The issue of fairness of SDITE Traffic Bowl 2012

In the April 2012, SDITE held a Traffic Bowl competition in Lexington, KY. The competition was conducted as a jeopardy-like game, with five categories. However, besides questions from handbooks and questions about ITE, there was a whole category of questions named Movie cars that included questions about brand and script names of cars from Hollywood movies. As a captain of Virginia Tech Traffic Bowl team, I have questioned the fairness of this category of questions and suggested some solutions for action. The correspondence between SDITE representative and myself is presented below, chronologically. As of May 29, there has been no progress in discussing or resolving the questioned issue. Considering that, I have decided to send back the check with the money awarded for the 3rd place in this competition. As members of the same professional community, I would urge you to read the correspondence and provide your opinion on the issue. Using this communication medium for opening a discussion, I hope that some change will be made, at least for the future competitions.

E-mail correspondence
From: Milos Mladenovic Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:38 PM Subject: SDITE Traffic Bowl 2012 - the issue of fairness Dear Mr X, The SDITE website lists you as contact for Student Traffic Bowl Committee, so I am directing this email to you. After the reading of the email, if you perceive some other person to be more appropriate to address the issues, please feel free to forward it to him/her. As a captain of the Virginia Tech Traffic Bowl team, I would like to raise the issue of fairness on the recently held SDITE Traffic Bowl competition in Lexington, KY. The specific fairness concern relates to one of the categories of questions used in the competition, under the name Movie Cars. In the overall competition that consists of five categories with each having five questions, this category was given equal importance to the other categories that were related to transportation engineering knowledge. First, I would like to ask the question of the final purpose of Traffic Bowl. As Aristotle would define it, the final purpose is the aim or purpose for the sake of which thing is what it is. Here, as first 1

hypothesis, I am assuming that the final purpose of Traffic Bowl is to assess the knowledge of transportation engineering, ITE, and the competition itself. With this in mind, I hope that we would agree that a brand or script name of a vehicle used in a movie would not count as knowledge of transportation engineering but rather a knowledge of specific popular culture. If you want to correct my definition of the purpose of Traffic Bowl as the one that also assesses the knowledge of popular culture, then we can reject this first hypothesis but we immediately run into the next issue. According to ITE website (http://www.ite.org/trafficbowl/Rules.pdf) competition resources listed were: 1. Traffic Engineering Handbook, 6th edition 2. Transportation Planning Handbook, 3rd edition 3. USDOT Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 edition 4. Canadian Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 5. Highway Capacity Manual 2010 6. Canadian Capacity Guide 7. ITE Web site, www.ite.org This is a list of mutually-acknowledged criteria that all the participants entering Traffic Bowl were informed upon. As such, this list is a part of an agreed social contract that structures the competition itself. In addition to this, we can look at the rules of acceptable contestants for being on a Traffic Bowl team. These rules specify for example age or licensing constraints. However, these rules do not specify a restriction on nationality or personal preferences of any individual. Here, we can assume that it is statistically equally possible that any Traffic Bowl team does have international students or students that do not watch movies, since this criteria is not specified as preventing an individual to be a Traffic Bowl team member. At this point, I would present a second hypothesis, considering the mutually-acknowledged information from ITE, and a potential for inequitable distinctions based on individuals characteristics. This hypothesis would state that the fairness of this competition is infringed since contestants were not judged based on their merits that were accepted before the competition. The resulting bias has created a potential unplanned distinction that endangered justice. Finally, I would like to remind you that justice is a form of natural duty owed by one person to another those who give justice will receive justice. Immanuel Kant would add something to that with his Categorical Imperative: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time imagine that it become a universal law. So, imagining a hypothetical scenario, in the next 2013 Traffic Bowl, I would equally accept the possibility of knowledge assessment of cars in Finnish movies or names of Russian truck factories. Furthermore, in the next 2013 Traffic Bowl, using the previous logic, I would equally accept using push buttons that require pressing with both hands, while all the contestants from two teams being ex-soldiers that have recently returned from Iraq with only one hand. The logic presented above is not aimed against anyone in particular. It is just a statement that shows 2

