[jonathan lall]

It would seem some of the people here are arguing the other side without properly reading what I had to say. The other side of course, is completely valid and legitimate when founded, but it is not my personal belief that awards be used in the manner they are being used. I should point out it is also not my belief, like some have suggested, that we are all just pawns in FIRST's quest for global domination. However, instead of defending every decision someone in FIRST makes till my last breath, I choose to think for myself.

If FIRST's Championship is the "Superbowl of Smarts," why is the ratio of teams to awards so high? I realize that teams win multiple awards, and despite what some people have suggested, that was the first thing I pointed out when I presented that figure. But for every award in FIRST, there are only 1.5 teams. In the real NFL, there are 32 teams. I guarantee you there aren't 22 team awards. Heck, those poor souls don't even get participation medals for their efforts.

"Well," you might suggest. "They're not babies." Neither are FIRST kids.

For those of you who have trouble with the concept I'm trying to present, it is my belief that FIRST is trying to do too much with its awards -- that is, trying to artificially further its societal goals with awards, rather than reward excellence in its competition. FIRST is of course a grand social experiment in American culture that just uses a (ridiculously fun and enriching) robotics competition as a vehicle to achieve those goals. That's why Dean Kamen says we are here to "change the culture;" he's not just saying that because it sounds cool, he's saying that because the by-product of participating in the FRC is a more well-rounded and enlightened individual. If you think my position is that "FIRST is about robots," you need to go back and read through what I've said. It's simply my position that awards not be used explicitly to that end (the societal goals). For example, we don't need a Team Spirit Award to ensure teams come out with enthusiam about FIRST. If we do, it means that that enthusiasm is not genuine. And it is this, and a less profound impact on award winners, that we risk by artificially trying to further FIRST's goals.