Should the Chairmans Award be Mandatory?
 

One subject that was discussed in Manchester this week concerning the chairmans award was to make it MANDATORY for all teams to submit a chairmans award or atleast the executive summary to make sure that teams are doing their part to spread FIRST and doing more then just building robots.

On the way home my team discussed this at length and formed our own opinions on the matter.

How do you guys feel about this?

Re: Should the Chairmans Award be Mandatory?
 

Not all teams WANT to do "their part to spread FIRST" some teams do not do any chairman's related activities. That should be there right.

Every team does FIRST differently. Making something like this mandatory, won't help spread FIRST.

I voted for, make neither mandatory. Teams should get to do what they want. It's their business.

Neither should be mandatory - that'd be like making the animation contest mandatory. Some teams don't want to do it or may not have the resources to do it... perhaps they'd rather focus on some other aspect of FIRST more. Also, many rookie teams probably will probably have enough on their hands to deal with.

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)

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.

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 . 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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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?

I think it would be great for FIRST to publish what people have submitted and that was actualy one of the ideas discussed in Manchester.

It would be awsome to see what other people done although some teams dont even release WINNING entries to the public let alone their non winning entries.

There is a concern that teams would just start doing cookie cutter activities but even if they are, well then they are still doing things to help the community weither or not they are winning a chairmans award.

For alot of teams it doesn't matter if they win or not they do it for more then a trophy and a title and bragging rights... they do it because they seriously care and believe in what first is trying to do.

And Chris: Is it THAT scary that you would agree with me:)