Here are the 2013 Executive Summary fields:
Quote:
Briefly describe the impact of the FIRST program on team participants with special emphasis on the 2012/2013 year and the preceding two years
(500 characters allowed, including spaces and punctuation)
Examples of role model characteristics for other teams to emulate
(500 characters allowed, including spaces and punctuation)
Describe the impact of the FIRST program on your team and community with special emphasis on the 2012/2013 year and the preceding two years
(500 characters allowed, including spaces and punctuation)
Team’s innovative methods to spread the FIRST message
(500 characters allowed, including spaces and punctuation)
Describe the strength of your partnership with special emphasis on the 2012/2013 year and the preceding two years
(500 characters allowed, including spaces and punctuation)
Team’s communication methods and results
(500 characters allowed, including spaces and punctuation)
Other matters of interest to the FIRST judges, if any
(500 characters allowed, including spaces and punctuation)
|
Overall I think the new list is a big improvement for submitting teams, and will make life easier for the judges. (This is even more important this season, since the volume of submissions judges will be seeing at the local is increasing due to the multiple event submission rule.) Some thoughts:
- Going from 3500 to 6000 characters will be a huge relief for the top teams, who never seem to have enough room to get all their points in.
- Shifting the focus from the past 3 years to the past 6 is also beneficial for the teams competing at the highest level, as it allows them to demonstrate a sustained historical level of effort.
- Would have liked to have seen a specific section on media and social media impact. This can be fit into a bunch of areas, but now with the elimination of the "Teams communication methods and results" question, it's going to have to be forced into other areas.
- There's definitely a push to see full details of how the team has helped grow the FIRST family of programs. Calling this out is important, as it makes it easier for judges to find the quantifiable statistics on growth, however I hope it doesn't mean that they're only focusing on FIRST growth. Many FRC teams (including Hall of Fame teams) have done a lot of work promoting STEM education via other programs. It would be disappointing if this new emphasis on FIRST programs, begins to preclude teams who also support other STEM programs.