Re: Chairman's Award -- is the bar too high now?
 

I may be in a minority, but I don't think every team should apply, or be urged to apply, for the Chairman's Award. Our team has applied for CA every year since 2010 (and probably before that, since we go the NASA grants from the beginning, I believe). And I think it's been mostly a waste of time and a misappropriation of resources. I hope that this (next) year, I can convince everyone that we need to devote our very limited human resources (students and mentors) to 'shoring up our own house' - focusing on our business plan, making our own team sustainable, building up what we are doing for our kids in our community (we have a lot to do!), and not spend valuable time trying to 'spin' that stuff into CA material. We're just not ready to 'reach out' and help others, when we have so far to go ourselves, and while the organization and presentation skills the kids gain in putting together the presentation are valuable, I do not think it's appropriate for teams like ours to attempt to DO the things that a team must DO to earn the CA. (In our case, it's darn near impossible at this stage of our team development. How can we do international or even out-of-state outreach, or start new FIRST teams on our little island, when (1) all our elementary schools already have FLL, (2) there is no FTC competition in the state (I don't think, not sure about that - certainly none on our island), and (3) we can only (barely) support one FRC team for ALL of our high schools together?

I think FIRST should have another award, maybe, for teams like ours - maybe it is already there - the Entrepreneurship Award, or maybe EI... or call it the "Team Sustainability" award. (Maybe a team should HAVE to win something like that BEFORE they can even be considered for CA.) It is pretty clear that the kind of things WE need to focus our resources on (if we are to survive and grow to the point that we can hope to do more CA-quality stuff) - getting more students, more mentors, more sponsors - are not what they are looking for in CA.

Re: Chairman's Award -- is the bar too high now?
 

I think team sustainability is really key - this is the whole issue focusing on FRC teams starting a bunch of FLL, FTC, and FRC teams...how sustainable is that, when you have such limited community resources? At times it seems like the push to have each team start a hundred more is a pyramid scheme, with little thought to how this might drain volunteers and scatter energy. Our efforts are better spent sharing (non-FIRST) STEAM activities with our community, to help foster more interest in something that kids and families can do without having to spend a bunch of money on a kit and a laptop or without finding an FLL team with openings.

I remember recruiting kids to 4-H and showing them the incredible variety of projects available....then having to say "well, there's no leader for that project, so you are going to have to do it on your own and just work with the extension office if you have questions." In a way, FIRST is like that, but worse because the initial costs are so high and there really is no way a student can do it on their own. Our team was started 9 years ago by 4 students like that, and we still struggle with getting mentors.

All that said, I still think doing a presentation is helpful. Maybe format it so it can be used for sponsors and civic groups, not just for the CA?

Re: Chairman's Award -- is the bar too high now?
 

Do what is right for your team, but without any FTC on your Island, starting FTC in you local sounds like a great way to expand FIRST and start a pipeline of students from FLL to FRC.

Re: Chairman's Award -- is the bar too high now?
 

Not a bad idea! A few years ago, a few of us mentors started a 501(c)(3) organization to support all robotics on our island (at the time we had VEX teams at MS level, changes in that tournament structure made it much less appealing for our students to participate and the teams have mostly disappeared, we are working on getting something going for those kids but it is not likely to be FTC or VEX), and we recently became a United Way participating agency. We are also applying for some other grants, so perhaps we could use our CA presentation for those applications. Nice idea!

Re: Chairman's Award -- is the bar too high now?
 

This thread takes me back to something I said many years ago that ended up as a spotlight quote here on Chief Delphi:

I would rather see teams be recognized for the things they do, than do things to be recognized.

It is certainly disheartening to fall into the trap/mindset of "If that's what Chairman's is, it will never be us."

There are real limits to what each team is able to accomplish in their own community, and chairman's should not be a battle based on quantification of the outcomes of a team's efforts, because it leads to a competition to engage in efforts without a genuine motivation to do so other than to win the award.

I do not intend this post to diminish the extraordinary efforts of some very well deserving teams. However, the types of activities for which some have been recognized are just not within the scope of our program, and likely never will be, and not because of any lack of motivation or resources but because of a difference in structural and educational philosophy, and the desire to put quality over quantity.

Re: Chairman's Award -- is the bar too high now?
 

