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

In no way does this post reflect my opinion of my team, the judges, or even FIRST as a whole. This is simply an observation that I thought I would share and hopefully get some feedback from the community and in no way am I trying to slander any team is affiliated with the topic below as I have so much respect for the teams within in FIRST that are making it loud within their community.

Since 2014, when FIRST began allocating judged awards at the division level except for Chairman's I have noticed a significant trend in how FIRST awards the Engineering Inspiration award. In the last three years, 10 out of the 12 teams that won Engineering Inspiration at a subdivision level also won were honored as regional Chairman's Award Winners earlier in the year at another regional. Many of these same RCA teams also won Engineering Inspiration at another regional within the same year they won Engineering Inspiration within a subdivision. For those who do not know, unlike the Chairman’s award winners, regional Engineering Inspiration winners do not give a formal presentation at champs as judging for this award at a subdivision level is mainly done within the pits which qualifies any team to win Engineering Inspiration despite not winning it at regional. For many teams, it is quite an accomplishment to win an Engineering Inspiration at a regional but it is in my opinion, the same teams do not have the equal opportunity as RCA teams because they are not provided a chance to give a formal presentation. While a lot of information can be relayed to judges within the pits I do not feel that it is sufficient or personal enough to talk about the team’s initiatives and outreach efforts. In the current system at champs I believe that it does not favor teams to win Engineering Inspiration despite them being awarded the same award at a regional. This makes it seem that FIRST sees Engineering Inspiration as a “second place CA”. I have the utmost respect for Chairman Award Winning Teams and completely understand the level of caliber required to become a CA team. I also understand, how prestigious it is to win CA at Champs. But It seems that many teams that qualify for champs by winning Engineering Inspiration have to compete with the CA for the same award which qualfied them for champs in the first place.

Now this post would not be of any use if I did not mention how to fix this issue and while I am not certain any of these options would be a perfect solution it might be a combination of ideas to change this.

• I am not sure if this occurs at other District Champs but at MAR Champs, the Engineering Inspiration winners from each district receive a 10 minute Q & A session regardless if they also won Chairman's at a district. Provide this opportunity to just the Engineering Inspiration winners from each regional at Champs or a similar presentation opportunity.

• Only judge Engineering Inspiration in the pits based off the teams that qualified for Champs by winning Engineering Inspiration at a regional

• Exclude RCA from winning subdivision Engineering Inspiration awards

I look forward to the hopefully healthy and productive discussion that will take place in this thread and to understand the opinions of others.

TL;DR

Many times, within FIRST it is possible for EI to be seen as a second place Chairman’s Award, while EI is prestigious for its own reasons, I believe that teams that win Engineering Inspiration at a regional deserve that same opportunity to win that award at a subdivision level.

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

I'm surprised, because I've always thought that the Gracious Professionalism award was 'Chairman's runner up'.

I'm with a team that's won eight RCA's, but never won an Engineering Inspiration. But the last two years, no RCA and two regional GP's. In 2012, an Einstein GP. Really honored, but not as much as Chairman's. But you can see how we associate GP with not winning RCA.

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.

Chairman's criteria is much harder to put into one sentence. But it does involve inspiring engineers and gracious professionalism too.

Probably a venn diagram would intersect these two at 'chairmans'.

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

A team that receives the GP Award is nominated by other teams via a form handed out in the pits, I believe.

Could be wrong, though. I just remember a form being handed out for the GP Award at the pits for the OC Regional.

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

I would agree with what you said that because Chairman's team need to incorporate not only inspiring engineers but making an impact in their community as well as practising GP. While EI and GP are a part of Chairmans, I just do not think it is always a two-way street in terms of EI

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

As far as it goes in the championship, there is nothing to do between EI and CA.
The judges are an entirely different panel, and they do not even communicate regarding what team's they see as potential winners of an award.

In theory, it is even possible to win the EI at a sub division and also win the CA on Einstein.
This goes to prove that the EI is not a second place of the CA. It's judges with different criteria.

The EI judges talk to all the teams at the divisions they are in. The teams only get the pit talk, and have to make it as good as they can. The 12 min CA interview has nothing to do with that.

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

In my opinion, this isnt necessarily true.
I have seen teams that try for the CA, win EI a lot of the times, but never both awards.
I can also tell you from 1st hand knowledge from judges in the past that they indeed communicate with each other.

In my opinion, a lot of teams trying for the RCA or CCA have a better chance of winning EI, because as they try for the Chairman's Award, an interview takes place, giving that team an additional formal opportunity to showcase their program. This provides an advantage that a non-participating RCA team does not have.
EI-RCA/CCA goes hand in hand, even if indirectly.

