Should the Chairmans Award be Mandatory? [Archive]

Josh Hambright

26-07-2003, 14:27

No its very different from making the animation competition mandatory.

The reason FIRST was started was to inspire kids to be interested in science and engineering. Dean and Woodie's goal is the actualy CHANGE the world through the use of science and engineering.

I wonder if anyone got the speech that Woodie gave on tape.

I can understand what John is saying about some teams not really wanting to do it but at the same time the reason that FIRST is here is not JUST to build robots, and although some people dont like it, part of the organization is to do Chairmans award type stuff.

Its really not that hard, taking your robot out to walmart and showing it off, or doing a presentation for a local elementary school on robots, or even helping to get lego league stuff going in your area isn't as hard as it sounds.

Every time you go out to a company and give a speech saying "Give us money please cuz we are cool and build robots, and we love science and you should help us cuz..." thats spreading FIRST because if that company decides that your worthy enough of a donation or sponsorship them you've done something to help spread the message of first.

All teams are doing a part and all it is now is documenting what they are doing.

Even if your team just builds a robot you are changing the lives of team members, most likely not every kid on your team was really into science or engineering when they joined but i'm sure that by the time they are done that atleast one of them will have changed their mind. Merely building a robot or mentoring the kids on your team in the case of mentors is a huge thing.

I dont see why people think that its so hard to do, its really quiet simple and alot easier to do them people think.

(incase anyone was wondering i voted for mandatory executive summary but not CA)

Matt Krass

26-07-2003, 14:40

I don't think it should be mandatory, I know with my team we got down to the wire and had a few days left to finish the controls and the programming after the robot was shipped, we had a lot of other stuff to organize also. Making it mandatory jsut puts more burden on the teams and for rookies that could be overload.

dez250

26-07-2003, 15:37

Maybe i am crazy, maybe i think that some of you are crazy, but who know...

I voted to have the CA not mandatory but the Executive summary should be. I don't know how many of you actually know what the executive summary is so i will show you! You can find it on page 8 at this link 2003 FRC Awards (http://www2.usfirst.org/2003comp/Awards_03.pdf) . Yes thats right its a single page form that you can fill out to give feedback to FIRST on what you liked, disliked, and what you think FIRST should do in the future. So everyone who says this is a burden to teams, maybe you should look at things and think of what you say before you say it. Because i can spot other times when you have complained that you cant give FIRST your feedback as an individual or as a team. The E.S. is your chance to do it. Granted it is supposed to be turned in with your Chairmans Award Submission (with out an ES for a CAS, the submission will not even be looked at), but if you don't turn in a C.A.S., whats stopping you from still turning the Executive Summary in!

Now if you still are thinking oh this is still a burden, then i don't know what to say, because i know many of you out there can sacrifice an hour or two, to work with your team and submit at least the Executive Summary form.

~Mike

D.J. Fluck

26-07-2003, 15:41

No.

If a team doesn't want to do a chairmans award and they are forced to, that means that chances are is that they will just rush through and throw some garbage together to say they did it. I'd rather not see a chairmans award entry over some garbage a team threw together. It just makes them look bad and in the end it makes FIRST itself look bad

ZACH P.

26-07-2003, 16:21

Neither one should be manditory. I have the feeling that a lot of teams do not have the resources, be they money, manpower, energy, time, or whatever to do these things. Many teams dont have sponsors, and are just managing to scrape up enough to getr a working robot, or there are rookie teams or likewise who simply cannot do chairmans-type work and compete in a robotics competition simultaneously for whatever reason. making these things manditory might stretch some teams so thin that they collapse, effectively lessoning the range and impact of FIRST.

Josh Hambright

26-07-2003, 17:05

The executive summary is mearly a questionare...and shouldn't really cost any money to fill out..

If a team is that bad off that a questionare would kill them or writing up a 4 page report on what they have done throughout the season that is inspirational of science and engineering then they probably have bigger problems then just the CA and executive summary.

