves of this opportunity, should be each participant’s focus, rather than whether or not they win an award.
IDIA staff are trained to consider elements of research preparedness and substantive contribution when deciding which students are awarded for their work. They are further trained to de-emphasize the importance of rhetorical flare, combative debate, and/or conversational dominance (except when warranted by the simulation aspect of the committee). Of course, disagreements will naturally arise, and the ability to defend one’s position against a counterproposal is important. However, the skills weighed most heavily for awards are: resolution writing, consensus building, and understanding the intricacies not only of the topics under discussion, but also of the United Nations as a whole in order to propose specific and feasible mock-legislation.
NOTE: The conference manager is free to adjust this policy and implement his or her own approach to awards for the conference he or she manages. All awards decisions are made at the sole discretion of the committee directors and undergraduate conference manager, in consultation with the Program Director.
Individual Awards Rubric
In each committee at the conference, our extensively trained staff will determine committee-level award winners based upon the specific criteria found in the rubric below. These committee award winners not only are effective debaters, but excel at resolution writing, consensus building, and understanding the intricacies not only of the topics under discussion, but also of the United Nations as a whole.
This rubric is provided as a resource and meant to be a helpful guide for students looking to make the most out of the conference experience. It should not be considered a “judges card” for the purposes of winning awards. Ideally, each student in a committee – including those who do no receive a physical award – should endeavor to reach the goals outlined here for their own development as young leaders.
|
Participation
|
|
Did the delegate participate and speak in committee with enough frequency to adequately espouse their country or bloc’s viewpoint on the topic? Did the delegate avail himself or herself of the opportunity to speak in open session (regardless of rhetorical effectiveness or debate skill)? Was the delegate was physically present in the room during all required sessions?
Did the delegate show behavioral problems that precluded their contributing positively, i.e. was disruptive, talked when other people were talking; left the room and would socialize instead of doing work; etc. Did the delegate fail to participate, despite outreach attempts by committee chairs or other delegates?
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
Cooperation
|
|
Did the delegate make attempts to work collaboratively with others in order to incorporate their country or role’s objectives into working papers? Did the delegate identify opposition groups and attempt to bridge divides informally and formally, through conversation and working papers respectively? Was the delegate able to identify elements of their platform that could be conceded in order to enable compromise with other groups? Was the delegate able to strike a balance between advocating their country’s position and modifying their proposals in order to increase their probability of passage?
Was the delegate uncooperative regarding their policy goals, outside of what the simulation aspect of their country or role dictates?
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
Research & Preparedness
|
|
Did the delegate arrive at the conference well versed in both the nuance of the topic and their country’s position on it? Was the delegate able to articulate the position in ad-hoc speaking situations? Did the delegate conduct research on the topic beyond the primer included in the topic brief? Did the delegate submit a position paper that accurately and succinctly summarized their country or role’s position toward the issue? Did the position paper adequately cite sources for the position, rather than relying on the delegate’s own primary opinion?
Did the delegate rely on solely the topic brief without conducting adequate additional research to contextualize the topic within their country or role’s own history? Did the delegate have trouble remaining “in character” throughout the duration of the conference?
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
Substantive Focus
|
|
Did the delegate demonstrate adequate understanding of the policy issue at the heart of the committee? Was the delegate able to articulate the challenges arising from the topic in a way that indicated more than a superficial awareness? If applicable, was the delegate able to author or contribute to working papers that included a
Did the delegate focus too much on tertiary or tangential aspects of the problem? Was the delegate pre-occupied with only one or two aspects of the complex problem?
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
Feasibility of Solution
|
|
Did the delegate contribute to a working paper that adequately addressed the problem and proposed a feasible solution? Was the working paper of sufficient length and complexity to account for the full implementation of the solution, instead of just a statement of the desired outcome? Did the solution proposed by the delegate utilize capabilities actually available to the committee or entity? Did the solution avoid committing to tasks beyond the scope or capabilities of the body?
Was the solution general unfeasible as proposed by the delegate? Was the solution proposed reliant on one or more new sub-committees or ad-hoc organizations whose funding mechanisms and/or scope of operations was hazily defined?
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
Delegation-Level Awards
In addition to individual awards for delegates from each committee, most IDIA conferences also feature delegation-level awards given to the schools whose collective participants performed at an exceptionally high level.
These awards, often termed “Best Large Delegation”, “Outstanding Large Delegation”, “Best Small Delegation”, Outstanding Small Delegation”, and so on, are awarded on a point system that weighs the number and type of awards earned by each student from the school against the total number of students that school brings to the conference. The per-student score is used to rank the school against other schools within it’s category. The top-ranked school in each category is awarded the “Best” delegation award for the size category, and second place is awarded the “Outstanding”.
The categorization of schools into small, medium and large occurs on a floating scale based around the median size of schools attending that year’s conference. The exact distinction between large, medium, and small is made at the sole discretion of the undergraduate conference manager in consultation with the Program Director.
