Improvements to the Dean's List. Your Ideas?

[Jared Russell]

I think that in order to talk about the "right" way to award the Dean's List, we first need to talk about the meta-issue of how ALL judged awards are handled.

We all know that FIRST is not fair. There are teams with "unlimited" budgets, dozens of world class mentors, fantastic production resources, and affluent "cream of the crop", MIT-bound (with or without FRC) students. And there are teams that struggle to register for their first event, rely on the kitbot and hand tools, have one or two dedicated mentors, and draw from some of the most challenged schools in the country. Most teams fit somewhere in between. In general, a student has little or no choice as to what team they join. It is something they are "born into".

Nobody can argue that the "have" teams can achieve objectively "bigger" things than those who "have not"...they have greater resources! They can build awesome robots each and every year, and have bandwidth for doing more community outreach at the same time. Most (but not all) Einstein teams each year come from some of the most affluent areas in FIRST. Most (but not all) Hall of Fame teams fall on the favorable side of the resource distribution curve. It is no surprise that many (but by no means all) judged awards go to a small subset of the FRC teams each season.

Of course, the counter-point is that if all of your students are already bound for prestigious colleges and successful careers, then what real impact are you making? FIRST certainly offers plenty to these students (leadership and teamwork experience, early exposure to engineering practices, and resume padding to help get into highly competitive schools), but can you really argue that it is as profound and life-changing as taking someone from a less affluent background, with little in the way of a support system and a less ambitious outlook on life, and turning them into someone who is motivated, knowledgeable, and going to be the first college-bound person in their family (for example)?

The question becomes...do you reward objective excellence in (robot design and execution, team organization, community outreach, etc.)...or do you reward huge, significant impact in the lives of students (even if the robot, organization, community outreach, etc., isn't as impressive on paper)? If "both", how do you strike a balance?

The answer, for me, to this meta-question as well as to the "Who should get a Dean's List" question is a simple measuring stick: "[Our vision is] To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders." (Dean Kamen)

Changing a culture is a tricky thing. It is very, very hard to do in a targeted way. Culture is a bit of a nebulous (but fascinating) concept, but at some level it means specific "schemas" or patterns and structures of thinking about specific aspects of our world shared by a particular demographic. Culture gets reinforced and evolves over time as a result of many factors, but two of the most significant are:

(1) "Internal" experiences (experiences with <aspect of the world> at the individual, family, neighbor, daily experience level)
(2) "External" experiences (experience with <aspect of the world> at the TV, internet, public policy, arts and entertainment level)

You need to make significant impacts in BOTH areas to have ANY chance of affecting real cultural change! How fortunate that "grassroots" teams cater more to the first factor, and influential, resource-rich teams contribute more to the second! (Though this is a HUGE over simplification, and both types of teams can make significant impacts in both areas)

So in the end, my answer to the question is a bit of a cop out. There are still very hard decisions that I am sure the judges (for any award, including Dean's List) need to make that require choosing between different types of deserving teams/individuals, and I cannot come up with a hard and fast rule to help them out.

But at the end of the day, all FIRST awards are most visible to us within the FIRST community. Outsiders do not (yet) really care. Even college admissions departments are unlikely to truly understand the "pecking order" of FRC awards. So really, awards are FIRST's most visible way of saying to all of us: "Yes, this is a team/individual to emulate!", and I am saying that the "metric" (however fuzzy it may be) that should, in my opinion, weigh most heavily in this determinition is "How much cultural change is this person/team really affecting?"

[JaneYoung]

Super post, Jared.

I want to talk about your last comment which included: "How much cultural change is this person/team really affecting?"

That could be as simple as changing the culture of the team. Sometimes, the contributions and attitude of a team member can go a very long way towards changing the culture of a team. In doing so, the team is strengthened in ways it could not have been and can venture into other opportunities that involve making deeper cuts into the swath of cultural changes.

