Quote:
Originally Posted by Squillo
I may be in a minority, but I don't think every team should apply, or be urged to apply, for the Chairman's Award. Our team has applied for CA every year since 2010 (and probably before that, since we go the NASA grants from the beginning, I believe). And I think it's been mostly a waste of time and a misappropriation of resources. I hope that this (next) year, I can convince everyone that we need to devote our very limited human resources (students and mentors) to 'shoring up our own house' - focusing on our business plan, making our own team sustainable, building up what we are doing for our kids in our community (we have a lot to do!), and not spend valuable time trying to 'spin' that stuff into CA material.
|
I've only been to a couple regionals this year, but every Chairman's blurb from the judges I've heard this year has specifically mentioned the sustainability of the winning team.
The winner at GTR-E, Inverse Paradox, hasn't started any FRC teams. Instead, they created resources for new immigrant families in their community, and while they did do international outreach, it was built on the very stable framework of their team. They cited team member growth and alumni going into STEM as the major strengths of their program, and they won.
GTR-E was a Week 3 regional this year, and Inverse Paradox beat many teams with stellar Chairman's programs (two of which won Chairman's at later events: 2056 at Waterloo and 1305 at North Bay).
I've actually been very impressed with Chairman's this year recognizing new teams. Chairman's should recognize the teams who are constantly trying to improve themselves. As others have mentioned, you should be judged against yourself, not other teams.