Dean's List Winner

[Nathan Streeter]

I think the student(s) that have had the biggest impact on the team (have lead the most, helped out the most, inspired the most, grown the most etc.) should always be the ones nominated for the award.

I can understand the reasoning behind giving preference to a junior over a senior... To a junior being a Dean's List Nominee, Finalist or Winner is something they can put on their college apps... To a senior the award won't have as much "use" - for summer internships it'd probably be meaningful, but come time for sending out resumes for jobs after college it won't have the same weight. As much as that "usefulness" exists, I can't help but feel that a team's superstar(s) have to be the ones nominated, regardless of other factors...

For a senior, this is their last chance. Odds are good that since they're a team's superstar they've had a growing role over the years - they were probably a great leader and inspiration in their junior year... maybe they were nominated and perhaps were a finalist and/or winner. Since they have such a love for FIRST, they're probably even more involved this year than last year (their junior year)! So nominate them again - maybe they'll have grown enough to be a winner this year!

Since the award is now in its third year, there's really no excuse to base the nomination indiscriminately off of age. If your team's superstar is a junior or senior, nominate them... even if they're a sophomore or freshman, I'd nominate them (although I honestly would be surprised if many teams exist where their two superstars are sophomores or freshmen). I really don't think preference should be given to juniors or seniors.

Nathan

P.S. FIRST's decision to give preference to juniors in the judging frustrates me... Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but I think part of their reasoning is so that a winning student's positive image feeds back to them... colleges seeing that these fine students are associated with FIRST adds to FIRST's reputation also. If they just wanted juniors to have the benefit of throwing it on their college app, they'd simply point out that juniors have that added use of the award. I don't think FIRST needs to be casting that doubt on whether the award winners are truly the most qualified...

[ghostmachine360]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

I think the student(s) that have had the biggest impact on the team (have lead the most, helped out the most, inspired the most, grown the most etc.) should always be the ones nominated for the award.

I can understand the reasoning behind giving preference to a junior over a senior... To a junior being a Dean's List Nominee, Finalist or Winner is something they can put on their college apps... To a senior the award won't have as much "use" - for summer internships it'd probably be meaningful, but come time for sending out resumes for jobs after college it won't have the same weight. As much as that "usefulness" exists, I can't help but feel that a team's superstar(s) have to be the ones nominated, regardless of other factors...

For a senior, this is their last chance. Odds are good that since they're a team's superstar they've had a growing role over the years - they were probably a great leader and inspiration in their junior year... maybe they were nominated and perhaps were a finalist and/or winner. Since they have such a love for FIRST, they're probably even more involved this year than last year (their junior year)! So nominate them again - maybe they'll have grown enough to be a winner this year!

Since the award is now in its third year, there's really no excuse to base the nomination indiscriminately off of age. If your team's superstar is a junior or senior, nominate them... even if they're a sophomore or freshman, I'd nominate them (although I honestly would be surprised if many teams exist where their two superstars are sophomores or freshmen). I really don't think preference should be given to juniors or seniors.

Nathan

P.S. FIRST's decision to give preference to juniors in the judging frustrates me... Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but I think part of their reasoning is so that a winning student's positive image feeds back to them... colleges seeing that these fine students are associated with FIRST adds to FIRST's reputation also. If they just wanted juniors to have the benefit of throwing it on their college app, they'd simply point out that juniors have that added use of the award. I don't think FIRST needs to be casting that doubt on whether the award winners are truly the most qualified...

I agree with the frustration over the age level. I know several seniors across many teams that have been overlooked as candidates because of the mention of preference towards juniors. I can't help feeling this will encourage teams to only choose their juniors on the team that may not necessarily have those key FIRST ideals that some seniors have developed, cultivated and exhibit.

[ebarker]

<begin rant>

Initially I thought the main purpose of the DL was to identify students that were essentially going to be the future leaders, the future flag bearers, for FIRST. The students that really understood the mission of FIRST, carried it out, and would be willing to advocate for FIRST in the future.