I understand that many teams dont have time to go out of their way and do things for the chairmans award but many teams are all ready doing things that they might not realize are the same things people are winning chairmans awards for doing but they just dont take the time to write it up and submit it.

J Flex 188

26-07-2003, 17:05

I dont think anyone here is particualrly saying that they are anti chairmans. its still a great facet of FIRST. But to make it mandatory is to give teams another reason to worry about during the build period. Try concentrating on two major things at once in six weeks, from design to build to test, and having another chairmans award group going on as well, not to mention worrying about logistics.

it can be hard to do all of the above when you have less than 30 team members, or infrequent attendance. theres nothing wrong with the chairmans award, it just should not be mandatory

Originally posted by oneangrydwarf

I dont see why people are so anti-chairmans award.

(incase anyone was wondering i voted for mandatory executive summary but not CA)

Josh Hambright

26-07-2003, 17:10

I didn't really think that people were anti-chairmans and beacuse of that i reworded what i said.

Sorry about that.

Jeff Waegelin

26-07-2003, 17:23

Originally posted by oneangrydwarf
I didn't really think that people were anti-chairmans and beacuse of that i reworded what i said.

Sorry about that.

I'm all for doing the Chairman's Award. I just don't think it should be made mandatory for all teams. I know some smaller teams have real difficulty just putting a robot on the field, so how can they be expected to put out lots of effort to spread FIRST? And if they're not putting out that effort, what's the point of requiring them to put in a Chairman's submission? It won't be very good, and it's just more stuff for the judges to have to read through. I don't think requiring Chairman's submissions will increase participation, either... it'll just increase the number of submissions, not the quality of submissions. Even my team has had trouble getting stuff together to submit for the Chairman's Award, and we're 6-year vets with a 20-member team. We just never have enough active members to build a robot, raise money, and do something for the Chairman's Award. Hopefully that will change, but I don't think mandatory submissions would really change anything.

Chris Fultz

26-07-2003, 17:37

I think at least an EC, if not a full Chairman's entry.

It is too easy to just say we do not have time, not enough members, etc. But by taking the time to put together a Chairman's outline and then a paper, teams can realize that much of what they do is "Chairman's" type stuff and maybe a "less than stellar" list of accomplishments would inspire teams to put more emphasis on those particular activities.

Additionally, the new format of special interviews is an excellent experience for the students that present for your team.

When FIRST says you have to run on one battery to compete, you find a way to do that. When FIRST says you have to weight less than 130 pounds to compete you find a way to do that. When first says you can only use certain materials and be so tall and so wide, you find ways to do that. If FIRST said you had to do something related to Chairmans (paper or EC), then teams would find a way to get a submission complete. And, because everyone in FIRST is motivated, dedicated and proud of their work, the submittals will be good and not garbage.

I am agreeing alot with oneangrydwarf and this is starting to worry me.....
:ahh:

Amanda Morrison

26-07-2003, 17:43

I have a question to pose...

What if the Chairman's Award was NOT a competition any longer?

And what if the 'submission' of sorts was mandatory, but just not competitive? What if FIRST released a list of some of the great things that teams have done over the past years?

Josh Hambright

26-07-2003, 17:49

generalbrando

26-07-2003, 17:50

The one thing that jumps out at me with that idea is that FIRST is trying to make everyone more and more aware of how the Chairman's award is the most prestigious award. I'm all for taking a little of the competition out of the non-robot elements, but it just doesn't seem like this would work.

Tytus Gerrish

26-07-2003, 18:02

if it was manditory then there would Many! less teams competing but i see What you would be trying to acomplish by doing so,

Madison

26-07-2003, 18:14

Originally posted by Amanda Morrison
I have a question to pose...

What if the Chairman's Award was NOT a competition any longer?

