Senior Thesis: Class of 2025

Every two years, Olympic host cities pour billions into building massive facilities that often go unused after the Games. Tate argues that the International Olympic Committee should only select cities with existing Olympic-standard infrastructure. This no-build model would reduce economic waste, prevent abandoned venues, and protect communities from displacement, creating a more sustainable and equitable Olympics.

Finnley will argue that congress should lower the federally enforced minimum legal drinking age from 21 to 18. For the past 40 years, America has held a firm stance on the issue, citing drunk driving deaths and irresponsible teenage drinking as cause to stagnate legislation. Finnley points out the counterintuitive nature of this approach. Alcohol abuse has become a cultural norm, and drunk driving deaths have only become more frequent. A lower drinking age is the solution.

In his thesis, Austin will argue for the inclusion of Park Model RV’s in HUD’s Housing Quality Standards. By revising these standards, HUD could allow low-income individuals living in PMRVs to become eligible for Housing Choice Vouchers under their Section 8 program. Austin argues that PMRVs already meet HUD’s existing safety and quality requirements, and that their inclusion could provide a cost-effective, dignified housing solution for individuals experiencing homelessness.

In his thesis, Jack argues that the United States should build 90 more nuclear reactors over the next 30 years to meet increasing power needs. He makes the case that nuclear energy is clean, reliable, and—despite what many think—safe. As electricity becomes more essential, Jack shows how expanding the nation’s nuclear infrastructure is key to securing energy independence and economic stability.

The students who accept the invitation will present on a public stage the last week of April. Their speeches must be memorized and their panelists will include one or more experts in their fields of study. The winners from each night will present again in the Final Fourum™ at the end of the week. Each nightly winner will receive a small scholarship to be credited to his/her college bookstore, and the Final Fourum™ winner will receive an additional $2,000 scholarship that has historically been sponsored by the Reid, Collins & Tsai team of trial attorneys in Austin.

Students who successfully present in the April competition will receive credit on their transcripts for “Advanced Senior Thesis,” and their GPA will be weighted as an honors course. These students will also be eligible for the Distinguished Diploma if they meet all the other criteria for this honor.

Judging Criteria

Winners for thesis are selected by a team of four (the Final Fourum quorum) that deliberate late into the night each night of the competition (discussions usually last for three or more hours). Presentation quality is definitely a factor in determining who wins, but it is not the factor, as the thesis is a yearlong project requiring deep research, quality writing, and the thoughtful crafting of the message to be delivered. The four members of the panel consider the five canons of rhetoric, the Q&A session, and other factors. They are outlined below:

INVENTION — The crafting of argument: Has the student used all means available to him/her to craft his/her arguments? Are the arguments sound and convincing? How is the logic? Are the arguments supported by a wealth of evidence? Are they well wrought?

ARRANGEMENT — The ordering of the speech: Is the argument easy to follow? Is the proposition clearly stated? How are the transitions? Did the listener ever feel lost? Was each section clearly separated from the others? Was there a piece of evidence or an argument that was in the incorrect place or would have worked better elsewhere?

STYLE — The, well, style of the speech: Are there memorable phrases? Was the speech fun and easy to listen to? Did the speech ever become boring or burdensome? Was the student winsome? Were the sentences carefully crafted? Did the student use any notable tropes orschemesin crafting his/her words? Was it repetitive? Was it, in a word, sonorous?

MEMORY — This one is pretty self-explanatory: Did the student have ready, fluid recall of his/her speech? Did s/he ever have to check his/her notes (this doesn't hurt the grade, it's just for comparison)? Were the student’s "hiccups" large or small?

DELIVERY — The quality of performance: How were the gestures? How was the cadence? Was the delivery wooden? Did the audience feel nervous for the student, or put at ease? Did the student seem natural and at home on stage? Did s/he make eye contact with the audience? How was his/her poise?

Q&A PORTION — Did the student answer the questions to the satisfaction of the judges? Did s/he demonstrate deference and humbleness? Did s/he interrupt? Did his/her answers reveal a depth of research, or did it reveal holes in the research? Did the student have ready answers for the most pressing questions (the ones s/he should really know)? Did s/he have knowledge of the source material and pertinent studies? Did the Q&A period reveal any large holes in the student’s reasoning?

"OSES" — These are measured for both the speech and Q&A portion. They are the three modes of appeal:

Ethos: Did the speaker establish him/herself as trustworthy, well read, informed, and morally upright? Did s/he make moral arguments from this already established solid ground?

Pathos: Did the speaker craft his/her arguments in such a way as to tug at the heartstrings of the audience? Did these arguments seem contrived? Did the student stealthily guide (in a moral way, of course) the emotions of the audience?

Logos: Was the student’s speech and Q&A free of fallacy, and was it logically sound?

Students who wish to earn the advanced senior thesis, but are not in the top 16, will present in the evening during the week prior to the competition.  The expectations and grading are the same as during the competition, but they are not eligible for the scholarship.  Students who successfully present will receive credit on their transcripts for “Advanced Senior Thesis,” and their GPA will be weighted as an advanced course. These students will also be eligible for the Distinguished Diploma if they meet all the other criteria for this honor.

 

Some students may elect to present during the school day in the month of May. Veritas will not publicize the schedule for these presentations, but students may invite anyone they want to attend. The presentation quality should be excellent, but the speech does not have to be memorized. The panel of judges will consist primarily—or perhaps entirely—of members of the Veritas faculty, staff and/or board. Students presenting in May will be eligible for the Veritas diploma if they meet all the other criteria for this honor. Their papers and presentations will be assessed using the same rubric applied to the advanced senior theses (sans Memory), however, they will be afforded a 10-point curve. Their transcripts will read “Senior Thesis,” and their GPAs will not be weighted for this class.

Students who have a stronger leaning towards STEM related fields may choose to participate in our XRT program. These students spend the year executing their approved research plan, preparing a paper, and presenting their experimental research in a public forum. Throughout the school year, they meet regularly with the Science Department Head or another appropriate member of Veritas staff serving as their Research Advisor. Experimentation must be completed in time to compete in the Austin Energy Regional Science Festival (AERSF) in mid-February and any other science fair competitions that they advance to, including the International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF). Presentation and defense of work will occur at approximately the same time as the other thesis tracks under guidelines established by the Science and Thesis Department Heads.