[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by J_Miles

While I understand your purpose, Carolyn, I hope you don't mind me playing the Devil's Advocate here a little bit, because I think that it might spur a little bit more of discussion. Please don't think that I am attempting to significantly degrade the Chairman's Award, its prestige, or its importance within the greater FIRST community - rather, I'm attempting to play the Devil's Advocate - based on things I've seen and heard from quite a few students and alumni - to spur civil discussion

Jared, you WOULD.
This definitely was NOT the intent of this thread, but as it's been brought up, and I do enjoy open-discussions, I'll indulge your Devil's Advocate with taking time to respond to your long post.

Originally Posted by J_Miles

Opinion: Why the Chairman's Award is Kinda Sorta Irrelevant

What is inspiration? How can you define it? How can it be quantified? That is, after all, for the judges to decide. This, in and of itself, seems to be a slightly flawed system - after all, what inspires a thoroughly matured adult judge is most likely NOT the same as what will inspire a five- or six- or seven- or eight-year-old child, or even a teenager. If a team chooses to place emphasis on inspiring youth, then is it not entirely possible that a program that delights this target group falls flat with adult judges? Even if some of the people affected by this team's work submit letters of support - the decision ultimately lies in the interpretation of this team's program and the intent and purpose of the letter of support; it all goes back to the judges.

When you write a paper for school, especially in college, your grade is dependent on your professor or TA's interpretation. No matter how much time you put into it, how many hours you labor over your presentation and essay, the end result is judged by someone else. You may receive a rubric, but usually rubrics are not fully clear on how exactly these assignments will be judged. It's up to you to put together the best work that you can, and hopefully it will be judged fairly.

When you have a job, your work ethic is judged by your boss, and sometimes your bosses boss. In the "real world" there are certain times a year that employees go through review processes. These review processes are often (perhaps even *usually*) not fair. The decision ultimately lies in the interpretation of what is best for the company; it all goes back to your bosses.

There ARE set criteria for the award. There ARE specific questions laid out in the Administration Manual. There ARE feedback forms, with certain questions that are deliberated over heavily by judges. Certainly, there is a human aspect involved, but there is human aspect in every way that any business is managed. This is simply Real Life. (#RealTalk)

Originally Posted by J_Miles

Recognition for this sort of work and effort is extremely important. With that said, it's not hard to imagine (and I have certainly seen evidence of this) students - and even mentors - on a team become so jaded or disillusioned with the idea of the Chairman's Award that their efforts in creating their presentation or writing an essay or making a video become single-minded in scope. The Chairman's Award is no longer about the criteria, but about the Blue Banner and the automatic bid for Championship, the Michigan State Championship, or the Mid-Atlantic Region Championship. It becomes about checking boxes off of a list - causing teams to want to do the things they believe (or even worse - know) will win them the award and discouraging them from taking risks, from starting groundbreaking programs with grand dreams and hopes - the sort of programs that can make a flying leap towards FIRST's "goals and purpose" rather than another generic baby step.

I can not name one single team who won the Chairman's Award by going through a list and figuratively checking boxes off a list that they think will help them "win" the award. Perhaps other people *think* that they know teams like this, but my experience in talking to Chairman's Award winning teams leads me to to believe that each team deserved to win that honor.

That doesn't mean that other teams do not deserve to win, but there can only be one winner. Which draws me back to the INTENT of this thread:
WHY submit, if not to win?

When a team becomes jaded or disillusioned because they have not been publicly recognized by winning an award, then perhaps they need to reassess their priorities in the purpose of creating their submission. Once again, bringing it back to the original question: WHY submit, if not to win?

Originally Posted by J_Miles

Is that wrong? I tend to think so. Certainly teams that are making breakthroughs, the teams that are blazing trails are the teams that tend to win the Chairman's Award at the international level and be immortalized into FIRST's Hall of Fame. But getting these kinds of teams TO the Championship in the first place can be difficult when perennial Chairman's Award Winners become complacent with their "Winning Formula." Once that paradigm becomes established, how long will it take for the new guard to be ushered in? Would it ever?

New teams win the Chairman's Award every year. Certainly some teams win multiple times at the Regional/District level, but there are still teams winning this award who have never won it before.

I have met a few teams who have become complacent with their "winning formula," and what tends to happen is at some point these teams do not win. (I specifically refrain from using the term "lose" because I strongly believe that no one ever loses when they create a Chairman's Award submission. ...once again, leading me back to my MAIN POINT of this thread: Why submit a Chairman's Award if I know that I won't win?

Originally Posted by J_Miles

The worst thing about this is that teams who repeatedly face this sort of competition may become jaded with the award and not only stop presenting but also allow their outreach to wither and die. In that sense, the Chairman's Award is self-defeating. And that's bad news for FIRST and its goals.

Actually, I could point out a couple teams who have won the Chairman's Award in years past, but became complacent in their winning and let their outreach slow down, and then they did not win the award, letting in a new team. In that sense, the Chairman's Award is the opposite of self-defeating: if a team can not keep up the outreach and attitude, then the title passes on to a new team. And that's a great thing.

Originally Posted by J_Miles

Perhaps it calls for a different mechanism by which the award is given - require all teams to submit a proposal alongside a robot at competitions? Perhaps only allow teams to conduct an interview if selected initially by judges AT the competition? Make the Chairman's Award selection process more accessible and available to the opinions of more than simply the judges? Make the process for winning the Chairman's Award at regional or district events more similar to the Engineering Inspiration Award?

There is likely no single best solution, but the system as it currently stands removes the emphasis on the outreach itself and places the emphasis on "the most prestigious award" given out to teams by FIRST. That prestige inherently brings with it a sort of desire and lust for success that doesn't belong in the culture that teams truly deserving of the Chairman's Award are attempting to build.

This goes back to my very specific point in my very first post of this thread: this thread is NOT meant to be a way to point out the issues with the Chairman's Award or how it is judged. It is NOT meant to be a way to figure out different solutions. It was meant to be a thread to discuss what *is* good about the Chairman's Award and how teams can keep a good attitude about it, because the Spirit of the Award goes far beyond simply winning a blue banner.

I love discussion about this kind of thing.
But I think there are two separate issues here:

1. How the award criteria is laid out, judged and awarded. There are great things about this, but there are also great flaws in the system.

2. The attitude that students, mentors and teams have regarding the Chairman's Award.

Jared, your post seems to reflect more on the first, putting "blame" on FIRST. My initial post was intended to reflect on the second: helping teams understand the value of the award beyond winning something. I think both are valuable things to discuss, but I also think that when you twist them together, it gets very complicated and people choose sides, which honestly does not help either issue.