Regardless of whether or not it is said explicitly or not, awards are spread around given to as many different teams as possible. Fact according to.....:)

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

This is what I am trying to convey. That non RCA and even REI winners are at disadvantage to win that award. For me it seems a little backwards that a team who might have only won a RCA can win EI at Champs. It's like saying a veteran team should be able to be chosen as RAS because they were a rookie once too

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

In week 2, in NH, our team won EI award without presenting for CA. So these are not necessarily connected.

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

I am going to have to disagree with you on this because atleast one third of the teams that have won Champs EI were solely RCA before they came to champs

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

this has happened a few times in MAR as well but many times District EI winners are usually taken from the pool of teams that applied for CA

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

From my experience in the judging room? No. I've been in both MAR and Regional judge rooms and Chairman's is a separate process from everything else.

Are teams that are strong candidates for EI usually strong candidates for Chairman's? 85% of the time, yes.

Additionally, the Judge Advisor has the job to ensure fairness for all teams (keeping judges in line, make sure everyone has an equal opportunity at all of the awards, ect.). When the chairman's judges make their decision, typically by the end of day 2, a team usually gets wiped out of the running of everything else. Due to fairness standards, teams are typically out of the running if they already won an award. Since Chairman's is the big cheese, its a trump card.

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

If you look at the judging criteria, EI is a little more short term IE current year is more heavily weighted. Has a specific encourage engineering field component. Other than that their are a lot of similarities.

Judges that pick the EI are not the same as judges picking chairman's, but the teams are presenting the same material to both. You cannot when Chairmans without presenting, But if you are good enough to win Chairmans, chances are you have a good story for EI as well.

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

You can look at our history as an example.
In 2008, we won the Hawaii RCA.
At Championships that year, we won EI (only 1 given to the entire event).
Our program has never won a regional EI ever in over 30+ regional events attended.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Not a 100% sure on this, but from region to region are all CA candidates judged on the same criteria/ grading sheet? If so is there universal criteria for EI or does that vary from regional to regional?

If there isn't an universal criteria for EI could this be a reason why a team might win CA at one regional but then give their same presentation at different regional to different judges and win Regional EI?

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

I know this can be usually the case when going for Chairman's doesn't guarantee a team to be in the running for EI. but at least from experience within the district model. the teams that usually win EI are from the chairman's pool. In fact at least in MAR, many teams have won both EI and DCAin the same season entering the district championship

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

2015 Indiana DCA - 135, 234, 4272
2015 Indiana DEI - 461, 1501, 1741

2016 Indiana DCA - 868, 1741, 1747
2016 Indiana DEI - 135, 461, 2197

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

When I first started in FRC and up until recently I always was very upset with the way FRC judging was run. I felt that from the criteria to the judging it self there were many ways to improve it.
After having more time to think things through, I've found that the judging in FIRST is done in a way to foster creativity and innovation. For example if you say for the chairman's award they said the team that starts the most teams or mentors the most teams will win, this would limit teams to whatever criteria FIRST would set and it would also distract from what the Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration awards are all about.
Connecting this to OPs point, there is overlap with Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration and that's OK.
I fear the more we limit any award like this, teams may focus more on how to win, more than how to do good in the world through innovative methods. My point here is that right now yes you could argue these awards are subjective and not set up the best way but this is what acts as the insensitive for people to go out and do new awesome things. Whether they start doing these things for the right reasons or not, I believe in the end they will see what it is really all about.

I am the first one to admit that in my early stages in FIRST I just wanted to do things because it would make our team have a better shot at winning chairman's or EI. It was only after doing some of the new and innovative things our team, like many others do, came up with that the reflection of our community impact came back and hit me (along with help from some great FIRST alum, and our teams mentors along the way) Whether it was people just saying thank you after an outreach event, seeing people that you first hand brought to FIRST thrive in the program, or meeting amazing people that do incredibility things in all parts of the community. All of this helped to show me what it was all about. This all started with me having the wrong mindset and the sometimes seeming ambiguous judging criteria (along with many passionate people on my team) brought me around and showed me that sure you can do things that sound good but the judges will really pay attention when they see your teams true passion and how it has impacted the community.
Every team has this, I can take time to learn how to express it.
The things that stick with you are not winning the awards but the impact you make on people. This is what it is all about. The awards like EI are just a cherry on top.

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

As a relatively new (three year) mentor, I can say that my ultimate goal in FIRST would be the Engineering Inspiration award. Well, that isn't quite true. My ultimate goal is to inspire great engineering in the upcoming generation. I was just incredibly proud to see some of the student accomplishments on my team this year, not necessarily on the playing field (we didn't have a great year), but on spreadsheets. In code. On drawings. Talking with teenagers about no load rpm, stall torque and stall current. Seeing kids do great things, and knowing that I had a role in it. Very heady stuff.....at least for a geek like me.

