Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Donow
Similarly, in regards to Dean's List, I was very unhappy with the way it was handled/done in district systems/the inconsistencies between different regions in how they determined Finalists.
|
I'm speaking from the perspective of a Michigan volunteer here:
Being the first year of Dean's List interviews, we expected challenges along the way. Overall, the interview process went well and allowed us to add extra depth to how we assess nominated students. It also gave these students a moment to shine. I have a feeling that FIRST won't be getting rid of this process anytime soon.
For improvements, I'm only aware of how Michigan events operated and what we need to do better. I already know we need to improve how we communicate to teams about what to expect, and where their students will interview. That's something we didn't have established prior to March, but is on our radar for next year.
Scheduling will likely be a persistent challenge. So many of these extraordinary students are drive team members, or Chairman's presenters, or have other responsibilities at the event. Most events adopted a flexible sign-up schedule to work around these issues, but we're looking into how to make it better.
Providing feedback, as simple as it seems, is a rather challenging process. It takes time and thought to write good feedback, and we don't want to "sound generic." Time was a challenge this year, with the Dean's List interviews and the addition of multiple-event Chairman's presentations. Again, this is something that we'll be better prepared for next year.
If you have additional feedback specific to this process, please PM me and let me know. I'm working with our Michigan volunteers to provide feedback to FIRST about how to make the Dean's List process stronger for next year, and would like to hear perspectives from other members of the FIRST community.