IMHO, the definition of a DL student, as defined by FIRST, has shifted and maybe was never on solid ground.

Now it is something in the direction of trying to show universities and colleges which students "have the right stuff". Or from a different perspective, a way for universities to validate FIRST by saying they give preference to DL candidates.

Personally I am not very happy at all about the shift to the DL program having to do with college admissions. University admission have to sort out the truly capable from the people that are "just on the roster". I don't think the DL is the right way to do that.

Just my 1 cent.......

</end rant>

[PayneTrain]

I guess FIRST intends on juniors' rewards to be DLA, and senior's rewards to be scholarships. Why not pick a junior and a senior at each event? Our team picked a senior last year and a junior this year because of the specific request for juniors, which means two seniors on my team who were instrumental in the team's growth this year weren't recognized because we felt it to be futile.

[ghostmachine360]

Originally Posted by ebarker

<begin rant>

Initially I thought the main purpose of the DL was to identify students that were essentially going to be the future leaders, the future flag bearers, for FIRST. The students that really understood the mission of FIRST, carried it out, and would be willing to advocate for FIRST in the future.

IMHO, the definition of a DL student, as defined by FIRST, has shifted and maybe was never on solid ground.

Now it is something in the direction of trying to show universities and colleges which students "have the right stuff". Or from a different perspective, a way for universities to validate FIRST by saying they give preference to DL candidates.

Personally I am not very happy at all about the shift to the DL program having to do with college admissions. University admission have to sort out the truly capable from the people that are "just on the roster". I don't think the DL is the right way to do that.

Just my 1 cent.......

</end rant>

That was the initial purpose of the Dean's List Award; and in the essence, the 20 from the past two years are students who have gone on, or are working to become the next generation of FIRST leaders.

Now, FIRST has something that could become world-renown past our own community, and set our best students apart from the rest. While I think that the Dean's List award this year will exhibit some students that are truly the embodiment of FIRST, the award isn't supposed to be a publicity stunt. And if it turns out to be that way, I don't think they'll ever be able to use the 2012 FIRST Dean's List finalists & winners and later receipients to their true potential to change this organization for the better.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by ebarker

<begin rant>

Initially I thought the main purpose of the DL was to identify students that were essentially going to be the future leaders, the future flag bearers, for FIRST. The students that really understood the mission of FIRST, carried it out, and would be willing to advocate for FIRST in the future.

IMHO, the definition of a DL student, as defined by FIRST, has shifted and maybe was never on solid ground.

Now it is something in the direction of trying to show universities and colleges which students "have the right stuff". Or from a different perspective, a way for universities to validate FIRST by saying they give preference to DL candidates.

Personally I am not very happy at all about the shift to the DL program having to do with college admissions. University admission have to sort out the truly capable from the people that are "just on the roster". I don't think the DL is the right way to do that.

Just my 1 cent.......

</end rant>

I'm agreeing with you in that the Dean's List should be about the future leaders of FIRST and those who have brought the values of FIRST and FRC to their school and community, not a stunt to give Juniors a 1-up in college admissions.

[Jon Stratis]

I wanted to say one more thing to counter this sentiment towards seniors... On our team, we focus on individual growth. The freshmen and rookie members get additional attention, while the veteran members get additional responsibilities. As far as that goes, it makes sense to nominate and promote younger members, as they are the future leaders of the team. You're actively showing confidence and support of those members and their ability to lead and grow the team in the next year or two. For seniors, there's nothing wrong with recognizing their contribution, but doing so doesn't help the team to grow - they're graduating in a few months! It also doesn't help that student much, as they've already applied to colleges and their future is pretty well set.

