Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eugenia Gabrielov
I think one solution is to perhaps do team interviews with larger groups of judges on the first day (practice day). That way, a team knows that they must create an organized and thorough presentation about themselves and their robot. Like the Chairman's interviews, except for technical. This way, all the judges get to see a basic presentation. This could also be submitted in a document, which I think would be a positive move to consider. I am not a judge, but it seems to me that any amount of "summary" information could help make determining which pits to visit later a bit easier.
This interview or written submission process wouldn't take the place of interviews, but would moreso facilitate their speed and efficiency. It would also teach students to document their progress and encourage every student to be able to present.
As a scout, I want to thank the teams that had "info sheets" about their team and their robot. My job was smaller than that of a judge, and those sheets made it much easier. Think of what they could do for those stressed out ladies and gentlemen in blue! (That rhymed ^_^)
|
I thought about these ideas as I read this thread, but the more I thought, I think there is some meathod to the madness behind pit interviews. I dont know this for a fact, but part of me thinks that because presentations and documentation can say everything it wants, demos can be rehearsed, and smoke and mirrors can always be used. I see it ALL the time in industry... heck I have done it! Usually it is with good intention, like you think in a month you will be able to make it work the right way, but right now you can demo something that "looks" like it works that way. Whereas the pit interviews have the element of suprise and reality that makes it much more difficult to fake. If the judges walk in and you are crazily fixing your drivetrain, you arent very well going to be able to tell them its reliable. I think in general, the judges get what they need to know out of the pit interviews. Teams can still give the judges material to summarize (we gave them our scouting summary, our patron book, our newsletters, etc), and often times they take that with them. We even had one judge demand we give him our only copy! Who were we to argue when he was the RAS judge?? lol. Anyways, I stick to the "meathod behind the madness" theory. I think in general teams deserve the awards for one reason or another, and the judges do a great job with a very very difficult task.