the potential infringement of fairness in this competition. Accidentally, this time, the infringement of fairness has resulted in the win of North Carolina State University. In addition, it is a call for an open discussion on this issue. For the sake of discussion, I can suggest that, considering Virginia Tech team entered the final round through the qualifying round that also included Movie Cars category, I am offering that the money received as a reward for third place is returned to SDITE. Considering the logic above, we would reject the fairness of the qualifying round too, although we have won it. Another potential solution includes a repetition of the Traffic Bowl competition. Please let me know you opinion. Sincerely, Milos Mladenovic, M.Sc. Graduate Research Assistant Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 301-D Patton Hall (0105) Blacksburg, VA 24061 phone: 540-553-5949 fax: 540-231-7532 email: milosm@vt.edu www.vt-scores.cee.vt.edu http://milostraffic.info Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. ____________________________________________________________________ From: X Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 11:54 AM To: Milos Mladenovic Subject: RE: SDITE Traffic Bowl 2012 - the issue of fairness Milos: Thank you for your interest in the conduct of the SDITE traffic bowl and your input regarding the nature of categories and questions which were developed for this years competition. The SDITE Traffic Bowl committee and the SDITE Executive Board have been notified of your concerns. The response expressed in the remainder of this email is reflective of the Board and Committee discussions. SDITE has been conducting a student traffic bowl for eight years, and International ITE picked up the idea and has held a traffic bowl at the International level twice. The SDITE traffic bowl has always had question categories based on popular culture that are somewhat related to transportation. Sometimes these categories have been songs or automobile manufacturers. This year the theme was automobile movies.

The International ITE rules in both 2010 and 2011 contained a rule which stated: In addition, the competition will include exciting potpourri categories that feature clues about ITE, its structure and governance and from general transportation knowledge as well as pop culture topics that are related somehow to transportation planning and engineering. This clause was omitted from the 2012 International ITE rules without notification or consultation with the district traffic bowl committees. SDITE has attempted to play by the International ITE rules for our traffic bowl, and our oversight of this rule change was accidental. In the future, if International ITE does not reinstate this rule, SDITE will evaluate whether or not categories will continue to include these types of pop culture questions. Your viewpoint concerning the purpose of the traffic bowl is correct, but incomplete. Traffic bowl is indeed intended to test students knowledge of transportation, but it is also intended to provide entertainment for the members of ITE who make the traffic bowl possible through their dues payments and extra contributions. Traffic bowl is also intended to increase student participation in SDITE and provide a large number of students a low-cost venue for attending the SDITE annual meeting. Every traffic bowl game assembled is an attempt to balance all the goals of the traffic bowl. We understand that not all students will be equally versed in pop culture. And what one person might consider pop culture another may not. But that is why a traffic bowl team has three members, so that there is a chance for the team to be well-rounded in all areas which may appear as question categories. The SDITE Executive Committee and the Traffic Bowl Committee are of the opinion that this years competition was valid and that there is no reason to contemplate conducting another traffic bowl. Nor are there funds available to repeat this years traffic bowl. Thank you for directing your concerns to me. The SDITE traffic bowl committee will certainly keep your concerns in mind as we prepare for next years competition.

_________________________________________________________________________ From: Milos Mladenovic Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:29 PM Subject: RE: SDITE Traffic Bowl 2012 - the issue of fairness Dear Mr X, Thank you for a prompt response. If you would let me ti reply accordingly to each statement bellow. <SDITE has been conducting a student traffic bowl for eight years, and International ITE picked up the idea and has held a traffic bowl at the International level twice. The SDITE traffic bowl has always had question categories based on popular culture that are somewhat related to transportation. Sometimes these categories have been songs or automobile manufacturers. This year the theme was automobile movies.> 4