And what if the 'submission' of sorts was mandatory, but just not competitive? What if FIRST released a list of some of the great things that teams have done over the past years?

What happens, though, to teams that need to bring back a trophy to show the people back home that they're accomplishing something?

As I've warned before, I think that as teams become more prevalent in the country and less geographically isolated from one another, finding the sponsorship needed is going to become more difficult.

When sponsors are forced to choose amongst teams, and when they expect their money to show some return on investment in positive media exposure and other things, it seems like they'd be far more inclined to choose the teams that bring home the trophies.

If the Chairman's Award is no longer awarded to a team as the most prestigious award in FIRST, the best they can then hope for is to win a Championship. While most people don't immediately recognize the importance of the Chairman's Award over winning the Competition, it's easy enough to explain -- "This is an even better award than the Championship, Mr. Sponsor. It means that we were recognized for our meaningful contributions to our community and that we work hard at extending goodwill and inspiration whenever we can. FIRST considers this award to be the cream of the crop."

In my mind, the Chairman's Award is the best chance FIRST has at stopping FIRST from degenerating any further into an organization where winning is paramount and necessary to continued survival, no matter how noble or right-minded the goals of the team are.

RogerR

26-07-2003, 18:20

if the chairmans was mandatory, more people might become aware of FIRST, but (probably) less people would be active in it.

Jason Kixmiller

26-07-2003, 18:24

After hearing all of the speeches, etc. from Dean, Woodie, and everyone else, I feel that making the Chairman's Award mandatory is totally missing the point of the award itself. I don't believe that a team should share whatever resources it may have with the community only to "look good for Chairman's." Chairman's isn't meant to force people to do good, it is meant to lift up those teams who have already succeeded in benefitting their communities and to make aware the talents that every team is capable giving. As corny as it may sound, when you give back to the community you are also receiving yourself, and the Chairman's Award is simply FIRST's way of praising teams who really do understand this.

Josh Hambright

26-07-2003, 18:26

Originally posted by RogerR
if the chairmans was mandatory, more people might become aware of FIRST, but (probably) less people would be active in it.

How would summarizing what your team has done throughout the season and answering a set of questions cause less people to be involved in FIRST?

Teams can recruit people to do the chairmans award that maybe aren't interested in doing robots but could then be exposed to what FIRST is doing. If you get a student that doesn't really want to build a robot but they really like to write and are good at coming up with things to do in the community why not have them work on the chairmans award?

Do you think that people would quit first if their team submitted a chairmans award or the executive summary?

I agree with Jason. It shouldn't be required but i do think that more teams should do it and as i said earlier i didn't even vote that it should be required. You should do it because you want to and i feel as though many people mis understand what the chairmans award and executive summary are all about.

Madison

26-07-2003, 18:29

Originally posted by RogerR
if the chairmans was mandatory, more people might become aware of FIRST, but (probably) less people would be active in it.

Honestly, do you believe this?

Maybe we need a second poll . . .

"If FIRST required your team to submit a Chairman's Award entry, would you give up and quit?"

I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to say that everyone will say no.

Edit: I should read everything first. :) Good job, Josh. Carry on. :)

RogerR

26-07-2003, 18:52

Originally posted by oneangrydwarf
Do you think that people would quit first if their team submitted a chairmans award or the executive summary?

point taken. in retrospect i should have thought a little bit longer before i started typing.

though what would a submision look like for a team that consists of 4 students and a teacher working out of a garage on a limited budget? and what about rookie teams?

Andrew

26-07-2003, 19:20

If FIRST required a Chairman's Award submission in December, prior to registration (except for Rookie Teams who get a free pass), you would be requiring teams to put together a four page description of off-season activities.

This would not be a bad thing and would encourage teams to contribute to FIRST's objectives (spreading the FIRST message, encouraging students to join a FIRST team and get inspired).

Maybe order of registration (especially open registration at Nationals) could be controlled by the CA submission.

