Chairman's Award Concerns

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Steve W

CA is suppose to be the top award in FIRST. We are here discussing teams that maybe stretch the truth. Maybe the real issue is that more time MUST be taken with the teams to discuss, question and evaluate. 10 minutes for the top award. Are you kidding? If there are a lot of teams then have 2 or 3 panels of judges. Each panel could choose the top of their group and then have all judges present for a second presentation (can be shorter) of the 3 in contention. A decision could then be made with all judges present.

Maybe I am wrong but how can a judge make an informed decision in 10 minutes. I have seen judges spend way more than that talking to teams about other awards. Give them the time they need and throw away the clock. Better decisions can be made with more time for questions and answers. Will this be perfect, no BUT it will be 100% better.

I sometimes question this for several reasons, one of which IMO, FIRST didnt deliver when it came to promoting its goals at its highest moment this year.

[Rich Kressly]

the whole process is the most valuable part, not the award itself ...

1. as a team, engage in the process as deeply as you can - you won't regret it.
2. Learn from others as much as you can (and, yes, FIRST needs to deliver on helping spread that information - ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S WRITTEN IN THE RULES ). Perhaps some of the HofF teams might get together and help push the agenda and/or begin to create and share like the WFA's have - http://themobius.wordpress.com/ ???
3. As for the potential misrepresentations? Water off a duck's back. As soon as you start worrying or even thinking about that, you're losing focus on maintaining your own team's efforts and managing the how your team best represents itself - which is the only part you'll ever truly know or control anyway.

[Racer26]

I don't know about teams making 'stretched' or 'inflated' or 'misleading' or 'not-totally-true' claims in their Chairman's bid, but what I DO see, frequently, is teams reusing the same wonderful things they did years ago over and over again in their Chairman's videos, effectively using the same accomplishments to win the award multiple times.

I'm not really sure how to reconcile this, because those things are clearly a part of the team's history, and clearly a part of how they do things, and even clearly a part of what makes the team deserve Chairman's. On the other hand, it seems to me like the very best teams should have enough material from the current year that makes them awesome, that the older stuff, especially content from a previous Chairman's bid that resulted in an RCA, warrants little more than a cursory mention.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I don't know about teams making 'stretched' or 'inflated' or 'misleading' or 'not-totally-true' claims in their Chairman's bid, but what I DO see, frequently, is teams reusing the same wonderful things they did years ago over and over again in their Chairman's videos, effectively using the same accomplishments to win the award multiple times.

I'm not really sure how to reconcile this, because those things are clearly a part of the team's history, and clearly a part of how they do things, and even clearly a part of what makes the team deserve Chairman's. On the other hand, it seems to me like the very best teams should have enough material from the current year that makes them awesome, that the older stuff, especially content from a previous Chairman's bid that resulted in an RCA, warrants little more than a cursory mention.

I don't think there is any mystery here as the award is about a long-term (more than one year) sustained effort. Quoting the 2012 manual,
"6.4.3 Submission Information
The criteria for the 2012 Chairman's Award are essentially identical to those in the past, with special emphasis on recent accomplishments in both the 2011/2012 year and the preceding two (2) years. The judges focus on teams’ activities over a sustained period, as distinguished from just the six (6) week design and build time frame."

So in other words the judges want to know about all of your efforts, no matter how "old", with special focus/emphasis on the most recent three years.

In addition to that, a team may have begun an outreach activity six years ago, but they still continue to participate/organize/execute it today - making it a recent activity with a long and rich history (which, coincidentally, are things that judges love - and they should)

-my .02, namaste.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Levansic

Ignore the award. Do the right things, and set the right culture in your team. Document your real efforts, set high expectations for conduct embracing Gracious Professionalism, and have fun!

Absolutely !!

Originally Posted by Steve W

how can a judge make an informed decision in 10 minutes.

They can't. If the judges have not really studied the submissions before the competition then the process is broken. I'm sure it works well at some events and is probably broken at other events.

