Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hibner
Wow, what an interesting topic.
I have one big thought on this topic. It is a sad state when teams worry more about how they stand with the chairman's award than they worry what is best for their team and students.
That brings up a much larger subject that really grates on me. I really dislike when teams do stuff just to make their chairman's resume look good. You should do things because you believe in them, not to bolster your chances at winning some silly award.
Do what's best for your team and your students. Who cares what the CA judges think. And if they think less of your team for choosing VEX, then the chairman's award loses all of its meaning in my book.
|
Chris, I think you may have interpreted the question differently than I did. The team in question seemed committed in their resolve to the Vex program, and felt that Vex was the best option. It seemed like they were going to go with Vex for their students regardless of whether or not the judge's liked it. I think they were asking about should they list it in their Chairman's Award entry, as it may hurt their chances.
I too dislike it when activities are mainly focused on winning a Chairman's Award rather than actually inspiring. And while winning isn't the real point of Chairman's, award entries should be structured in a way that gives your team the best chance to win. Just like FIRST is ultimately about more than just the robots, the competition aspect shouldn't be sacrificed, neither should "competitive entries" to the Chairman's Award. Team's have to pick and chose carefully what they feel will be most impressive to the judges to share with them, and sometimes have to leave out certain high-impact events/programs.