It seems to me, from the rather specific wording of the award, that the intent is for the students to be nominated by the mentors, not by their team members. From section 6.6.2 of this years manual (man, it feels weird to be quoting this years manual already!):
Quote:
[...]
Applicants for the FIRST Dean’s List are nominated by their mentor as FIRST Dean's List Nominees. [...]
Each FRC mentor is invited to select up to two (2) students (may select only one but not more than two) as FIRST Dean's List Nominees. In deciding which students to nominate, mentors should consider the impact the award will have on the nominated student. For example, mentors may choose to nominate a junior whose college acceptance prospects would be enhanced by both the nomination and any subsequent advancement in the competition. [...]
|
From my point of view, this makes sense. it can be very difficult (especially for students) to recognize leadership in individuals that don't hold a specific leadership role on the team. You may have a captain, and sub team captains who serve as the public "face" of the team - they're the ones who get up and are supposed to lead the team and the meetings. But just because they're up in front of everybody all the time "leading" doesn't mean they deserve this award more than others who are contributing in significant ways. What about the student with no official leadership role who ends up driving the design of important parts of the robot, and is able to effectively communicate their vision to the rest of the team? Students might not recognize that as leadership, while Mentors would hopefully see that as something that needs to be nurtured and praised.
When I think back over our 4 years of competition, it's not always the "student leaders" from our team that I would want to nominate for this award. They all did a fine job running meetings and discussions, but some years other students, without defined leadership roles, really shined.