Chief Delphi - Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148119)

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumpthero786 (Post 1582889)

Hey, you forgot 2729's 2013 DCA! Great compilation, though. It really puts things into perspective.

whoops haha. When you go back and forth between TBA and CD on two different monitors your bound to forgot something. I fixed it in original post. Thanks

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Just look at all of the Division EI winners.
Archimedes/Tesla: 3211-RCA Western Canada Regional
Carson/Galileo: 2468-RCA Utah Regional
Curie/Carver: 3990-RCA Montreal Regional
Hopper/Newton: 1676-RCA Buckeye Regional

They are all RCA winners. The same can be said for all 2015 EI winners.
Teams who have won both awards have an advantage over teams just competing for EI. Teams that have won both should chose which award they are competing for.
These are my own views. They may or may not reflect the beliefs of my team.

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broboraider (Post 1582877)

I believe that it takes the opportunity away from REI teams to win EI at champs if they have to compete with RCA teams as well.

Well, technically, they're competing against every other team there, RCA winners and not. They're also competing against many teams who were strong contenders for REI and RCA, but ultimately didn't win the award.

I'm conflicted on how I feel about EI is given out at champs. I can see a case for why it's open to everyone whether they're a REI winner or not (since it's not an interviewed/presentation award at regionals*), and an equally strong case for why only REI teams should be eligible at CMP (since it's an award that gets you a ticket to CMP so that's kinda why you're there).

*The reason there's a presentation at DCMPs is because winning EI at a district doesn't autoqualify the team+robot for DCMP, so it's entirely possible for a team to compete for EI at DCMP without their robot being there.

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Quote:

Originally Posted by adpalonis19 (Post 1582905)

2016
-----
3211 RCA
2468 RCA
1676 RCA and EI
3990 RCA and EI

2015
-----
3478 RCA and EI
195 RCA
3132 RCA and EI
771 RCA and EI

2014
-----
2158 EI
2468 RCA
384
1710 RCA

2013
-----
3478 EI

2012
-----
1629 RCA
-----

I am really glad you hit on this because I pulled up the data from division/subdivision who won EI at champs in last 4 years. In 2014, FIRST awarding EI at the subdivision level. Just a quick look at the data since 2014, all but 2 teams won RCA before champs.
2158 is only team in this time span to win EI at champs after only winning EI at a regional. Lastly 384 was the last team to win EI at champs without a RCA or REI

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broboraider (Post 1582867)

2016
DCA: 1322, 1025, 3618, 33, 2604, 2834, 66, 503, 3767, 2619, 68, 548, 2137, 85, 4776, 2771, 2959, 1718, 3641, 5090, 1711
DEI: 1, 573, 3602, 1023, 2337, 85, 4967, 3175, 2586, 226, 1502, 3641, 4130, 4956, 68, 2767, 503, 2337, 3322, 3175, 5505

If what you're trying to accomplish with the bolding is to highlight teams that won both DCA and DEI, 3175 and 2337 both did not win DCA, we both just were in the situation where we were repeat DEI winners (which isn't supposed to happen). Thank you, however for doing the research for this.

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broboraider (Post 1582872)

in simple terms:
If team A goes to Regional X and gives their presentation and win EI at Regional X
and if they went to Regional Y instead and gave the same presentation they gave at Regional X then they might win RCA at Regional Y

There is no presentation for the Engineering Inspiration award.

The Chairman's Award judges who see the team's CA presentation are not the same judges who decide who gets EI.

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broboraider (Post 1582872)

in simple terms:
If team A goes to Regional X and gives their presentation and win EI at Regional X and if they went to Regional Y instead and gave the same presentation they gave at Regional X then they might win RCA at Regional Y

Except, a team does not give a presentation for EI, only for the RCA/DCA.

The EI is judged by a different set of judges that talk to the teams in the pits. Of course the process of submitting for the RCA/DCA does likely improve the focus of that message, as it means a team is at least practicing how they present delivering their message to the judges. Now I am not saying that the RCA/DCA judges do not provide input or insight for the EI discussion, because of course they do. But the entire group of judges must agree in deciding who gets the (other than RCA/DCA) team awards and the robot awards.

