Opinion: the Old Sophomore Declamation Was Better

This fall, Deerfield Academy introduced a new format for the long standing sophomore declamation. In previous years, sophomores memorized and performed a published literary piece selected for its craft and insight. This year, instead of reciting an existing work, students were asked to write and read an original speech about something they were “obsessed” with. After writing and performing the new sophomore declamation, many of us came away feeling dissatisfied with the assignment itself. 

We believe that the new declamation, despite appearing open-ended, actually stifled creativity in two main ways. It restricted what we could write about and it confined how we could express ourselves.

First, as part of the instructions, students were not allowed to write about any sports or extracurriculars because they were too boring. Personally, when writing our declamations, the only authentic obsessions we could think of were related to sports or extracurriculars; young, sophomore students may not have developed obsessions similar to those in the example models. Many other sophomores we spoke to shared similar experiences. As a result, we found ourselves writing about topics we only half cared about, trying to emulate the niche examples we were given. We believe that the English department made an oversight when they assumed that all sophomores would have a niche, obscure obsession, and this oversight led to inauthentic work. 

Second, we believe that the revision process boxed students into a rigid structure. Nearly every declamation we saw followed the format of opening with an anecdotal story and ending with a contemplation, periodically switching between the two throughout the declamation. It seems impossible that 155 students from vastly different backgrounds and experiences all individually and independently arrived at the same structure for their final declamations. The uniformity that we saw in the final performances suggests that the assignment rewarded some conformity rather than individuality; 

The new assignment also breaks the progression of declamation across four years. Freshman declamation exposes students to literary elements; junior and senior declamations ask them to reflect and persuade from experience. Sophomore year, positioned between the novelty of ninth grade and the pressure of college admissions-oriented upperclassmen life, is a rare moment for intellectual curiosity and deep absorption. The previous sophomore declamation nurtured that curiosity. By reciting and internalizing a longer work, students meet writers who have spent decades refining their thoughts and craft. Memorizing and performing these texts required focus, patience, and humility. It also developed skills that actually matter later on, such as interpretation and the ability to inhabit a perspective different from one’s own. 

For some students, the previous sophomore declamation created a lasting academic impact. When we spoke with Marco Feng ‘26, he described how memorizing a longer literary piece introduced him to the idea of prosody, how rhythm, sound, and language create meaning together. His piece, In Praise of Folly, opened a door for him. After completing the declamation, he began reading and memorizing poems on his own for genuine enjoyment. It taught him to pay attention to how words move and why they feel the way they do. It would be unrealistic to expect every student to form that kind of relationship with literature. However, the possibility of sparking that interest in literature is what made the old declamation valuable. 

At its core, this debate isn’t just about one assignment, but more about what kind of freedom we value in learning. Schools often equate freedom with choice, the ability to write one’s own piece, pick one’s own topic. But real freedom in learning is different. It is not only the freedom to speak, but the freedom to think, to be challenged, to wrestle with complex voices, and to discover something unexpected. A well designed assignment doesn’t simply let students do whatever they want, it invites them to engage meaningfully with something. That is why the question of freedom matters here, for it shapes how we define creativity, authenticness, and intellectual growth. 

So which assignment actually offers more freedom? Some may argue that writing your own piece must be freer than memorizing someone else’s. After all, isn’t that the highest form of self-expression? However, freedom is not only the ability to produce something original. Intellectual freedom is the ability to explore what we do not yet understand. The old declamation gave students space to develop a voice by studying how language works and how meaning is shaped. The new assignment asks students to arrive already in possession of that voice. For many sophomores, that expectation feels unlike freedom, and more like pressure to perform yourself while you are still forming that self. 

The previous declamation provided a deeper kind of freedom. Choosing a literary piece did not mean choosing something to merely satisfy the instructions of the assignment. It meant finding a text that resonated with you and staying with it long enough to understand why. There was freedom in the slow work of interpretation, in discovering how a writer’s voice moves and breathes. This was not the freedom to already know yourself, but the freedom to learn. By stepping into another mind, students could explore ideas way larger than their own. 

The experience of the old declamation remains more valuable than the assignment that replaced it. The new assignment certainly offers a form of self-expression; students can speak in their own voices and share something personal. But the old declaration offered something rarer, the chance to be shaped by voices beyond your own, to practice empathy, and curiosity. One encourages output, while the other cultivates growth. 

After writing and performing the new sophomore declamation, we came away feeling dissatisfied with our work and with the declamation assignment itself. We think this happened because even though the prompt, “Write about something you’re obsessed with,” seems open-ended, it felt like the declamation stifled creativity. 

It did so in two main ways. First, as part of the instructions, students were not allowed to write about any sports or extracurriculars because they were too “boring.” Personally, when writing our declamations, the only authentic obsessions we could think of were related to sports or extracurriculars. As a result, we found ourselves writing about topics we only half cared about, trying to emulate the niche examples we were given as models. Many other sophomores we spoke to shared similar experiences. We believe that the English department made an oversight when they assumed that all sophomores would have a niche, obscure obsession, and this oversight led to inauthentic work. 

Second, we believe that the revision process boxed students into a rigid structure. Nearly every declamation we saw followed the format of opening with an anecdotal story and ending with a contemplation, periodically switching between the two throughout the declamation. It seems impossible that 155 students from vastly different backgrounds and experiences all individually and independently arrived at the same structure for their final declamations. The uniformity that we saw in the final performances suggests that the assignment rewarded some conformity rather than individuality. 

The new assignment also breaks the progression of declamation across four years. Freshman declamation exposes students to literary elements; junior and senior declamations ask them to reflect and persuade from experience. Sophomore year, positioned between the novelty of ninth grade and the pressure of college admissions-oriented upperclassmen life, is a rare moment for intellectual curiosity and deep absorption. 

The previous sophomore declamation supported that developmental moment. By reciting and internalizing a longer work, students meet writers who have spent decades refining their insights. Memorizing and performing these texts required focus, patience, and humility. It also developed skills that actually matter later on, such as interpretation and the ability to inhabit a perspective different from one’s own. For some students, the previous sophomore declamation created a lasting academic impact. When we spoke with Marco Feng ‘26, he described how memorizing a longer literary piece introduced him to the idea of prosody, how rhythm, sound, and language create meaning together. His piece, In Praise of Folly, opened a door for him. After completing the declamation, he began reading and memorizing poems on his own for genuine enjoyment. It taught him to pay attention to how words move and why they feel the way they do. It would be unrealistic to expect every student to form that kind of relationship with literature. However, the possibility of sparking that interest in literature is valuable and the old declamation made space for it to happen. The question is, which assignment actually offers more freedom? Some may argue that writing our own speech is more free than memorizing someone else’s. However, freedom is not only the ability to produce something original. Intellectual freedom is the ability to explore what we do not yet understand. 

The previous declamation provided a different kind of freedom. Choosing a literary piece did not mean choosing something to merely satisfy the instructions of the assignment. It meant finding a text that resonated with you and staying with it long enough to understand why. There was freedom in the slow work of interpretation, in discovering how a writer’s voice moves and breathes. This was not the freedom to already know yourself, but the freedom to learn. By stepping into another mind, students could explore ideas way larger than their own. This experience is more valuable than the assignment it has been replaced with.