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

I imagine the video submission will soon be due at the same time as the essay, that way we can almost get rid of the presentation and just have question and answers at the regional. I think that's how the judges truly learn what a team is about anyway.

The PRIMARY purpose of the video is not and has never been used to do RCA judging. The primary purpose was for other teams to see how the team that is earning an award do their work. It is in the spirit of communicating, inspiring, training others to become an RCA team. FIRST has had to implement language that enforces submission of the video.

Originally Posted by waialua359

I sometimes question this for several reasons, one of which IMO, FIRST didnt deliver when it came to promoting its goals at its highest moment this year.

Glenn, I agree - they really dropped the ball on this on !!! I don't know what to say. I had the same thoughts in my head when I was standing there.

Originally Posted by 1075guy

is teams reusing the same wonderful things they did years ago over and over

Chairman's allows a team to use this year plus the prior two years as part of the submission. I have seen teams go back even further than that. Sometimes it makes sense to do that.

We try to add ONE MAJOR initiative each year and a couple of lesser initiatives each year and hopefully maintain the prior initiatives as ongoing efforts. That way there is a pipeline of fresh stuff. But yes not all teams do that.

So an RCA teams has to do things consistently over a few years. A CMP CA team has to do it over 5 or even 10 years.

$ 0.02

[waialua359]

FIRST needs to stop saying the video is required but doesnt count towards judging.
I dont believe it anyway.

No one can argue that a 3 minute video about your program is more compelling and with greater impact, than a 10 minute presentation with Q&A.

While I think teams may win an RCA without a "good" video at a regional level, it better be "good" at the CMP level. I cant see FIRST showcasing the team earning the "Highest Award" in FIRST with a video that isnt representative of the goals they set forth............whatever that may be.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by waialua359

FIRST needs to stop saying the video is required but doesnt count towards judging.
I dont believe it anyway.

I don't agree. I have not done any real survey but I have know RCA judges to say they they don't and have not watched the video.

I think the RCA teams need to do a video and eventually they will get better at it just like teams get better a building robots. The videos produced this year, at least the sampling I've looked at, are substantially better than in the past.

Teams need to learn how to communicate. I've got a whole thesis on that subject.

[Racer26]

As I said, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, using old accomplishments. I would prefer to see current accomplishments, though.

I'm going to pick on 1114 here for a minute, just because they're the perennial RCA team that I have the most experience with.

1114 has won RCAs 6 out of the last 7 years, and they currently have their 2009, 2010, and 2011 Chairman's videos on their website, and the 2012 one is expected to be posted soon.

If you watch the three videos that are there, there is a TON of re-used footage, and re-used accomplishments. The 2012 video (which I saw at the GTR East regional after they won the RCA with it), has many of the same accomplishments covered.

I would agree that older accomplishments ARE getting smaller mentions as time passes, which I think is the correct approach, though one in specific struck me as kind of odd this year.

1114 is responsible for FLL kits getting into every Niagara district elementary school. That's a fantastic accomplishment, and one to be proud of for sure. As someone who didn't know that this accomplishment was actually a couple years old already, Karthik's speeches, and their 2012 video made it seem to me as though that was an accomplishment this year. I don't think their intention was to mislead, but I certainly assumed that it was a 2012 accomplishment, until I started watching their older Chairman's videos. Perhaps such things should be presented with dates or something. I don't really know, maybe I'm picking on something that is by-and-large a non-issue.

I'm not saying that they don't continue to do great things, or don't deserve to be winning RCAs perennially, in fact, I know it to be quite the opposite. They ARE probably the most deserving team in the region. They DO continue to sustain many of the efforts mentioned, and they DO continue to do new and exciting things in the community-at-large. I just don't like the feeling I get from the videos that seem to make it sound as though certain accomplishments are 'current' when they are older, whether or not that interpretation was intentionally easy to make.

[Karthik]

I don't want to derail the good discussion that's happening here, but I just wanted to clear something up.