Actually, wouldn't that be a big change. No CA, No Nationals. I would vote for that!

Ashley Weed

26-07-2003, 19:32

Originally posted by Andrew
If FIRST required a Chairman's Award submission in December, prior to registration (except for Rookie Teams who get a free pass), you would be requiring teams to put together a four page description of off-season activities.

If you have a small team, I'm sure it would be appreciated due to the fact they could complete seperate parts of the FIRST experience throughout the year, with different due dates. However, larger teams may not like the fact due to having seperate 'seasons' throughout the team.

50/50 on this.... but deff. never mandatory.

Beth Sweet

26-07-2003, 19:45

I don't think that either should be mandatory!! If a team doesn't have an intrest in putting one together, then they will probably do a pretty darn bad job with it. So here's the real question: Why should we bother to fill the judges tables with submissions that shouldn't even be there in the first place? Reserve the judges minds for those that actually want to and deserve to be judged for the award!

Rich Kressly

26-07-2003, 20:54

Since I was the one who posed the possibility in Manchester, I suppose I should respond. Before continuing you can find our 2003 submission here: http://www.cybersonics.org/cybersonics/awardentries/2003/chairman2003.asp

My originial point was simply this:

The Chairman's award is the most important award in FIRST. The message is clear from Dean, Woodie, the board and many others. FIRST is not about robots, it's about people, relationships, setting stretch goals, and ultimately transforming the culture into one that utilizes competition in a manner that supports progress, cooperation, and a peaceful global society that works together to move forward.

While the robot is the "campfire" we all gather around, the true meaning of FIRST should be embraced by all teams and thus, submitting the award as a condition of competition seems well within reach. NASA grant recipients, as a condition of the grant, must submit a copy of their Chairman's Award or similar documentation to their sponsoring NASA agency. Further, NASA teams must demostrate an active willingness to mentor other teams. In this respect, FIRST already has over 100 teams already performing "Chairman's work" just in NASA teams.

Further, putting four pages together about the team and filling out one form is not nearly as difficult, in many respects, as is every other task we are asked to perform. Chairman's submission work does not have to solely take place during build period, nor does it have to detract from other team activities.

Believe it or not, a few years back, there was a feeling around Team 103 that left some wondering why we were completing a Chairman's submission (although we always have), thinking it was "impossible" to win such an honor being from a rural setting with no industry and little resources compared to other teams. We always felt that giving back was great and worthwhile, but were wondering (like many of you) about time and resources.

However, we quickly learned the power of the process. By creating the submission and receiving feedback we learned about ourselves. We took what outreach we were performing, expanded upon it, and built new initiatives. The learning experience for our students AND adults has become an incredible one. Every time we give, we make new friends, learn more, and become stronger as a result. Students participating in the Chairman's interview process learn more about the team, FIRST, conversing with business leaders around the country, and build confidence. Talk about inspiring activities - WOW.

For the past two years, all new team applicants are asked what they know about the Chairman's award. Every team member also goes through a year end review process when they are asked several questions including one about the impact of FIRST upon their lives.

For our community there has been a transformation of culture and it's because of the Chairman's Award. Not because we've won, but because we've engaged fully in the process. I believe, at least an exective summary should be completed by all teams, and I think students learn a great deal more by submitting the four pages and participating in the interview as well. We'd love to see all communities tranformed this way. So would our founders.

Amanda Morrison

26-07-2003, 20:57

Everyone is coming up with a great argument, and this pleases me. FIRST will listen to what the teams have to say.

As for the earlier post, it wasn't so much of my opinion as to what should happen, but a counterargument. I'd still like to hear more about it. What if FIRST considered this instead? If multiple teams won per year?

Josh Hambright

26-07-2003, 21:08

The multiple teams concept is why they added the regional chairmans award.

Because there are so many teams out there doing great things that one a year wasn't cutting it. Winning the chairmans award is sorta like first saying to those teams "Hey good job, we see what you're doing and that rocks! Keep it up".