What many people are forgetting is that the Dean's List isn't the end all of recognizing students. While winning an award infront of 60 teams may be great, not everyone who is nominated can win. Last year we, as a mentor group, specifically told all of the Seniors exactly what they meant to us and to the team. We highlighted what they did that helped the team and contributed to our successful season. We told them how they helped the team grow to the next level. While I may just be a mentor (and not a student eligible for the award), I think that achieving that level of recognition and respect from the professional engineers you work with has to be greater than any award FIRST can give you. After all, winning any award comes down to how well the case was presented to the judges... not necessarily how any individual or team actually performed. If the presentation isn't written well, the student won't win, even if they did more for FIRST than anyone else has.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Why not pick a junior and a senior at each event?

Because it isn't about picking a junior or senior !

Because it isn't ( or shouldn't ) be part of the college admissions process !

Because it isn't about the relationship between students and their mentors !

It is ( or was ) about picking those students that had demonstrated the most commitment, and highest potential to lead FIRST into the future and operate FIRST and its affiliate operations with the highest of standards.

Losing sight of what the award needs to accomplish and trying to serve multiple masters will dilute the effectiveness and meaning of the award, hence this discussion.

[lscime]

Hmm, I guess I would have to disagree with an "emphasis" on Juniors over Seniors. Seniors on-average will have had more time to contribute to their team, their community, and FIRST in general, and that extra year of "impact" will make them a stronger DL candidate. In my own opinion I believe that the award should go to the students who have demonstrated the greatest leadership and impact in their teams and communities. Students who are by all measures integral to the success and growth of FIRST in their areas.

I agree with the argument that having the DL award on a resume is more beneficial to a Junior than a Senior. But the award is so much more than a line on a resume. Because it is so powerful and significant in its own right, I hope that the most deserving/qualified students are recognized for their often monumental efforts, regardless of their grade level.

Just my 2 cents,
-Luke

[Dancin103]

Originally Posted by Wing

I may be biased as a senior, but I don't personally agree with nominating juniors over seniors, unless the Junior has represented the award more than a Senior has. Class should not have anything to do with the award, the award should celebrate those who deserve to be celebrated, regardless of class. I can understand why juniors should be nominated, but some seniors deserve the award as well.

I agree with you 100%. It should be about the student that represents the ideals of FIRST the best, and the student that continues to spread the message of FIRST through out the FIRST community and through out their own team's community. It should not matter what class they are in, but what they do for this organization and to what extents they go too.

Just my 2 cents.

Cass

[pfreivald]

I'm just happy they clarified it either way.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I'm just happy they clarified it either way.

Clarified what ?

One the Dean's List awards document on the FIRST website there is a discussion page one about juniors/seniors and university admissions.

On the bottom of page two is the "Criteria for selection" which has nothing really to do with university admissions or how that relates to student success at the university.

In many, but not all, in many cases the senior year is where the student really stands out in how well they "get FIRST" and it is easier to discern and make those recommendation.

two more cents.

We keep this up we might have enough change for a shared cup of coffee.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by ebarker

Clarified what ?

That juniors will be preferred over other students.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by ebarker

Because it isn't about picking a junior or senior !

Because it isn't ( or shouldn't ) be part of the college admissions process !

Because it isn't about the relationship between students and their mentors !

It is ( or was ) about picking those students that had demonstrated the most commitment, and highest potential to lead FIRST into the future and operate FIRST and its affiliate operations with the highest of standards.

Losing sight of what the award needs to accomplish and trying to serve multiple masters will dilute the effectiveness and meaning of the award, hence this discussion.

I was trying to find a compromise.
If FIRST is so focused on changing the culture, I wonder why they buckled to the attention-grabbing me-isms of college application resumes. If they were to have a FIRST "Rising Star" award for juniors who show promise in engineering, and keep the DLA for students who exemplify all aspects of FIRST, I could get behind it. It would be like the REI/RCA awards, but for an individual.

[Rangel]

Seems like FIRST should just make a junior and a senior category if they really want juniors to win it so bad. Would erase most of the moral problems there appears to be right now.