It is NOT a given that a team is considered for EI or RCA/DCA because they have won the other earlier in the season or for EI specifically because they submitted for the RCA/DCA. While the same students that present for RCA/DCA may talk to both groups of judges, the flow of the conversation is very different. Often it is different students that did not present for RCA/DCA in the pits talking to the team judges. Different groups of judges talking to different students from a team that get similar strong engineering inspiration message from that team is what greatly improves the likelihood of getting a team award. The same thing can be said about being impressed by the robot design and engineering for the robot awards.

As has been mentioned before, if a team wins both in a year, that is because they have a strong program. Heck, it doesn't even matter if they have a good robot. FIRST is about more than robots, right? A team that wins either RCA/DCA or EI have inspired students, that do a good job of conveying that inspiration, the why and how they were inspired, and in turn how they inspire those around their team.

It is those students that inspire the judges to give them the awards.

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Standard Disclaimer: The opinions presented below are my own and do not reflect those of my team.

After 15 years spent in FIRST, there's a lot of things I've figured out. The precise method by which the recipients of these awards is determined has not been one of those things.

After reading this thread, I guess my first thought is, "I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the awards and judging process confusing."

In fact, it could still to this day remain as one of the great unsolved mysteries in FIRST. I don't know if there is any secret formula to winning the Engineering Inspiration Award, but if there is, I think Team 3880 has found it, winning 6 times in 5 years. Maybe someone from that team can chime in here and enlighten us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrench (Post 1582612)

It's my impression that the criteria to win Engineering Inspiration is the creation of engineering classes and engineering curriculum in your school, to encourages future engineers.

I can just about guarantee you that isn't it. We've been there and done that, many years over now, and do not have a single EI to show for it. No disrespect to any previous winners (many of whom are friends of mine) but there are plenty of teams not even associated with a school that have received this award (and don't even get me started on how FIRST as an organization generally undervalues partnerships and integration with schools).

Quite honestly, the mystery and inconsistency surrounding these awards, and my team's experiences surrounding our efforts toward them over the past several years has caused me to redirect my focus not toward winning awards, but toward educating students. And furthermore, I've come to realize that in some instances, that goal can be better achieved through programs other than FIRST Robotics.

And one more point: I've also perpetually wondered why the Engineering Inspiration Award wins you a $5,000 check and the Chairman's Award (FIRST's so-called "highest honor") wins you a $5,000 invoice. It's a very mixed message if you ask me.

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red2486 (Post 1582701)

I think that a lot of this comes from EI and CA genuinely having a lot of overlap. EI focuses on strength of partnership within the team, school, and community. Sustainability and measurable reach are the primary components of EI, but they are also components of the Chairman's Award. A good CA team will most likely be a good EI team as well.

As far as competing at the Championship, I believe the teams that best embody each award should win the award. Maybe these teams, who don't win EI at the their qualifying events, win at the Championship because they are the best EI teams, but were awarded the Chairman's Award because they were also the best at that, and that award is more prestigious.

As far as judging goes, I think EI teams are actually at an advantage. Chairman's Award teams have an extremely limited time with the judges and their interactions are very restricted. Judged awards give teams more time with the judges and the ability to talk about their work with multiple panels of judges.

All fantastic points. I think this is what the perceived nature of the two Awards boils down to: they have very similar aims. They both reward teams who can most effectively change (and convey how they change) the culture of their team and community. The overlap in winners is due to strong programs, not necessarily Judges favoring winners with a certain record. It's kind of a "correlation over causation" thing to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson (Post 1582983)

There is no presentation for the Engineering Inspiration award.

There is at DCMPs. This is a new rule as of last year*, because of how teams qualify to compete with this award. Teams might win a DEI but not have enough District Points to qualify with their robot. The team does a dedicated presentation at this point for the DCEI. To maintain a fair level of competition, all DEI winning teams will present at the DCMP, regardless of whether or not their robot qualified. At Regionals, every team qualifies, meaning there are no presentations.

