[Jessica Boucher]

Oy! Okay, okay...I'll explain. And please, I know that some of my viewpoints are...different than the normal FIRSTer, to say the least. That does not mean that they are not valid. Just because my opinion is different does not mean that I don't have valid, unique skills to bring to the program to make it better, and also does not mean that my viewpoints would skew my willingness to help FIRST if it contradicts what FIRST wants to do with itself. It's just how I feel, and I am trying to discuss my viewpoint in a gracious and professional manner...and I hope your responses are the same.

First of all, I like the idea of the Chairman's award itself. I think that we should be striving for something higher than a winning robot, since the point of the organization is to change the culture, not to build the best robot.

I also like how FIRST is running the Chairman's logistically now, with regional chairman's. I feel that this allows the judges to give more attention to an award of such importance. I'm also not saying that FIRST itself is corrupt. I think the judges do a fine job, and in having regional Chairmans before national Chairmans, it reinforces the judges relationship by forcing them to rely on the opinions of dozens of judges from around the nation.

That said, I think that the teams are corrupt in how they go about obtaining this award. Think back at many regional Chairmans winners, national finalists and national winners...and even to teams that stuck out in your mind along the years but never made the cut. How many of the extraneous-to-the-robot programs that they created and used in the award submission are still going today? I've been really impressed with how these winning and finalist teams have put their teams together and created innovative ways of making the competition, as well as the culture of FIRST, better...and to see these extraneous programs die after the season (regardless as to whether the team won or not) really disappoints me. Why? Just because the season is over doesn't mean the program isnt useful anymore. A need was found, a team filled that need (which is great), but to see that need reopen because the season is over is frustrating, because I feel like nothing has been gained. I don't want to name teams because I don't want to point fingers.

I also feel that impact can't be quantified in all cases. If FIRST's existence caused a 50% increase in graduates going to college, thats great, that's a valid point that absolutley should be used. But to say that the impact is greater because a FRC team has a lot of FLL teams...that seems sketchy to me. Just because the FLL team exists doesn't mean that it's always 100% effective in inspiring students, and doesn't mean that the team wasn't already going to pick up those same students once they hit high school. And it also doesn't mean by adding a bunch of FLL teams that the team is assimilating FIRST's vision to their community in the fashion that will yield an optimum effect. The team should analyse their community and create something innovative that will be the best for them - not just something that FIRST is suggesting.

Note: And I'm not just picking on FLL...there are other programs that I feel are viewed as quantitatively scored that should rather be scored qualitatively.

In short, I feel like a lot of FIRST's culture and community wouldn't be here without the Chairman's award...and I am grateful for that. But, when I see great culture-adding programs being created for the sake of winning an award - which is pretty apparent when it dies after the season is over - it upsets me, because I can't tell if they were genuinely doing it to make FIRST better, or to make their team look better. I think that we are a strong and smart enough community that we can move beyond doing things for our own team and indirectly for FIRST and we can move to doing things for FIRST. I hope that one day these culture-adding programs won't be seen as extraneous...they'll be seen as essential as the robot itself.

Now, I know I've heard a lot of complaints about how when someone posts something contravercial that they feel afterwards because of the backlash that they shouldn't have posted at all. So, I ask that you wait 30 minutes before you answer to anything directly related to what I say in this post - like how professors demand you wait 24 hours after an exam is handed back before questions can be asked. I think this will force posters to think logically and not defensively, so please abide by this, for both our sakes, and I eagerly await your responses.