Skip to main content
University of Texas at Austin
University Interscholastic League Logo
University Interscholastic League Logo

UIL Speech Judges

If you have corrections, questions or comments regarding this information, please notify The UIL Speech and Debate department at or 512-471-5883.

Grace Mausser

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: No


Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Klein High School

Graduated high school: 2012

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I participated in LD and extemporaneous speaking throughout my three years of high school debate and achieved consistent success in both. I would be a capable judge for LD because my years of debate taught me how to link complex arguments and weigh impacts against each other. Also, I know how to flow and record different parts of the debate, including value, criterion, contentions, as well as off case arguments, such as kritiks and counterplans. I believe I would be a capable extemp judge because I have a very good understanding of public speaking tactics and an extensive knowledge of current events. In college, I participate in Model UN, where I have furthered developed my speaking skills and taught public speaking to younger participants. I am an International Affairs and Economics major, so will have an in-depth understanding of many of the potential topics for this event. In addition to much of coursework being relevant to potential extemp topics, I also independently keep up with current events through a variety of mediums (I still read the extemper's bible- The Economist- on a weekly basis). These skills will allow me to judge speeches on speaking quality as well as content.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach:
Policy priority:
Evidence philosophy:


Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Although LD has shifted in the past few years towards a more policy-oriented debate, I still maintain that the value/criterion debate is the most important aspect of the debate. If a debater does not uphold these two things then they have nothing on which to base their arguments. However I am still open to a variety of policy arguments and will weigh those in the round, but the should be based around a central framework. Although I appreciate clear and effective communication, it is not more important than the substance of the argument; the best substance debater should win, not the best speaker. I will not make impacts for the debaters; debaters must explain why an argument matters and cannot assume that it is inherently a meaningful argument. I will extend an argument across the round if it goes unaddressed by the opposing debater, but the final arguments of such arguments will only be weighed if the debater points them out. I will as little work as possible for the debaters.

Contact Information


Availability Information

Meet types:
State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 1 2 3 5