It has been my understanding through the years, that members of the FIRST community felt that an award for students was needed and that it would be inspired by the Woodie Flowers Award that is awarded to worthy mentors who are nominated and selected. The mentors who have garnered the award at the finalist level - have earned the judges' respect, attention, and decisions. When we read the essays that teams so graciously share with the FIRST community - we find that inspiration is the common thread connecting all of the essays and all of the candidates. It is the same with the Dean's List Award.

When the Dean's List Award was first introduced, we knew that it would take a few seasons for it to come into its own - especially given the way in which it was initially introduced. We knew, at the time, that it had wonderful potential. As a community of thinkers, we need to honor that potential and give it the flexibility and freedom that the Woodie Flowers Award has at District and Regional level. When the WFFAs are nominated for the Championship level, then we see and recognize a different level of potential and impact when the award is decided and the winner is announced. Much like the Chairman's Award contenders at Championship level.

It's a process of elimination led by inspiration.

Jane

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Jared341

We all know that FIRST is not fair.

Life isn't fair. This has been beat up pretty hard in other threads.

Originally Posted by Jared341

Nobody can argue that the "have" teams can achieve objectively "bigger" things than those who "have not"...they have greater resources!

"have not" teams can become "have" teams. It takes hard work and leadership in the mentors and the students. Too many times students interest is sparked and the adults don't sufficiently mentor the students and help support the team. The team could fail, or just survive. I see this tragedy more times than I can to mention.

The students that can push through those difficulties and exert enough leadership to help navigate the team into calmer financial, technical, and cultural waters are in my opinion excellent candidates for the Dean's List Award ( as a leadership, growth, sustainability award )

I'll just pose a question. Does having a lot of resources result in a 'culturally changing' high performance team ? Not necessarily.

Originally Posted by Jared341

But at the end of the day, all FIRST awards are most visible to us within the FIRST community. Outsiders do not (yet) really care.

Absolutely. The pecking order of FIRST awards is mostly lost on non-FIRST'ers. And probably to a large degree it may not really matter, maybe......

What we are creating is what is called a "Public Value" argument. The general public just needs to say, FIRST is great, it is needed, it should be supported, etc, "I'm going to support what you do and now I'm going to the mall"...

Originally Posted by Jared341

"How much cultural change is this person/team really affecting?"

The student that has the ability to demonstrate technical excellence and translate that into a public value argument that helps promote the growth and development of STEM programs like FIRST is the ideal Dean's List candidate.

[quinxorin]

There are a couple things that could be done to greatly improve the Dean's List award.

First and foremost, offer a scholarship to any college to Dean's List finalists. That, of course, is expensive. If there were 114 finalists, and each got 1000 dollars, that's $114,000. Of course, with 2000 teams, that's only $57 more per team.

Another thing to do that isn't quite as expensive: any Dean's List Finalist who comes to the Championship without their team should be given a floor pass bracelet for Einstein. Sitting near the field is a great thing, even if your view is actually worse sometimes.

Finally, the announcement of the Dean's List winners should be done in the main stadium (or, they should be re-announced there). That would make people more aware of the award, thereby increasing the number of teams that submit students for it.

[rachelholladay]

Hello, my name is Rachel Holladay and I am a 2012 Dean's List Winner (and a junior..). I have been following this thread and have just returned from the Deans List Summit. I would like to offer a humble opinion that represents only my thoughts and not official ones from FIRST HQ.

There's an element to being a Dean's List Winner that I did not realize into this past weekend. Becoming a DL Winner is an absolutely immense honor that also entails taking on quite an ambitious job. You see, when we had our meetings with Dean he laid out that we had been chosen out of all of our peers as leaders within FIRST. Now that we had been selected we had a new level responsibility to the FIRST community and the FIRST vision. To say Dean gave us homework is an understatement, he gave a huge project. Right now I'll be a little vague with what it is, but trust me, you will find out. (Oh gosh, this must be how the GDC feels..) The project would be considerably harder (to borderline nearly impossible) if all the winners had been seniors and therefore were leaving for college for the simple reason that college freshman have a lot on their plate already. Its almost as if the DL Winners were not only chosen to be honored but also chosen to work on an important task force.