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I would agree that older accomplishments ARE getting smaller mentions as time passes, which I think is the correct approach, though one in specific struck me as kind of odd this year.

1114 is responsible for FLL kits getting into every Niagara district elementary school. That's a fantastic accomplishment, and one to be proud of for sure. As someone who didn't know that this accomplishment was actually a couple years old already, Karthik's speeches, and their 2012 video made it seem to me as though that was an accomplishment this year. I don't think their intention was to mislead, but I certainly assumed that it was a 2012 accomplishment, until I started watching their older Chairman's videos. Perhaps such things should be presented with dates or something. I don't really know, maybe I'm picking on something that is by-and-large a non-issue.

If you had read the essay and seen the presentation, you most likely would not have gotten this impression. The work put into convincing our school board to invest in robotics kits for every school is a very proud part of our history. However the essay and presentation focus more on what we've done with those kits since their implementation, namely the summer of 2011 project our students undertook, designing a new 5 hour robotics curriculum module, utilizing these kits, for the Grade 7 & 8 design centres.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by ebarker

I don't agree. I have not done any real survey but I have know RCA judges to say they they don't and have not watched the video.

I think the RCA teams need to do a video and eventually they will get better at it just like teams get better a building robots. The videos produced this year, at least the sampling I've looked at, are substantially better than in the past.

Teams need to learn how to communicate. I've got a whole thesis on that subject.

Ed,
I cant tell if you agree with me or not.
I have had several different CA judges at 3 different regionals see our video.

I'm not saying they shouldnt do one.....I'm saying they should and it should have weight in the decision made to award a team.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Ed,
I cant tell if you agree with me or not.
I have had several different CA judges at 3 different regionals see our video.

I'm not saying they shouldnt do one.....I'm saying they should and it should have weight in the decision made to award a team.

It is my understanding that the reason FIRST implemented the video thing in the 1st place was to provide a way for teams to communicate how they pursue Chairman's.

That was the idea. The reality was FIRST found out how much difficulty students have creating a watchable video that is 'on task'.

They could have abandoned the idea but have chosen to keep it. I agree with keeping it. I think it will take 5 or more years for enough teams to wrap their head around how to properly produce a video.

It is taking a lot longer to get this off the ground than some people realized.

I don't think we are at the point where we should require judges to consider the video in their judging, especially considering that was not the original purpose of the video in the 1st place.

Bottom line: they should do a video, but I want to wait a couple of more years before we require it to be adjudicated.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I sometimes question this for several reasons, one of which IMO, FIRST didnt deliver when it came to promoting its goals at its highest moment this year.

I want to follow on this comment one more time. I’m assuming “highest moment” you are referring to is the visit to the White House on February 7, 2012.

Yes, FIRST really messed this one up. The 2011 CA team should have been there, absolutely no doubt. How they made the decisions they did I have no clue !

Why is this important and to whom ?

The event was symbolically important to the generic STEM community. It signals to the world that the White House views STEM activities as important. That is the power of the bully pulpit. But there are real limitations.

Most Americans view the president as the all-powerful authoritative man who governs the country as he pleases from his oval office. The existing situation regarding the presidency and his power is actually on the contrary according to presidential scholars.

President Truman once said of President Eisenhower upon his election, "He'll sit there all day saying do this, do that, and nothing will happen. Poor Ike, it won’t be a bit like the military. He'll find it very frustrating."

After enormous effort preparing to go there, arriving, participating, and returning, we ask ourselves what are the outcomes ? From a public policy perspective it has some importance ( subject to President Truman’s comments ). The President seemed to really enjoy himself, getting away from the headaches of daily life, foreign policy, the economy, etc. From a personal, team, or local perspective it isn’t so impactful. There were maybe 100+ students there.

The White House event was a public policy moment. For the White House, for FIRST, the team, and other STEM stakeholders, pure and simple. Each of these parties have a strong case for making a public policy statement. This is important because......

