Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
I don't like this idea at all. There are already enough cliques and circles in FIRST, and there are plenty of great teams that get left out of the popular crowd.
|
Absolutely agreed. Peer voting just does not work for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
Perhaps it's just how it's worded, but I didn't get a great feeling from this part of Frank's statement. I like to see teams recognized for what they do anyway, not do special things to get recognized. For example, we mentor elementary school teams in our local area because it's the right thing to do, and we want to get more students involved in robotics, not because we're competing to win an award for doing that. The minute you start mentoring or outreach for the purpose of winning an award, in my mind you have already lost.
|
Again, agreed. But I think that this happens with any sort of award that is put on a pedestal. The truly competitive teams will obviously go out of their way to try and earn an RCA. However, I don't really see a problem with this as long as the judges recognize what community efforts are half-baked and done hastily, and what efforts from a team are planned and built upon over time. The best RCA teams have continuous growth and work on their projects year-round, while the teams who rarely win/don't win Chairman's usually aren't putting in the time and effort to build up their own programs and their reputation within their communities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
I hate how Chairman's awards have become so based upon quantitative evidence, that often gets pretty far stretched. I can say that our program has reached over 10,000 students, with some validity to that claim. However, if you went and surveyed those 10,000 people and asked them personally if our program has had an impact on them, chances are 9,000 or more would say no.
The Chairman's award needs less emphasis on the numbers of students we reach, teams we start, or relationships we build, and more emphasis on the qualityof such programs, and the stories behind them.
|
I can sort of see the truth in this, but then how do you propose RCA judges evaluate teams? The quality of a program is not always portrayed well enough in just essays and quotes from students, but the quality of a strong program is definitely shown by the numbers of students affected by the team. For example, the Simbotics app was high quality and tested through years of iteration from its beginnings as a presentation. The impact can really only be proven by numbers of downloads and views. While I do agree that there are plenty of teams who arbitrarily add in numbers into their essays and presentations, I want to assume that most teams don't try to BS the judges. (of course, many probably do)
Again, though, if you have suggestions on how to make judging easier or more accurate, definitely send it to Frank. I want the same thing you do, but I can't think of a better way either, at the moment.
-Akash