1. Conducting something for any number of years does not make it just. Slavery was conducted for many years, and the more time it was practiced never made it more just. 2. Somewhat is not a qualitative measure. As this is an engineering competition and we are all engineers, a qualitative measure is expected, such as a threshold (e.g. 85th percentile, 95th percentile, etc.). With the same linguistic, I can claim that names of automobile manufacturers are more related to transportation engineering, considering they are a part of the related industry, or use transportation engineering knowledge in the manufacturing process. On the contrary, I still do not see a clear and quantifiable relation between script names or brands of vehicles used in a movie with transportation engineering. At this point, let me state the two relevant definitions. Transportation engineering is a branch of engineering dealing with planning, designing, estimation, construction, operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and management of transportation infrastructure for movement of people and goods from one place to the other safely, timely, conveniently, comfortably, economically by using various modes like highways, railways, air ways, water ways and pipe ways also. In addition, traffic engineering is an area of transportation engineering dealing with safe and efficient planning, geometric design and traffic operations of roads, streets and highways, their networks, terminals, abutting lands relationships with other motorized and non-motorized modes of transportation (ITE, Traffic Engineering Handbook, 6th Edition Institution of Transportation Engineers, 2009.). Maybe my perception is wrong, and I am not successfully relating the knowledge of movie cars with the transportation engineering. None of the above definitions seem related to the names of the brands, or the way names are created. They are primarily related to the area of marketing or linguistics. <The International ITE rules in both 2010 and 2011 contained a rule which stated: In addition, the competition will include exciting potpourri categories that feature clues about ITE, its structure and governance and from general transportation knowledge as well as pop culture topics that are related somehow to transportation planning and engineering. This clause was omitted from the 2012 International ITE rules without notification or consultation with the district traffic bowl committees. SDITE has attempted to play by the International ITE rules for our traffic bowl, and our oversight of this rule change was accidental. In the future, if International ITE does not reinstate this rule, SDITE will evaluate whether or not categories will continue to include these types of pop culture questions.> 3. I am not aware that SDITE has some other established rules that all the competitors are aware of, other than the International ITE rules. This further leads that International ITE rules were valid during this competition, even if there was no specific communication established. With this in mind, and from the above statement, the second hypothesis of my original email is correct. Since the social contract on the rules signed as we all entered the competition was broken, this automatically leads to the unjust competition. If you reject this hypothesis, and accept that questions were created according to an accident, this still does not make the competition just. <Your viewpoint concerning the purpose of the traffic bowl is correct, but incomplete. Traffic bowl is indeed intended to test students knowledge of transportation, but it is also intended to provide entertainment for the members of ITE who make the traffic bowl possible through their dues 5

payments and extra contributions. Traffic bowl is also intended to increase student participation in SDITE and provide a large number of students a low-cost venue for attending the SDITE annual meeting. Every traffic bowl game assembled is an attempt to balance all the goals of the traffic bowl.> 4. This comment relates to the first hypothesis of justice I posed. I am eager to expand my first hypothesis that the purpose of the Traffic Bowl is entertainment, in addition to assessing knowledge. In fact, I was never questioning that the competition was not entertaining or that it should not be entertaining. I was just questioning the approach used to make it entertaining, since I see the potential to make it entertaining and just (e.g. Virginia ITE Traffic Bowl 2011). Furthermore, I am also eager to accept the additional purpose of Traffic Bowl, as a way to increase the attendance of young transportation engineers. However, I still do not see how can unjust rules work towards this purpose. Sincerely, if the competition is unjust that is making me not want to be part of it. If someone wants to enter the competition knowing it is unjust, I would refrain from further comments. <We understand that not all students will be equally versed in pop culture. And what one person might consider pop culture another may not. But that is why a traffic bowl team has three members, so that there is a chance for the team to be well-rounded in all areas which may appear as question categories.> 5. Considering that the requirements for the team members never stated the knowledge of pop culture, the question of justice stated in the second hypothesis is well supported. The randomness introduced through the subjective assessment and assumption of the members knowledge, other than the one in transportation engineering, is exactly what undermines the fairness of this competition. That is the support for my statements on Finish movies and Russian truck factories. It also relates back to the point 2 above. <The SDITE Executive Committee and the Traffic Bowl Committee are of the opinion that this years competition was valid and that there is no reason to contemplate conducting another traffic bowl. Nor are there funds available to repeat this years traffic bowl.> 6. In all the points above, I do not see how the two hypothesis on justice are rejected or the fairness of competition is explained. So the conclusion that the competition was not fair still remains. The last statement on the lack of funds still does not make the completion just. It is just a decision-making constraint. If you do agree that the competition is not just, I may suggest that this year competition is proclaimed as not valid due to the issue of fairness. We all enter the community of transportation engineers by our own choice. The positions we have in our respective organizations are the result of our own free will and acceptance of responsibility that comes with the position. With the belief that you will recognize the effects on justice that your decision might make, I would urge you to be responsible to your own position and respective to the community of transportation engineers, and thus proclaim that this completion is not valid as unjust. On the contrary, by accepting this completion as valid, you would make a negative exemplary precedent that undermines the very purposes of this competition, and furthermore, the goals of our community. 6

