What does the Chairman’s Award have to do with a robot contest?
What does the Chairman’s Award have to do with a robot contest?
Don’t get me wrong, I think winning this award is a noble accomplishment. It deserves great celebration and recognition. It definitely demonstrates a teams commitment to spreading the word of FIRST and we all know that FIRST needs to nurture that, but should a team get a lifetime entitlement to the robot competition for this (or any other criteria for that matter)?
I think not.
I want to base my opinion on 2 points :
For all of the years that I’ve been involved with this program, there have been 3 separate competition areas involved (robot, chairman’s award, and animation). Never before has the outcome of one area been a factor in the other. Why now? Should the winners of the animation award be entitled?
The idea that only one team per year is worthy of such an entitlement given the vast amount of effort that teams put in to this is inconceivable to me. Each year, when the finalists are read, I know that any one of them (and probably many more) are equally worthy. Even the judges state each year how incredibly hard it is to pick a winner.
So why interject so much controversy into solving the problem of overcrowding?
I suspect most of us could live with the rules, even the even/odd thing, if the entitlements were dropped. To me, they just hint of favoritism, which stretches the ability of at least some of us to look at one another as equal partners in a worthy cause.
I just simply think that the robotics contest should be based on the robotics and the skills of the players. Simple as that …..
|