Some discussion was also given to the idea of having FIRST give feedback telling teams where they could improve and what could be done on their CA to help them get to the point where they too could win, though thats alot more work for the judges.

Its kinda odd though that the new "second most prestigious award" in first, the engineering inspiration award, isn't even worth points to get you to the championship...thats something FIRST should probably look into..

I think one thing that is being missed is that teams are assuming that they have to only submit things they have done in the current season but I know for our submission we talked about projects and things we have done over time and that has been a process of growth and exploring what we can do as much as what we are doing now. Its been said before that for many people there is no 'off season' and to some extent that could be true, there is no reason why once the championship event is over that teams have to disband and never do anything again.

Yes it may be harder for rookie teams to win, but its a great experence for teams to find out what can be done and what they are doing so far that is worthwhile and good for the community and society.

(I should probably step off my soapbox soon)

Chris Fultz

26-07-2003, 21:15

Well spoken, Rich.

"Chairmans" is not a destination, but a journey.

An entry is putting down on paper what your team is doing. If a team is only doing that work to win the award then this will show thru. My belief is that while a potential Chairman's award can be a motivator, the odds are against any one team, so the teams must be doing the work because they WANT to, not just to win the awards. I think the judges would see thru that.

patrickrd

26-07-2003, 22:31

Although I respect and admire teams that strive to win the chairman's award, I have never been a strong proponent of it, and here's why:

The mere existance of a team is great, and the existance of that team works towards the purpose of FIRST, which is to inspire kids about science and technology. Even if the team has zero community outreach, no interest in helping start other teams, and huge budget, that is a great thing! All the students on the team are having the opportunity to take part in an amazing project. Certainly it is not an ideal team, for an ideal team would have a greater influence on the community other the students on the team. I give any team that exists at all two thumbs up at accomplishing what FIRST is all about.

For this reason, it baffles me why anybody would even consider making chairman's award mandatory. When I read the idea just now, I was shocked. There are so many great teams out there who have no shot at winning the award, but do an incredible job inspiring the students who are on the team. It is not right to ask the team to do more than they already are. Well, I take that back. It is OK to ask, but it not ok to require.

Two hypothetical scenarios to consider:

1) A team exists that always builds an amazing robot, does a great job inspiring its students, and does an outstanding job in the community showing what engineering is all about. However, nobody on the team is interested in the chairman's award, because the students and mentors do not care about winning an award, but rather making a difference in their community. This is the ideal team, 100% altruistic to the purpose of FIRST.

2) On the other end of the spectrum, we have a team that struggles to even exist. Every year they spend up until the very last days of registration struggling to find enough sponsors to know they can exist for another year. The team has no engineers, and only a single teacher who knows nothing about robotics to make everything come together. But the students have a great experience. Even though they have no shot at winning, they learn a ton just through investigation and experimentation during the 6 week building period. After the season, they again return to getting enough money for the next year.

In both cases, the existance of the team is great. And in neither case, do I see requiring the team to submit a chairman's award beneficial. In fact, in the second case, requiring a chairman's award might make the team feel that perhaps they are not welcome in the FIRST community, because they are not able to influence anyone outside of their own team about science and technology.

Certainly, for those who care about winning the award, the existance of the award is great motivation for doing good in the community. However, for the rest of the teams, submitting the award is a waste of time.

- Patrick

Aaron Knight

27-07-2003, 00:07

Here's my 2 cents on the whole issue.

I personally would support a move not necessarily to make mandatory the Chairman's Award but to make teams show that they are carrying out the mission of FIRST.

While I hear and can understand where people are coming from when they talk of essentially dumbing down the Chairman's Award idea with people forced to slap something together and all that, I also understand that Dean Kamen and Woodie Flowers both preach every year in the openers that FIRST is not all about the robot itself, but in creating the robot bettering the lives and the people that the project influences and/or touches.