Nevertheless, I would also like to win the award. Yeah, it's just a reflection of the real work, but it would still be pretty cool.

With that in mind, are there more specific criteria for the award than "inspire engineering", or whatever slightly longer version of that that appears in the admin manual?

What about the awards statements themselves that are read out at events? I would like to hear what other people did to win the award, and those other awards that are given out. Is there a place I can look up FIRST award citations? A lot of chairman's videos end up on youtube, but if I don't happen to be at the event when the Innovation in Control award or the Engineering Inspiration award is given out, is there any way I can learn what teams did to get them?


As for the specific contents of the question from the opening post, I have heard it said that EI is a second place chairman's award. For me, personally, I would see it as a first place, but apparently, that opinion is not universal.

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

If you are looking for a checklist of requirements for EI, you won't get one because it does not exist, and it's not possible for one to exist - inspiration can happen and be measured in as many ways as there are teams. Truelight hit the nail on the head here:

Judges are guided by an experienced and trained Judge Advisor, which should ensure that the judging process at its core is similar across all events. Judges also receive a handbook, which is not public.

But, there is the awards manual, which explicitly sets guidelines for EI, and while it does not give an explicit set of guidelines for CA, the descriptions of the submission contents are the guidelines there:

https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...-manual-06.pdf

EI specifically recognizes engineering outreach, impact, etc. FIRST has many facets and can inspire people to pursue many passions (engineering, science, technology, math, teaching, medicine, outreach, etc), but this award is primarily about ways a team is inspiring others to the field of engineering. Applying for CA is neither a guideline nor requirement.

CA is a more broad and is about the experience: the impact of the team on their community, sponsors, and the team members itself, and the partnership that forms between those groups. FIRST is a competition of engineering, so naturally this experience will involve engineering in some way, but FIRST is not "FIRE: For Inspiration and Recognition of Engineering" - it's more than robots, and the CA recognizes the "more than robots" part (though robots can be a method used to achieve the "more than robots" impact). From the awards manual:

There is some overlap between the two awards (measurable impact), and the qualities of some activities can satisfy what the judges are looking for for both awards, which is why many teams win both in the span of a season or successive seasons. But they are two very different awards.

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

From the FRC Administrative Manual:

"6.14.7 Engineering Inspiration Award
Celebrates outstanding success in advancing respect and appreciation for engineering within a team’s school or organization and community.

6.14.7.1 GUIDELINES
■ Extent and inventiveness of the team’s efforts to recruit students to engineering with particular emphasis on the most recent year’s efforts. Measurable success of those efforts.
■ Extent and effectiveness of the team’s community outreach efforts with particular emphasis on the most recent year’s efforts. Measurable success of those efforts.
■ A commitment to science and technology education among the team, school, and community.
■ Achievement of the FIRST mission and ability to communicate that at the competition and away from it.
■ Efforts are ongoing, not strictly concentrated on the build and competition season."

While I am sure that the judging varies from event to event, I am fairly certain that the award follows this criteria. As far as differences between EI and Chairman's, you can see that here in the "emphasis on the most recent year's efforts" and "commitment to science and technology education". Much of the language is similar to the Chairman's Award, though, and so we can see where the overlap may occur.

The Chairman's Award is much easier to judge consistently (though surely discrepancies still do exist), I believe, than other awards because of the constraints on submissions. Often, Chairman's judges are also more experienced judges with that award in particular or with the rest of the FRC judging process.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain more?

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

MAR
-----
2012
DCA:1218, 433, 11, 2590, 75
DEI: 1923, 321, 75, 433, 3142

2013
DCA:1218, 2590, 433, 75, 11, 2729
DEI: 1403, 3142, 321, 1676, 75, 321

2014
DCA: 1676, 1218, 433, 303, 2590, 75
DEI: 75, 25, 365, 3142, 4575, 1676

2015
DCA: 1647, 303, 708, 1218, 1676, 321, 1923
DEI: 11, 1676, 1218, 2729, 75, 365, 3314

2016
DCA: 1923, 708, 1647, 321, 869, 1218, 1403
DEI: 303, 1218, 2590, 11, 1676, 272, 4575

PNW
-----
2014
DCA: 2046, 4488, 2522, 1983, 3219, 4057, 1318, 948, 4125, 1540
DEI: 3786, 4057, 4911, 4125, 2980, 4043, 2903, 4060, 2910, 2990