[KathieK]

I have to chime in here... the criteria states:

Criteria for selection of the FIRST Dean’s List shall include, but not be limited to a student’s:

• demonstrated leadership and commitment to the ideals of FIRST;
• interest in and passion for a long term commitment to FIRST and its ideals;
• overall individual contribution to their team;
• technical expertise and passion;
• entrepreneurship and creativity;
• ability to motivate and lead fellow team members; and
• effectiveness at increasing awareness of FIRST in their school and community.

Please reconsider this phrase, as it implies that Dean's List Awardees must have technical expertise - yet many, many of our students and mentors are providing critical expertise to teams in non-technical areas.

It is the family’s hope that this Award will encourage the passion in all FIRST students to promote the FIRST mission both as a student on an FRC team and for years to come as members of the FIRST student alumni.

I think you can be passionate and promote the FIRST mission regardless of your technical expertise.

The award was created during the 2010 FRC season by the Kamen family in recognition of Jack and Evelyn Kamen; parents of FIRST founder Dean Kamen. Jack, who passed away in August of 2008 at the age of 88, and his wife Evelyn have been fixtures at many FIRST events. Their humor, along with a positive and supportive attitude, truly symbolizes the FIRST culture. In fact, Jack is the designer of the playful red, white and blue geometric shapes that create the FIRST logo which wonderfully balances the technical and emotional sides of what FIRST is all about. Dean’s mother, Evelyn, is a tireless caretaker for her family and is an exceptional teacher, principal and tremendous FIRST supporter. She lends her experience as a leader of schools to chair the judge panel that selects the FIRST Dean’s List Award winners...

Forgive me, Libby, for I didn't know your grandfather and have only met your grandmother once or twice - but the award was created to recognize them - and their wonderful support of FIRST. I know of lots of young students, mentors, alums who do the same in a non-technical role. So why does the criteria emphasize technical expertise?

[Denise Bohnsack]

I have read all the posts above.
Concerning the Dean's List there seems to be two different perceptions.

1. The Dean's List honors a member of a team who demonstrates outstanding leadership, dedication, and efforts with a team. Should be a junior with technical expertise as this individual may most likely qualify for respective college scholarships and represent FIRST throughout their senior year.

2. The Dean's List honors the most outstanding member of a team who demonstrates leadership, dedication, and above and beyond efforts of team. Regardless of age, this person is the equivalent of a high school team member who reflects the same qualities as the winner of the Woodie Flower's award.

Either way, each of the above has it's merits, advantages and disadvantages. Since this is a Kamen chosen award, as Libby describes, honoring Jack Kamen and Libby's grandmother, the award should be whatever the Kamen family thinks it should be, whatever guidelines they choose and find most fitting.

However, if it is an award specifically given to a junior with technical expertise, I would ask a committee to consider giving another award(s), with the same qualities sought in the Woodie Flowers award, with no age or technical stipulation. I would also like to see a FIRST alumni, recognized in this way. (This might be another thread, "How to honor and outreach to alumni")
These awards would not necessarily come with the same "prizes" as the Dean's List winner, but more recognize this individual(s) for their significant contributions to their respective teams and FIRST, again more consistent with the Woodie Flowers version. Especially important, is to consider that alumni, who Dean mentioned very specifically at the Finalist award ceremony in length, are critical in developing the future of FIRST. However, a dedicated few of the thousands stay involved with the FIRST program after entering college or the workforce. Seniors are almost alumni, and how important a contribution they feel they can make to FIRST in the future, and how the teams feel about them now, will likely fit into their decision to continue as a FIRST volunteer/mentor or participate instead on a larger scale with the many other choices they will be offered as college students or young members of the workplace.

As a mother, one of the greatest joys I have experienced, is watching very young students grow up in the FIRST program, who have become devoted, wonderful adults who now mentor young people in FIRST activities. I am truly in awe and inspired by their commitment to mentor as they have been mentored in the these programs. Not all of these individuals have gone to prestigious colleges or gone into science and engineering, however, they represent some of the best young people I have ever had the privilege to know.
Thank you to the Kamens, and the committees, who are seeking ways to continue to support and encourage these young folks and their involvement in the FIRST programs. Just a Mom's opinion.