View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-08-2003, 16:06
Rich Kressly's Avatar
Rich Kressly Rich Kressly is offline
Robot/STEM troublemaker since 2001
no team (Formerly 103 & 1712. Now run U.P. Robotics (other programs))
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Pennsburg, PA
Posts: 2,045
Rich Kressly has a reputation beyond reputeRich Kressly has a reputation beyond reputeRich Kressly has a reputation beyond reputeRich Kressly has a reputation beyond reputeRich Kressly has a reputation beyond reputeRich Kressly has a reputation beyond reputeRich Kressly has a reputation beyond reputeRich Kressly has a reputation beyond reputeRich Kressly has a reputation beyond reputeRich Kressly has a reputation beyond reputeRich Kressly has a reputation beyond repute
To each his own

I believe each team can make up their own mind about publishing their submission, just like each makes up its mind about robot information, manufacturing techniques, and game strategy. Personally, I lean toward sharing - especially the Chairman's submission. Let's inspire as many as we can to go further than before. Raise the bar and we ALL get better.

My esteemed colleague Pete and many others are exactly correct. Submissions should be read for the purposes of that inspiration, understanding what kinds of outreach exist, learning about community building that has taken place, and obstacles overcome.

Copying a submission is completely worthless as it flies in the face of the Chairman's Award itself. The award is about "who" a team is and the "how" and "what" of presenting play only a partial role here. Any team choosing to "copy" would only harm themselves in the eyes of the judges. Instead, the collective reading of submissions, to me, is like one huge motivational
pep rally.

As for the judging process being a mystery, that's not completely true. Yes, the submission format has changed and may change again. Yes, judges have a difficult and subjective task to perform. However, instead of concentrating on the unknown, my suggestion is to work on what is known.

The questions a team needs to address in their CA submission have not changed in the three years I have been involved (with the exception of "the season" being changed to "year-round"). Check the manual, and I quote:
There is no single “best way” for a team to win the Chairman’s Award. Many factors come into play. The primary factors the judges will evaluate are:
1. How strong is the year-round team partnership effort?
(Partnership can be defined in many ways, including: the partnership among the team’s students/corporate sponsor/engineers; school/university sponsor/engineers; students/adults; community/team)
2. How strongly does the submission document how FIRST impacted the learning experience of the students, school curriculum, engineers, and/or community?
3. How strongly does the submission provide examples of what the participants experienced in the FIRST program (i.e.: challenges, accomplishments, pitfalls, “lessons learned” etc.)?
4. How well has the team communicated its excitement and impact within the entire school, community, and beyond (state/nation) through its participation in FIRST?
5. Has the team documented an innovative way to spread the FIRST message?
6. Has the team explained/demonstrated why/how it should be a role model for other FIRST teams to emulate?
7. As a whole, does the content of the documentation exemplify the true meaning of FIRST?
Your Chairman’s Award submission should include documentation for all of the above factors.

In NJ, for the past two years, all submitting teams received feedback in these seven areas along with general comments. Aren't all regionals this way? As a matter of fact, it was those 2002 comments (along with the stories about those who won regionals and nationals) that inspired Team 103 to go further in 2003.

Now, when you read a submission or come across a team that portrays all seven aspects in resounding "wow" fashion, that should be enough to inspire your team to take it to the next level from where you were. Even if the next level for you means submitting an entry if your team has never before done it. It's truly an awesome experience for the students - regardless of the outcome.

One of the most satisfying parts of this experience for Cybersonics has been sharing information with other teams and seeing how it motivates them and what they are already working on for 2004. To know that what we have done not only touches the lives of Team 103 members, but reaches throughout this international community is a feeling of satisfaction that words cannot describe.
__________________
technology, innovation, and invention without a social conscience will only allow us to destroy ourselves in more creative ways