Thank you for consideration, Milos ___________________________________________________________________________ From: Milos Mladenovic Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 2:14 PM Subject: RE: SDITE Traffic Bowl 2012 (suggested solution) Dear Mr X, In support of a spirit of cooperation among us, as members of the same professional community, I have a suggestion for resolving the situation regarding the issue of fairness in the recent Traffic Bowl. My suggestion is that SDITE should establish a set of requirements/constraints for team members, transparent and fair procedure for developing questions, along with a procedure for update of these rules, and their relation to International ITE Traffic Bowl rules. A brief document containing these four sets of information would prevent or at least reduce the chance of similar unjust situations in the coming years. I understand that you and the other committee members are volunteering your time to make this competition as best as you can and that mistakes sometimes happen. However, I hope that we all agree that this year competition was proven unfair on all the points. My attempt at this point is not anymore to try to remove the damage already done. My attempt is to prevent that situations similar to this year do not happen in the future, since they do not advance our professional community in any way. With a hope that you will accept the suggestion above, I would recommend you to take into consideration our discussion from the previous email correspondence. I know that the goal of the competition is not fairness per se, but the logic implies that every competition should be fair, or either it would be irrational for anyone to participate in the competition which injustice is predetermined, and thus the competition would not have any logical reasons to exist.

All the best, Milos

Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:47 AM To: Milos Mladenovic Subject: RE: SDITE Traffic Bowl 2012 (suggested solution) This is to acknowledge receipt of your last two emails. We are not in agreement that the 2012 SDITE Traffic Bowl competition was unfair or that any mistakes were made. SDITE will continue to use International ITE rules of play for our traffic bowl until a decision is made otherwise. As has been 7

done each year, an email will be sent to each Section in January, 2013 which provides the latest International ITE rules and all points of difference between the International ITE rules and the SDITE rules of play. It is up the Section leadership to provide this information to the traffic bowl team. These differences are generally that SDITE will not use the Canadian resources, SDITE will use English measurements only, and that SDITE equipment does not allow a determination to be made of the order in which teams buzz in. We anticipate that International ITE will reinstate the rule allowing questions from popular culture with some connection to transportation for the 2013 competition. If they do not, SDITE will probably issue this an a supplemental rule for our 2013 competition. We do not intend to eliminate questions of this type from our competition. We do not see that these types of questions are unfair. Participation by each Section in the SDITE Traffic Bowl is not mandatory. It is, in fact, a privilege in which SDITE invests a significant amount of budget, along with significant investments of time and money by many individuals from their own resources . I do not doubt that we will have an excellent competition again next year. Any Section which believes that the competition is unfair would be more than welcome to not field a team for the Traffic Bowl competition. For my part, please consider this matter closed.

__________________________________________________________________ From: Milos Mladenovic Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2012 3:14 PM Subject: SDITE Traffic Bowl 2012 (suggested solution)

Dear Mr X, According to correspondence bellow, it is still not defendable claiming that 2012 SDITE Traffic Bowl was fair. However, I agree with your claim that SDITE needs to continue to use International ITE rules. One of the reasons why I have raised the question of fairness was in fact (as presented in the first email) that this competition was not according to the International ITE rules. In the case International ITE establishes the questions of popular culture for the 2013 competition, that still does not justifies the questions in SDITE 2012 Traffic Bowl. Furthermore, I am not arguing that these types of questions would be unfair. If we accept these questions, for the sake of entertainment, this still does not explains that there was no official set of SDITE rules for 2012 Traffic Bowl, that all participants were aware of. Finally, I acknowledge myself that competing in Traffic Bowl is a privilege, and even an honor. This is one more reason why, as a part of this community, I want to protect the integrity of this competition. Moreover, I would like to see a team from SDITE win International ITE next year. All that I am asking of you and the committee, as members of the same community, is to create a set 8

of rules for SDITE Traffic Bowl that will be distributed to all the participants. These rules containing: a set of requirements/constraints for team members transparent procedure for developing questions a procedure for update of these rules a relation to International ITE Traffic Bowl rules would not be more than two pages and would probably not be significant effort. However, having such a document would avoid running into problems of fairness in the next competitions. Please take this suggestion into consideration.

All the best, Milos __________________________________________________________________________