Should Chairman's Winners Be Required to Publicly Post Essays?

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by LeelandS

My biggest fear is that, by releasing the winning essays, teams will be compelled to mimic the team's actions. Maybe not by building a special demo robot that they can use to make balloon animals or by designing a smartphone app, but I fear it will become a game of who can mimic 1114's or 67's or 254's (etc.) submission the best.

This is precisely what the Chairman's award is about! From the description of the award we hear every year as the winners are announced:

Originally Posted by Chairman's Award Description, The Manual

The Chairman’s Award represents the spirit of FIRST. It honors the team that, in the judges’ estimation, best represents a model for other teams to emulate, and which embodies the goals and purpose of FIRST. It remains FIRST’s most prestigious award.

(emphasis mine)

Chairman's award winning teams set the standard for all FIRST teams, on and off the field. Whether or not they share the essay is relatively unimportant. How they impact their community and promote the goals and purpose of FIRST is. I would hope a winning team has a strong enough community presence where an essay isn't the only way to know what they do. Marketing and publicity are just as important as anything else a team does- accomplishments should be listed on the team's website, in local media, displayed in their pit, and spoken of through casual conversation. I can't imagine a winning team keeping the FIRST community in the dark as to what they've been up to outside of competition.

[ebarker]

Marc. P beat me to the post........

If you are submitting for Chairman's, the you are publicly declaring your team to be a role model. What you do, how you act, how you accomplish your work should be visible to all.

That is what a role model is.

Someone please correct me but I vaguely remember a statement from FIRST last spring stating that starting in 2013 all winning Regional Chairman's teams essays would be published. But I don't remember and need to research it.

We do not have a problem publishing the essay and it is posted on ChiefDelphi white papers.

[Alan Anderson]

I can think of only one potential negative result of sharing a Chairman's Award essay:

Some people will publicly critique, nitpick, or otherwise complain about what a team says it does. This could include accusations of exaggerating or even inventing details. Even if such accusations are without merit, they would still cast shadows over the process.

Though I doubt that would be enough to detract from all the potential positives, I'm still leaning toward leaving things as they are. It seems to me that the teams that truly deserve to be emulated already share their essays.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I can think of only one potential negative result of sharing a Chairman's Award essay:

Some people will publicly critique, nitpick, or otherwise complain about what a team says it does. This could include accusations of exaggerating or even inventing details. Even if such accusations are without merit, they would still cast shadows over the process.

Though I doubt that would be enough to detract from all the potential positives, I'm still leaning toward leaving things as they are. It seems to me that the teams that truly deserve to be emulated already share their essays.

You bring up an interesting point, Alan!

I haven't written my opinion yet, but this is a big part of it, so I'll throw in another question:

Would the thought of making essays publicly available discourage teams from bending the truth, reduce exaggerations, or in general, create a system of checks & balances? I read a thread on here a while ago about a team discussing something similar to this that made me think about this type of situation. Do people in FRC think that teams who win/submit Chairman's already have the decency to avoid things like this? What about if a student is submitting/writing an award and just doesn't know all aspects of the type of work their team has done in the community? How can it be ensured a student doesn't pass along false information/exaggerations to the judges? (In general, this is the tougher part of the question, in my opinion). Should teams have to present visual evidence of all events/services to judges?

Would teams reading these essays be rude and harass a team about something that is written in an essay, or would they calmly ask questions in private?

Originally Posted by ebarker

If you are submitting for Chairman's, the you are publicly declaring your team to be a role model. What you do, how you act, how you accomplish your work should be visible to all.

....

Someone please correct me but I vaguely remember a statement from FIRST last spring stating that starting in 2013 all winning Regional Chairman's teams essays would be published. But I don't remember and need to research it.

We do not have a problem publishing the essay and it is posted on ChiefDelphi white papers.

Ed, I think I almost totally agree with your first point, with some small exceptions maybe.

As per your second point - if you find a statement regarding this, please do share.

As I said before, some of the questions I raise may sound controversial, so please keep the discussion as civil as it has been!

[PayneTrain]

Maybe I am naive or ignorant, but I have never witnessed any Chairman's Essay that would suggest an exaggeration of truth or a discussion on the veracity of a submission.

Does this actually happen frequently and I have no idea of it?

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Maybe I am naive or ignorant, but I have never witnessed any Chairman's Essay that would suggest an exaggeration of truth or a discussion on the veracity of a submission.

Does this actually happen frequently and I have no idea of it?

Wil, to clarify, the threads that prompted me to think about this type of stuff were these two, posted by a mentor of 1912. The questions they posted made my think about how far some teams may intentionally or unintentionally stretch details of services to their community. I thought they were two great questions.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...t=Chairman%27s

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...t=Chairman%27s

In these cases, for example, if a team claims to have mentored or started another team, would judges confirm this type of information with the team that was mentored? Do they ask how involved the mentee (is that a word?) team was? I've just always wondered how judges may go about this.