Sure, the trip was important for helping build a public policy case for supporting STEM education. The White House trip was important and our trip to the Congressional briefing on 2010 was also. We went as public policy pawns, and there is nothing wrong with that. ( In reality the President has probably had a bigger STEM impact with Race to the Top. But will.i.am has probably done a better job of attracting students to FIRST than the President. )

I would strongly caution anyone from assuming it is the “high point of our life or career”. I would double that caution when describing it as the highest moment of FIRST. In fact I will state unequivocally here and now that it isn’t the highest moment of FIRST. It even doesn’t even come close.

The highest moment of FIRST is the profound and life changing moments that thousands students are experiencing right now. Nothing, absolutely nothing about the White House experience even comes close !!


epilogue: If you watch our Chairman's video we talk about the 120+ events we have done. A ton of working in the sphere of public policy, working on the culture, attitudes, etc. We have students that have been doing these things for as long as four years. It has led to a saying on the team "another day in the life of kell robotics". Not to discount the WH experience, it really did feel like "another day in the life ....."

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by ebarker

I want to follow on this comment one more time. I’m assuming “highest moment” you are referring to is the visit to the White House on February 7, 2012.

Yes, FIRST really messed this one up. The 2011 CA team should have been there, absolutely no doubt. How they made the decisions they did I have no clue !

Why is this important and to whom ?

The event was symbolically important to the generic STEM community. It signals to the world that the White House views STEM activities as important. That is the power of the bully pulpit. But there are real limitations.

Most Americans view the president as the all-powerful authoritative man who governs the country as he pleases from his oval office. The existing situation regarding the presidency and his power is actually on the contrary according to presidential scholars.

President Truman once said of President Eisenhower upon his election, "He'll sit there all day saying do this, do that, and nothing will happen. Poor Ike, it won’t be a bit like the military. He'll find it very frustrating."

After enormous effort preparing to go there, arriving, participating, and returning, we ask ourselves what are the outcomes ? From a public policy perspective it has some importance ( subject to President Truman’s comments ). The President seemed to really enjoy himself, getting away from the headaches of daily life, foreign policy, the economy, etc. From a personal, team, or local perspective it isn’t so impactful. There were maybe 100+ students there.

The White House event was a public policy moment. For the White House, for FIRST, the team, and other STEM stakeholders, pure and simple. Each of these parties have a strong case for making a public policy statement. This is important because......

Sure, the trip was important for helping build a public policy case for supporting STEM education. The White House trip was important and our trip to the Congressional briefing on 2010 was also. We went as public policy pawns, and there is nothing wrong with that. ( In reality the President has probably had a bigger STEM impact with Race to the Top. But will.i.am has probably done a better job of attracting students to FIRST than the President. )

I would strongly caution anyone from assuming it is the “high point of our life or career”. I would double that caution when describing it as the highest moment of FIRST. In fact I will state unequivocally here and now that it isn’t the highest moment of FIRST. It even doesn’t even come close.

The highest moment of FIRST is the profound and life changing moments that thousands students are experiencing right now. Nothing, absolutely nothing about the White House experience even comes close !!


epilogue: If you watch our Chairman's video we talk about the 120+ events we have done. A ton of working in the sphere of public policy, working on the culture, attitudes, etc. We have students that have been doing these things for as long as four years. It has led to a saying on the team "another day in the life of kell robotics". Not to discount the WH experience, it really did feel like "another day in the life ....."

Ed,
First of all, thanks for sharing in detail. I hear you and totally understand.
And yes, it is what I was referring to.

Without getting into detail (something we can one day talk about face-face), my whole issue is the message they send to all of us, regardless of the impact it really has.
I can give tons of analogies about our experiences while working with our local government and agencies, sponsors, and the news media about the concerns you bring up and to what extent it has towards the stakeholders.

Does it really matter for concerns you bring up? Is it something we have control of?

When people, colleagues, friends, families and business leaders see what the goals of FIRST are, explicitly stated, and see actions that say essentially "Winning is everything," how would you explain that?

