Public speaking is often cited as one of people’s greatest fears. However, the University Students’ Council presidential candidates are required to speak countless times in front of an audience.

The Gazette enlisted Ninian Mellamphy, professor emeritus in the department of English, and Chris Sinal, former USC president to analyze the candidates’ debating skills. They were shown clips from the media forum to get them acquainted with each candidates’ speaking ability.

Both Sinal and Mellamphy were impressed by the candidates’ ability to present themselves in a public forum. However, they offered a few suggestions for how the candidates could improve.

According to the panelists, Marshall Goldfarb stood out from the pack as a strong speaker.

“Goldfarb has a nice direct way and a nicely organized way of answering questions,” Mellamphy said, praising Goldfarb’s honest approach.

Sinal commended Goldfarb’s posture, noting he was very loose, which was effective in conveying his image as another regular student.

Matt Hyland found public speaking more of a struggle, often stumbling or pausing awkwardly.

“Even though he seemed to be an intelligent fellow, his rhetoric is rather unimpressive — he’s not really a smooth speaker,” Mellamphy explained.

Despite Hyland’s discomfort, Sinal felt he did a very good job of guiding the listener. When answering a question, Hyland consistently identified the question, answered it, and then gave support for his answers.

Ray Park was praised for his ability to engage the audience in a conversation. “When he gives you an answer, it feels like you’re having a conversation with him ­— not like he’s preaching to you,” Sinal said.

Mellamphy felt there was nothing remarkable about Park. “I think his presentation was very good as well, but again, he never seemed to come across as kind of a leader in a way that [some of the others] did.”

Jeff Rutledge impressed Sinal with his ability to turn questions in his favour: “[Rutledge] does a pretty good job of taking the question, answering the question, then putting his own answer in ­— it’s a skill.”

However, Mellamphy also noted Rutledge appeared reluctant to make eye contact with the individuals asking questions, which worked to undercut the clarity of his answers.

Mellamphy felt Mike Tithecott could easily be left behind: “He’s got a fringe that makes him look like a boy [and] he has kind of a casualness rhetorically that makes you [think] that he hasn’t honed in very, very precisely on the question and on the answer.”

Both panelists confirmed Tithecott seemed like he was presenting, rather than speaking, when in front of an audience.

While Matthijs van Gaalen impressed both of the panelists, he still had room for improvement.

Sinal showed appreciation for the complex ideas van Gaalen presented, but explained simplified analogies are necessary when dealing with a public setting.

Mellamphy praised van Gaalen for having clear arguments and also for being a somewhat entertaining speaker: “Van Gaalen had that extra little dimension of having some wit. He had the ability [show that] appropriately rather then show-offishly.”