2015
DCA: 1540, 2557, 4125, 2930, 3574, 2980, 3588, 4911, 1983, 3219
DEI: 3673, 3588, 4980, 4915, 1540, 2930, 1595, 488, 3024, 3574

2016
DCA: 2257, 4125, 1540, 4911, 1983, 3574, 1510, 2471, 2980
DEI: 3786, 4061, 1510, 2522, 4125, 4911, 3574, 2635, 2046

NE
-----
2014
DCA: 811, 3467, 78, 2648, 1100, 558, 1058, 2067, 125
DEI: 2648, 4546, 228, 3930, 1519, 1735, 3467, 178, 3525

2015
DCA: 467, 195, 178, 4905, 2877, 2648, 558, 1058, 1519
DEI: 811, 228, 176, 1735, 5512, 3930, 78, 2648, 172

2016*
DCA: 230, 4905, 4761, 2648, 4176, 166, 125, 558, 467
DEI: 4557, 5422, 4909, 172, 246, 1519, 190, 2067, 1058

FIM
-----
2009*
DCA: 247, 33, 280, 66, 27, 503, 217
DEI: 85, 68, 2673, 440, 1023, 1718, 815

2010
DCA: 548, DATA NOT LISTED IN TBA, 226, 503, 27, 1718, 33
DEI: 2834, DATA NOT LISTED IN TBA, 217, 247, 1, 141, 503

2011
DCA: 2604, 66, 548, 1, 1718, 503, 2337, 33, 1023
DEI: 2834, 141, 862, 503, 27, 141, 830, 68, 2137

2012
DCA: 1711, 85, 66, 503, 123, 1718, 27, 548, 33, 2137
DEI: 2337, 123, 830, 2834, 1023, 2771, 94, 68, 1718, 27

2013
DCA: 68, 2771, 3641, 548, 2834, 27, 1718, 141, 503, 2337, 1023
DEI: 862, 1711, 141, 2834, 314, 4325, 2604, 862, 3641, 217, 226

2014
DCA: 1718, 33, 2771, 503, 1023, 548, 2137, 1711, 1506, 280, 2337, 68, 2834, 314, 2604
DEI: 1023, 470, 4377, 2337, 3602, 27, 302, 857, 2771, 548, 141, 1, 3547, 503, 4130

2015
DCA: 141, 1023, 503, 4967, 2604, 2137, 280, 3641, 245, 3618, 3547, 1718, 68, 1322, 548, 862, 1502, 33
DEI: 3322, 1701, 3770, 3620, 1711, 1718, 2611, 2834, 94, 2619, 2767, 226, 123, 2771, 217, 2137, 5084, 2337

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

Surprisingly enough between MAR, PNW, FiM, NE, and IN; IN is the only district top never have a team win DCA and DEI in the same and it has happened at least once in the four other districts every year except for FiM (2009) and NE (2016).

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

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

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

Great work on digging up these numbers.

The above is half right however after the event it was corrected and awarded to team 2648 who was runner up.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=136107

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

Ok, that make sense.
But, since they are different awards it is justifiable for an RCA to win EI at champs because of the overlap? I have no problem with teams winning both in a season before champs. I find that the judging process is somewhat fair and reasonable at a regional and district level but In my opinion, 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. Many teams would love the opportunity to win an REI let alone an RCA. It just seems kinda strange to have an RCA team in the same discussion with a REI for a subdivision EI win

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

thanks for finding that, I found it kinda odd for a team for win EI twice within a division so I thought something was up but could not find that post. I corrected in the original comment

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

I don't really see how there's an issue. RCA winning teams are not inherently better than teams that do not win an RCA in a given year (or win EI). Different regions have different levels of competition for both awards. You're correct that it's more likely that an RCA team has done work that makes them a good candidate for EI, but at the end of the day, we're looking for the team that best fits the criteria of the Engineering Inspiration award-- the best of the best in that subdivision. I believe that the best team for those criteria should be chosen, whether they're an RCA winner or not.

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

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

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

I think you really hit the nail on the head for me with this. I agree with you 100%. For me, it just felt for the teams that just go to champs with an REI award should be able to compete for that award at champs and be compared to other REI teams. It just felt like some REI don't get the recognition they deserve because they are competing with RCA who are usually at a higher caliber. Some teams are EI teams some are CA teams very few are both (this is where the overlaps occurs). For some teams, it is hard to take that step as an EI team to winning a RCA so for that team, an REI might seem like the greatest thing to happen them despite its relationship to a RCA. I just believe that that team that worked hard for a REI shouldn't be counted out of the discussion to win EI at a subdivison

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

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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.

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?
 

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.

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.

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.

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?
 

just for reference who won in their place?

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

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?
 

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!!