In deliberation, it is essential to be motivated by something to deliberate. There are certain characteristics that define deliberation as described in Gastil's criteria, but an underlying question is: why do people choose to participate in deliberation? What pushes us to follow the criteria set out by Gastil? In our recent classroom deliberations, it seems that to be motivated to deliberate about a topic, we must have genuine personal stakes in the topic at hand. As college students, we are living, breathing examples of this discussion. I have the impression that if there had been a subject that neither of us was interested in, the deliberation would have been a failure. Throughout our deliberations around the National Forum on Higher Education, the two most significant problems I saw included our failure, in the words of John Gastil, to "make the best decision possible." In our deliberations on higher education, decisions The deliberations were mainly chosen based on their specialty. I have the impression that by having a subject that touches us, everyone felt passion and had a strong idea of ​​what they wanted, as highlighted by their personal issues. There is a reason for Gastil's analytical process. begins with the step of “creating a solid information base”. Without this, the deliberation loses the necessary concreteness. I believe that while deliberation may have many positive features on the surface, true deliberation involves open and organized give-and-take with the discovery of final common ground, rather than conducting defense or contentment. to an unresolved conflict. At the start of the deliberation, each person went around and declared their personal issue. Most went on to talk about their majors, minors, previous credits and so on... middle of paper..... ...with valid consideration. Deliberation can only work when deliberators adopt views contrary to their own and learn to work with people with opposing views. Deliberation should involve collaboration without compromise, but allow for open exchange and an accurate reflection of beliefs. the outcome of the deliberations is common ground and not an artificial agreement. Our group did an effective job of keeping deliberations going, although finding common ground was much more difficult. Some were convinced that math and science majors were a major priority, while others did not think so. However, without the pressure needed to reach agreement, the group has not put enough pressure on others to find the common ground that exists between our differences. Part of our inability to find common ground was due to our reluctance to identify a broad range of solutions..