Regardless of any event that happens external to our team, we have reasons why we do what we do for our participation in FIRST.
The best personal example is this season, as we have done arguably more than any other year, and not even applying for an RCA.

[mathking]

From a team's vantage point, the best way to demonstrate impact is through documentation. Take lots of pictures and get written feedback. Make scrapbooks of events, news items, flyers, etc. Leave the notebooks in your pit area and allow other teams to look through them.

This is really, really good advice. Not just for purposes of documenting your Chairman's Award submissions but also for preserving your history. We did not do a great job of this in our first few years. (This was a comment we got a few times in our CA feedback.) Now we do a better job, and are trying to recapture our "lost" history as well. This year we started building an iBook that we hope to use it going forward to document our efforts. It was a fun project for me, because I got to reminisce about the past teams. It was great for the kids because many of them learned things about the team's earlier years they did not know. It is also making us think about our future, and focus more on plans. (That was also some of the constructive feedback we got from judges this year.)

We have also made a strong effort to keep track of our alumni, and this definitely has impressed judges. It also gives us a some hard data that is nice to have in the presentations. (I think that we also have an unfair advantage here, given that so many of our alumni go to Ohio State, which is local, and come back and mentor our team or other OSU supported teams. But it is something that is much easier to do in the Facebook era.)

We always struggle with what to include and what not to include. I try to push the kids to focus on the ongoing efforts, the things we do every year. The special things are great, but we try to emphasize the things we did while at least some of the current team members were members. Once your team has been around for a while, and has started getting serious about its FIRST mission, you will have lots of accomplishments. Sometimes those read like a laundry list. My advice is cut down on the number and focus on the ones of which you are the most proud and which best represent what your team has done.

For the past 8 years we have put together e-week (Engineering Week) lessons for elementary school (4th-6th grade) teachers. It does not take a huge effort. We have a few kids do some research and settle on an engineering activity. We write up a lesson plan and then offer the lessons as well as supplies to interested local teachers. A few hours work for a few kids (at least now that we don't try the counterproductive route of making thousands of individual kits and instead focus on classroom sets) and a couple hundred bucks (at most, this year was less). We have given away as many as 9600 kids worth of kits and as few as 800. This year was, I believe, around 2000. It is not something to rival helping to start up a regional or finding thousands of dollars to start new teams. But it is something that we do every year, and it has become one of "our things." So their are kids on the team who can talk intelligently about it when judges come around to our pits.

On a more philosophical level, I recently changed my signature to: "I always tell the kids, when you don't win the Chairman's Award that's not a bad thing. If you think you are deserving, but someone else is better, that mean's the message of FIRST is really getting out there." That is what I try to communicate to the kids. Other than this year, we probably had our strongest submission in 2010. (To my mind we were more "deserving" in 2010 than in 2009, when we won.) But 291 won the award. I talked a lot with one of their mentors and a bunch of their kids, and I had absolutely no doubt they deserved the win. There was another year (2008 I think) when 612 won, and I remember a couple of our kids saying "Could we ever be that good?" after talking with 612 about their efforts.

On to some of the good ideas. I will try (can't promise, because things are busy right now with trying to organize the trip to the Championships and negotiate the start of track & field season) to have our presentation record a practice presentation and post that to the web. I think this is a good idea. (When we publish our iBook it will have a lot about what we have done, and will include the presentation and team essay.) In our annual training day one of the sessions is about the Chairman's Award submission. I strongly encourage everyone to submit at least occasionally, even if you *know* you can't win. As other posters have mentioned, the process is valuable in itself. Almost every year, when we are rereading the essay or the kids are practicing the presentation, we reach some conclusions about things we will do differently the next time.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

the whole process is the most valuable part, not the award itself ...

I partially agree. I ask all teams that I work with to make up a CA submission even if they know they can't win. I believe that it is an exercise to keep track of team progress and goal setting.

If the award is not important then they should stop saying that it is the top award in FIRST. If is not important then why celebrate it and strive to win it?