Quote:
Originally Posted by MechEng83
I think the big underlying issue is that FIRST and Teams view the Dean's List award very differently.
Teams want to recognize the students with the most/best/lasting contributions to their team and the broader FIRST community, often whom are seniors who have a proven record of dedication.
FIRST wants to promote the award as something akin to a National Merit Scholar award, which universities like to tout in their recruiting numbers.
It's prestige for the deserving student, vs. prestige for the universities who recruit Dean's List winners.
For 2 years, FIRST has recommended teams choose Juniors, as they would be given preference, yet teams kept nominating Seniors -- and Seniors kept winning.
I won't presume to know the inner workings of FIRST headquarters, but while Frank has been the herald of positive changes, I feel like this change was forced in by other powers, as it's clearly part of an agenda which doesn't mesh with the intentions demonstrated by teams in their nominations, or even the judges for the award who continued to recognize seniors despite the award's stated preference for juniors.
|
I don't have any data my back this up, but I feel like your claim that teams don't agree with FIRST on who to nominate is a blanket statement. I know atleast one team that values giving the award to Juniors: my own. Maybe my team is just the exception rather than the norm, but I seriously hope we aren't the only one.
Also: "It's prestige for the deserving student, vs. prestige for the universities who recruit Dean's List winners" is an extreme generalization. The real situation is "Prestige for the most deserving student vs. prestige and tangible benefits to the very deserving student." Prestige to a university is just a side effect.
I'm not saying I agree that teams should be forced to nominate Sophmores and Juniors. I'm saying that nominating Sophmores and Juniors is something that teams should really consider practicing even if they weren't forced to.