A couple thoughts have occurred to me as a read (and reread) this thread. The first is that you should not worry overly much about what a winning CA submission should be like. We have won three RCAs, and while two of the submissions were fairly similar and standard, the third was very different. We have had a couple of submissions that by almost any objective criteria were better than any of our winning submissions, but just not the best at that competition.

We do spend a significant amount of time with the presentation team trying to craft the best possible presentation. That is a useful skill to have, and it draws in many team members at one point or another. But the rest of our submission is largely about our own appreciation for and documentation of our history. It helps us stay focused on the core mission of the team. Like any team we have a tendency to think about activities as "robot stuff" and "Chairman's stuff." The submission serves as a reminder to everyone about what our core mission is. (OK, or second core mission after having fun. :) ) We try as much as possible to push our outreach and other such projects away from the build season. This keeps kids from getting too burned out. We have been doing more and more of the documentation and other work outside of the build season. I am aiming for the time when we get the Chairman's submission largely done before the build season starts. Doing at least some of that work on the submission in November and December is a good way to get people psyched up for the season to start.

The second, related thought is do not look at the CA submission in a vacuum. Most FIRST teams have to do presentations to sponsors every year. Your Chairman's video, essay, documentation and presentation can form the basis for these presentations. They should be used this way.

The final thought is this. When you decide what kinds of inspirational activities to do, think about what students on your team are enthusiastic about. Some of our members started a STEM sisters club a couple of years ago. They were/are really passionate about it, so it is easy to sustain. We have a number of kids who love to mentor FLL, so that is another program that is easy to maintain. We frequently get asked to help with projects in the school and community. When I am asked, I usually start by finding out if there are any kids interested in taking on the project. For example, our theater department wants a remote controlled "boat" that will wander the River Styx in a play and our track teams wants a rain and wind shelter for the pole vault pits. Both projects have some enthusiastic students who are interested in completing them. We have a couple of other projects we have been involved in over the years that took forever to complete because there were no enthusiastic students to see them through.

Re: Chairman's Award -- is the bar too high now?
 

A high bar is good. That means teams are being challenged to expand their outreach and really make and impact. The Chairman's Award isn't about winning, it's about celebrating a team's achievements and encouraging other teams to think about how they can impact the community as well. It's important for teams to realize that just because they haven't flown to Washington DC or done international things, because it's not about topping other teams or winning the award. Talk to any team that's familiar with Chairman's and they'll tell you it's always important to say "earn the award" instead of "win the award", and that's not just an answering tactic. In the end, yeah it's nice to win, but it's the process that's more important. With the Chairman's Award, you're not competing against other people. You're not trying to top other teams or downplay their achievements to make your own seem more significant. Submitting for Chairman's Award means your team is competing against itself, and trying to do its best to deserve the award.

Re: Chairman's Award -- is the bar too high now?
 

[quote=pfreivald;957751]I think that the greatest thing that Bausch + Lomb sponsorship brought to 1551 is the requirement that we strive to win the chairman's award every year...

I agree Bausch & Lomb has done well for you by making that part of their sponsorship. That you see it so makes for a great partnership.

We're a tiny school in the middle of nowhere ... the students/mentors compared to the teams we're competing against, we have some interesting limitations (for example, we are only allowed to do two -- limited -- fundraisers a year by our school so that we don't take too much from the other extracurriculars)

If you want another fund raiser I'd suggest a weblink to mail order some of those delicious local made grape pies. MMMmmmm Hmmm

Re: Chairman's Award -- is the bar too high now?
 

I've only been to a couple regionals this year, but every Chairman's blurb from the judges I've heard this year has specifically mentioned the sustainability of the winning team.

The winner at GTR-E, Inverse Paradox, hasn't started any FRC teams. Instead, they created resources for new immigrant families in their community, and while they did do international outreach, it was built on the very stable framework of their team. They cited team member growth and alumni going into STEM as the major strengths of their program, and they won.

GTR-E was a Week 3 regional this year, and Inverse Paradox beat many teams with stellar Chairman's programs (two of which won Chairman's at later events: 2056 at Waterloo and 1305 at North Bay).

I've actually been very impressed with Chairman's this year recognizing new teams. Chairman's should recognize the teams who are constantly trying to improve themselves. As others have mentioned, you should be judged against yourself, not other teams.