What, then, is needed to make sure this mission is being carried out?

FIRST already has a partial solution to this, called the Chairman's Award.

Here's an approach I haven't seen here yet: Make Chairman's Award submission mandatory, but not necessarily the participation in the competition that surrounds it. This would take the stress off of those teams already stressed out enough about sponsors et. al. and is really not that difficult at all to do.

All the Chairman's Award asks you to do is come up with four pages of what your team does to better the community in which it is located. Most teams are involved in community outreach, likely many without necessarily knowing it. On top of that, the award asks not for any special layout (although it can aid the presentation for the award itself) but for CONTENT. That is what FIRST wants to hear.

FIRST needs a way of evaluating the success of the program that is not based on the robot itself. A mandatory submission, be it a graphical masterpiece or a few pages of paragraphs done in Wordpad, would help FIRST evaluate where it is and where it needs to be. They need feedback....it isn't that difficult to give them some, now is it?

Amanda Aldridge

27-07-2003, 00:25

I, personally, would like to see at least the ES, if not a full chairman's become mandatory. In the past few years, i've seen a disturbing trend of FIRST moving more towards a "battlebots" ::gasp, she said battlebots!:: mindset on some teams. I think that if teams were "forced" to look back and reflect on their team and their FIRST experience, it might help move us collectively as an organization further away from the winner-take-all mentality that's so pervasive in our society. The one-page executive summary shouldn't be so burdensome and time consuming that all teams can't take a few minutes to fill it out. I don't know, just my $.02.

Rich Kressly

27-07-2003, 04:29

I'm a little unsure of why people are asking for judging feedback form the Chairman's judges. Since the regional award was put in place, all submitting teams in NJ have received written judge feedback, telling them where they stand in the six categories listed in the manual, pointing out the positive parts of the team and encouragement for the future. Aren't all regionals this way?

Here is one thread that shows some of the feedback 1089 - a rookie - received this year (see BandChick's post that quotes the feedback)

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20361&perpage=15&highlight=bandchick&pagenumber=1

IMDWalrus

27-07-2003, 07:32

Originally posted by Aaron Knight
Here's an approach I haven't seen here yet: Make Chairman's Award submission mandatory, but not necessarily the participation in the competition that surrounds it. This would take the stress off of those teams already stressed out enough about sponsors et. al. and is really not that difficult at all to do. I like that idea a lot, for some reason.

The one thing that I'm sure of concerning the Chairman's Award and Executive Summary is that teams should at least fill out the ES. It's not like filling out the ES will prevent a team from fielding a robot - it's one sheet of paper. It's really not that much to handle. More importantly, though, FIRST needs the feedback. The ES is one of the tools that FIRST is using to help refine and better the program and competitions for future years, and making the program that much greater for the future FIRSTers. I feel that almost everyone involved with FIRST would have to agree that that's a good thing.

Koko Ed

27-07-2003, 09:38

I don't think the Chairman's award gets the amount of respect it deserves because it is mostly invisable at the competitions and is only seen when it is given out at the awards at the end of the competitions. That's why many teams don't see it as a priority.
Who got the interview on CNN? Team 103? No. It was 111 Wildstang.
The Chairman's award may deserve respect but it is only getting paid lip service as an important award and the naysayers here have shown what they really think of it.
That's really too bad.

Steve W

27-07-2003, 10:44

After reading the ES I thought it would be better filled out by the end of May. Making it necessary for all who wish to compete the following year, allows for feedback and reflection. Most people do not fill out forms unless they must. By making mandatory by May 31 then there is no conflict with any build time or competitions. The info is still fresh from the past season and most students havn't begun exams. Rookie teams would not need a submission as they have not yet competed.
When looking at the ES, it seems that it is better filled out after season ends. As for the Chairmans I personally don't agree with mandatory submissions. I would like to see that any submission be entered at each event a team enters. By only allowing one submission and being allowed to choose the event, seems a little unfair. If a team wins at a regional then their submission would not be entered at any other regional, giving others a chance to win. As we all know judging is different at all regionals and what may win in some judges eyes might not be so impressive at another event. This way we may have more of the best submissions competing at the Championship. I think having all of the Championship submissions on display throughout the Championship might also be a good idea. This would give better exposure, allow other teams to see how to submit and what is needed and give new ideas for spreading FIRST to their communities. Just a few thoughts.