If anyone here is a Chairman's judge at the district, regional, or CMP level, I'd really love to hear about this process as it seems extremely difficult.

And, as always, my remarks are not accusatory, so don't wonder if these questions were prompted because of a team from my area. They are just questions that a few friends from all over and I had and were wondering about. My remarks are also mine and mine alone, and in no way reflect associated teams.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Maybe I am naive or ignorant, but I have never witnessed any Chairman's Essay that would suggest an exaggeration of truth or a discussion on the veracity of a submission.

Does this actually happen frequently and I have no idea of it?

I know of one winning RCA essay (not from a team I have been active on) that exaggerated the truth/misled to believe said team did something major that didn't happen.

I believe it should be up to RCA teams if they want to post their essay but I wish CCA essays were posted. Recently our team found 365's 2007 CCA submission and it was very inspiring to see the impact that team has had.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

... Would the thought of making essays publicly available discourage teams from bending the truth, reduce exaggerations, or in general, create a system of checks & balances? ...

What if I responded to this by saying that I don't care if these things take place or if there is ever a system of checks and balances? I would hope all teams do their absolute best to represent themselves fairly and well, but trying to externally mandate or manage this is a bad idea...

The Chairman's Award is about documenting your team's growth, impact, and outreach so you keep the type of focus in your program that Dean, Woodie, Dr. Murphy, John Abele, and others have envisioned since the beginning. It about managing your team and program in a way that's more concerned with positive culture change than it is with solely building a killer robot every year. It's about being a model for the creation of socially conscious leaders.

You start shifting the focus toward "catching the cheaters" and you'll start creating more teams that point fingers and worry about the blue banner as opposed to worrying about the healthy pursuit of the blue banner.

Do I want every team to be 100% honest (whatever that means, btw) in their endeavors? Yes. Do I want to spend any time thinking about other teams that might not be doing business that way? No. Not at all.

I want to seek out the models in the FIRST community, take previous year's judging feedback given to my team, think deeply about what makes sense in growing my team's program, and then plan a positive course for growth.

This effort is about the mirror test folks; it's not about looking for the "cheaters." I realize that I may be in the minority here, but we're not going to change enough of the culture for the better if we don't start thinking differently and living accordingly.

my .02, take it for what it's worth.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

What if I responded to this by saying that I don't care if these things take place or if there is ever a system of checks and balances? I would hope all teams do their absolute best to represent themselves fairly and well, but trying to externally mandate or manage this is a bad idea...

The Chairman's Award is about documenting your team's growth, impact, and outreach so you keep the type of focus in your program that Dean, Woodie, Dr. Murphy, John Abele, and others have envisioned since the beginning. It about managing your team and program in a way that's more concerned with positive culture change than it is with solely building a killer robot every year. It's about being a model for the creation of socially conscious leaders.

You start shifting the focus toward "catching the cheaters" and you'll start creating more teams that point fingers and worry about the blue banner as opposed to worrying about the healthy pursuit of the blue banner.

Do I want every team to be 100% honest (whatever that means, btw) in their endeavors? Yes. Do I want to spend any time thinking about other teams that might not be doing business that way? No. Not at all.

I want to seek out the models in the FIRST community, take previous year's judging feedback given to my team, think deeply about what makes sense in growing my team's program, and then plan a positive course for growth.

This effort is about the mirror test folks; it's not about looking for the "cheaters." I realize that I may be in the minority here, but we're not going to change enough of the culture for the better if we don't start thinking differently and living accordingly.

my .02, take it for what it's worth.

Wish we could spotlight an entire post.

Wisdom.

Jane

[Lil' Lavery]

Much of what I say will end up echoing Rich, Kim, and others. In no way am I ashamed of this post "emulating" their very valid points.

Once upon I time, I viewed the Chairman's Award as another form of competition. I cared very much about which teams submitted at which regionals, and how we could "beat" the teams at our event. I was even younger than I am today, and as many young people are, I was both ambitious and foolish.

If you view the Chairman's Award as a competition to be won and lost, you're missing the point of the award. I'm not saying you shouldn't strive to win the award and take pride when you do, but the motivation behind your actions should not simply be the trophy at the end. Likewise, and more importantly, when another team wins the award you shouldn't view it as a defeat. The achievements of someone else does nothing to tarnish what you have accomplished yourself. If you were already proud of your action, why would a piece of plastic change that? Strive to win the award by accomplishing more, not "getting a leg up" on someone else.

I find it highly unlikely that many teams win the award today without significant effots to share what they do with the FIRST community. It's such a fundamental part of what it means to be a role model that I can't really wrap my head around how a team would win without it. The very fundamental concept of the award is to further FIRST's mission by showcasing the best of the best at accomplishing the end goal. How does secrecy help you further the mission of FIRST? How does secrecy make you a good role model to emulate? And, yes, being emulated is the point and a positive result.