*I assume it was last year. As a 2014 CA presenter, I don't remember our team doing any presentation for EI at MICMP, even though we had won a DEI that year. 2016 was my team's next DEI win - we did have a DCEI presentation this year. I assume the rule change had come some time in between - maybe it's new this year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen (Post 1582998)

Except, a team does not give a presentation for EI, only for the RCA/DCA.

The EI is judged by a different set of judges that talk to the teams in the pits. Of course the process of submitting for the RCA/DCA does likely improve the focus of that message, as it means a team is at least practicing how they present delivering their message to the judges. Now I am not saying that the RCA/DCA judges do not provide input or insight for the EI discussion, because of course they do. But the entire group of judges must agree in deciding who gets the (other than RCA/DCA) team awards and the robot awards.

It is NOT a given that a team is considered for EI or RCA/DCA because they have won the other earlier in the season or for EI specifically because they submitted for the RCA/DCA. While the same students that present for RCA/DCA may talk to both groups of judges, the flow of the conversation is very different. Often it is different students that did not present for RCA/DCA in the pits talking to the team judges. Different groups of judges talking to different students from a team that get similar strong engineering inspiration message from that team is what greatly improves the likelihood of getting a team award. The same thing can be said about being impressed by the robot design and engineering for the robot awards.

As has been mentioned before, if a team wins both in a year, that is because they have a strong program. Heck, it doesn't even matter if they have a good robot. FIRST is about more than robots, right? A team that wins either RCA/DCA or EI have inspired students, that do a good job of conveying that inspiration, the why and how they were inspired, and in turn how they inspire those around their team.

It is those students that inspire the judges to give them the awards.

As I read your post, each of the statements I've bolded made me pause and think about how I think differently about the awards. I've heard that (many) CA judges are quarantined for almost all of the competition, I don't know any team that has a different set of kids for presentation and CA/EI pit talks, and I can name almost no programs that don't have consistently strong robots alongside CA/EI wins my own team's from 2010-2013 being one exception... I say this not to try and "call you out," but to point out how different the every team's judging experience can be. Depending on the region, team, and judges, so many factors can change. I personally think this is an interesting nuance to remind teams that these awards aren't about the awards themselves, rather than proof that the awards criteria need to be standardized and streamlined. Others may disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red2486 (Post 1582701)

And if we want to throw a little more fuel into the fire, I've also perpetually wondered why the Engineering Inspiration Award wins you a $5,000 check and the Chairman's Award (FIRST's so-called "highest honor") wins you a $5,000 invoice. It's a very mixed message if you ask me.

Heh, I've always kinda chuckled at this one. I'm 99% sure this is a NASA-sponsored grant. The reason why NASA sponsors EI over Chairman's isn't clear to me, but it might have to do with the fact that one award has the words "Engineering" and "Inspiration" in the title, while the other doesn't. To the uninformed ear, one sounds like a very STEM-focused community outreach award while the other sounds maybe important but very vague. If I was a NASA exec with enough money to spend on only one award, I know which one I'd probably pick.

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3175student17 (Post 1582963)

just for reference who won in their place?

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broboraider (Post 1583059)

just for reference who won in their place?

If you're asking for a team that was given the award instead of the repeat winners, they didn't re-award it. It ended up just reducing the pool of EI applicants at MSC.

Its kinda funny because my team has experience with winning awards that they shouldn't (although it doesn't show on the awards summary, we have awards for RAS, RI, and HRS all from the same event back in 2010).

Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red2486 (Post 1582701)

On a final note, one of the teams that best embodied Engineering Inspiration to me is GaCo 1629. They have an excellent program that is geared toward Engineering Inspiration and won multiple Championship EI's back when only one was given. While they have earned Chairman's Awards since then, I would look to them as an outstanding EI team.

Wow, thank you for the kind words! We at 1629 try to come up with unique ways of involving everyone in our school system and community!!