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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. :)

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?

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!

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.

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!

Lots of good discussion here!
 

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/cybersoni...airman2003.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.

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?

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)

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.