To determine if there is a distinction between the forensics community's idea of quality and that of the general population, tournament rankings of forensics judges and those of a lay audience were compared. Undergraduate students enrolled in a variety of speech related courses were asked to attend rounds of competition at a midwest collegiate forensics tournament and fill out a ranking sheet (similar to a master ballot used by the regular assigned judges) on the performers. The comparative rankings generated 921 ranked pairs. Results showed that there does not appear to be a significant similarity in the direct rankings or adjacent rankings of professional and lay judges. The data also implies that even within the ranks of forensics judges a wide range of ranks is common and a wide spectrum of evaluation is likely. (Eight tables of data are included.) (MS)