View Single Post
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 19:32
Karibou Karibou is offline
Steel is love. Steel is life.
AKA: Kara Bakowski
FRC #0341 (Miss Daisy)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Conshohocken, PA
Posts: 1,852
Karibou has a reputation beyond reputeKaribou has a reputation beyond reputeKaribou has a reputation beyond reputeKaribou has a reputation beyond reputeKaribou has a reputation beyond reputeKaribou has a reputation beyond reputeKaribou has a reputation beyond reputeKaribou has a reputation beyond reputeKaribou has a reputation beyond reputeKaribou has a reputation beyond reputeKaribou has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Karibou
Re: Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broboraider View Post
Not a 100% sure on this, but from region to region are all CA candidates judged on the same criteria/ grading sheet? If so is there universal criteria for EI or does that vary from regional to regional?

If there isn't an universal criteria for EI could this be a reason why a team might win CA at one regional but then give their same presentation at different regional to different judges and win Regional EI?
If you are looking for a checklist of requirements for EI, you won't get one because it does not exist, and it's not possible for one to exist - inspiration can happen and be measured in as many ways as there are teams. Truelight hit the nail on the head here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truelight
For example if you say for the chairman's award they said the team that starts the most teams or mentors the most teams will win, this would limit teams to whatever criteria FIRST would set and it would also distract from what the Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration awards are all about.
Connecting this to OPs point, there is overlap with Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration and that's OK.
I fear the more we limit any award like this, teams may focus more on how to win, more than how to do good in the world through innovative methods.

Judges are guided by an experienced and trained Judge Advisor, which should ensure that the judging process at its core is similar across all events. Judges also receive a handbook, which is not public.

But, there is the awards manual, which explicitly sets guidelines for EI, and while it does not give an explicit set of guidelines for CA, the descriptions of the submission contents are the guidelines there:

https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...-manual-06.pdf

EI specifically recognizes engineering outreach, impact, etc. FIRST has many facets and can inspire people to pursue many passions (engineering, science, technology, math, teaching, medicine, outreach, etc), but this award is primarily about ways a team is inspiring others to the field of engineering. Applying for CA is neither a guideline nor requirement.

CA is a more broad and is about the experience: the impact of the team on their community, sponsors, and the team members itself, and the partnership that forms between those groups. FIRST is a competition of engineering, so naturally this experience will involve engineering in some way, but FIRST is not "FIRE: For Inspiration and Recognition of Engineering" - it's more than robots, and the CA recognizes the "more than robots" part (though robots can be a method used to achieve the "more than robots" impact). From the awards manual:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6.4.5 Submission Content
The Chairman’s Award is presented to the team judged to have created the best partnership effort among team participants and which best exemplified the true meaning of FIRST through measurable impact on its participants, school, and community at large.

The FIRST Robotics Competition is not about machines; it is about the experience of people working together toward a shared goal. Documenting and preserving your team’s FIRST experience becomes an important component of the over-all FIRST experience.
There is some overlap between the two awards (measurable impact), and the qualities of some activities can satisfy what the judges are looking for for both awards, which is why many teams win both in the span of a season or successive seasons. But they are two very different awards.
__________________
Kara Bakowski
Michigan Technological University///Materials Science and Engineering '15///Go Huskies! #tenacity
kabakowski(at)gmail(dot)com
FRC 341 (2016-present): Mechanical/build mentor
Volunteer (2010-present): MAR Seneca '17, FTC Hat Tricks Qualifier '16, Brunswick Eruption '16, MAR Montgomery '16, MAR Westtown '16 Portcullis Victim, MAR Springside-Chestnut Hill '16, Ramp Riot '15 '16, FiM Escanaba District '14 '15, MidKnight Mayhem '13 '15 '16, FiM Detroit District '13, IRI '10 '12, FiM Waterford District '11 '12, MARC '12, CMP Galileo '11
FRC 1189 (2008-2011): Team Captain, Pit Crew, Website group leader, Team Education group leader, Proud Alum. We've got spirit, yes we do...


WMWBS '10 '11
Reply With Quote