Amanda Aldridge

27-07-2003, 15:19

Originally posted by Steve W
I think having all of the Championship submissions on display throughout the Championship might also be a good idea. This would give better exposure, allow other teams to see how to submit and what is needed and give new ideas for spreading FIRST to their communities. Just a few thoughts.

Great Idea. I've long said that I would love to see what other teams have submitted in the past.

Ryan Dognaux

28-07-2003, 01:26

I've read through all of the prior posts and now have a few things to say:

The Chariman's Award - FIRST's most prestigous award. Now, say you're on a team that basically only builds a robot and that's it. Your team focuses entirely on the robot, and therefore it's really good. - My problem with that is that's not what FIRST is all about. Of course you're bringing students together and exposing them to engineering and such, but FIRST is much, much more than the robot aspect. There's animation, CAD, Public Relations, Chairman's Award, etc. I guess my question would be why "play it safe?" Why not get out there and get more people interested in this wonderful program? Why not help out the community during the off season? And if you do do this, then why not write up something about it and try for this award? Those were just some of the questions going through my mind. Ahem, back on track - Chairmans Award Mandatory?? Well, it would have some positive and negative effects. It could jump start some team's motivation problems, or whatever it is, that keeps them from getting out there in their community and doing what FIRST needs. However, this could also take away from the many teams that already strive to do so much. Chairmans Award's status could fall from the highest award to a lesser distinguished award.

But really, if you do the community service and the starting of other teams just for Charimans Award... you're missing the whole point of it. Forcing Chairmans Award would kind of be the same idea... people would miss the entire point of it.

Hopefully that made some sense... :]

Joe Matt

28-07-2003, 10:57

Some teams cannot simply make ends meet to build a robot, let alone a Chairman's Award. I think FIRST should not make it mandatory and keep it as it is. Let the FIRST teams step up to the plate when they are ready.

Pin Man

01-08-2003, 17:44

Both should because it shows how effective FIRST is in student's lives...

Pin Man

01-08-2003, 17:46

Originally posted by Ryan Dognaux
I've read through all of the prior posts and now have a few things to say:

The Chariman's Award - FIRST's most prestigous award. Now, say you're on a team that basically only builds a robot and that's it. Your team focuses entirely on the robot, and therefore it's really good. - My problem with that is that's not what FIRST is all about. Of course you're bringing students together and exposing them to engineering and such, but FIRST is much, much more than the robot aspect. There's animation, CAD, Public Relations, Chairman's Award, etc. I guess my question would be why "play it safe?" Why not get out there and get more people interested in this wonderful program? Why not help out the community during the off season? And if you do do this, then why not write up something about it and try for this award? Those were just some of the questions going through my mind. Ahem, back on track - Chairmans Award Mandatory?? Well, it would have some positive and negative effects. It could jump start some team's motivation problems, or whatever it is, that keeps them from getting out there in their community and doing what FIRST needs. However, this could also take away from the many teams that already strive to do so much. Chairmans Award's status could fall from the highest award to a lesser distinguished award.

But really, if you do the community service and the starting of other teams just for Charimans Award... you're missing the whole point of it. Forcing Chairmans Award would kind of be the same idea... people would miss the entire point of it.

Hopefully that made some sense... :]

Where have you been? that's exactly how I feel... I have been looking for someone that has the same point of view to this as me... Nice post, I couldn't have said it any better myself...