I understand the work that goes towards winning a Chairman's Award and preparing the submission. I helped write three Chairman's essays in high school, presented two of them, and have edited and reviewed multiple since then. Both 116 and 1712 have left plenty of events without a Chairman's banner, but with feedback forms loaded with "currently strong" check marks. It took 116 13 years to finally win a RCA. 1712 has yet to reach that goal. It's no easy task, and I fully understand the frustration. But all that work should be a mark of pride, even if your ultimate ambition is unfulfilled. Why on Earth would you keep any aspects of that a secret?

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

... I understand the work that goes towards winning a Chairman's Award and preparing the submission. I helped write three Chairman's essays in high school, presented two of them, and have edited and reviewed multiple since then. Both 116 and 1712 have left plenty of events without a Chairman's banner, but with feedback forms loaded with "currently strong" check marks. It took 116 13 years to finally win a RCA. 1712 has yet to reach that goal. It's no easy task, and I fully understand the frustration. But all that work should be a mark of pride, even if your ultimate ambition is unfulfilled. Why on Earth would you keep any aspects of that a secret?

I really dig Sean's post, especially the part I highlighted above. Kinda reminds me of Karthik Kanabapathy's TEDx talk from this past weekend, "If you chase perfection (which you'll never achieve), you'll catch excellence along the way." What team is he from again?

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Much of what I say will end up echoing Rich, Kim, and others. In no way am I ashamed of this post "emulating" their very valid points.

Once upon I time, I viewed the Chairman's Award as another form of competition. I cared very much about which teams submitted at which regionals, and how we could "beat" the teams at our event. I was even younger than I am today, and as many young people are, I was both ambitious and foolish.

If you view the Chairman's Award as a competition to be won and lost, you're missing the point of the award. I'm not saying you shouldn't strive to win the award and take pride when you do, but the motivation behind your actions should not simply be the trophy at the end. Likewise, and more importantly, when another team wins the award you shouldn't view it as a defeat. The achievements of someone else does nothing to tarnish what you have accomplished yourself. If you were already proud of your action, why would a piece of plastic change that? Strive to win the award by accomplishing more, not "getting a leg up" on someone else.

I find it highly unlikely that many teams win the award today without significant effots to share what they do with the FIRST community. It's such a fundamental part of what it means to be a role model that I can't really wrap my head around how a team would win without it. The very fundamental concept of the award is to further FIRST's mission by showcasing the best of the best at accomplishing the end goal. How does secrecy help you further the mission of FIRST? How does secrecy make you a good role model to emulate? And, yes, being emulated is the point and a positive result.

I understand the work that goes towards winning a Chairman's Award and preparing the submission. I helped write three Chairman's essays in high school, presented two of them, and have edited and reviewed multiple since then. Both 116 and 1712 have left plenty of events without a Chairman's banner, but with feedback forms loaded with "currently strong" check marks. It took 116 13 years to finally win a RCA. 1712 has yet to reach that goal. It's no easy task, and I fully understand the frustration. But all that work should be a mark of pride, even if your ultimate ambition is unfulfilled. Why on Earth would you keep any aspects of that a secret?

I'll be honest. I dont miss the work the team put forth in the "preparation" of a submission. It truly is a lot of work trying to document everything you do. Every team (some more than others) has great learning moments. But trying to capture it all, makes it tough. Our team has just about every element that we still continue to do regardless of an RCA award or not, minus the submission and pictures.

One big award I am very disappointed about is the elimination of the website award. I'm afraid, less teams will focus on having one.............which I think is the biggest form of communication a team can transparently showcase about themselves.

[mathking]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

If you view the Chairman's Award as a competition to be won and lost, you're missing the point of the award. I'm not saying you shouldn't strive to win the award and take pride when you do, but the motivation behind your actions should not simply be the trophy at the end. Likewise, and more importantly, when another team wins the award you shouldn't view it as a defeat. The achievements of someone else does nothing to tarnish what you have accomplished yourself. If you were already proud of your action, why would a piece of plastic change that? Strive to win the award by accomplishing more, not "getting a leg up" on someone else.

This.

I have grown to look at the Chairman's Award in much the same way I look at coaching cross country. Our team has 75 boys and 85 girls. Only two of them ever get to be the fastest even on our team. Some years we have a really good team and not a single runner on the team ever wins a race. In cross country we focus on running well. When an athlete runs a personal best time for a course, or an overall personal best, it is cause of celebration. That is what I now try to instill in the students regarding the Chairman's Award.

A few years ago at the Buckeye Regional, we got our feedback forms back with, as Sean mentioned, lots of currently strong check marks. The judges made note that it was a difficult decision and they simply felt the team that won had been a little bit stronger. As it happened, I had been chatting with one of their (291, CIA) mentors and some parents the day before. While I felt we had a really strong submission that year, I knew that they were deserving of the award. And I realized that it was just like coaching cross country. I am much more satisfied when we run really good races against top competition and don't win than when we win against competition that isn't as talented as we are.

In any event, thank you everyone for this conversation. It has been interesting and thought provoking.

[Tristan Lall]

I'd make them mandatory, and publish them together in one place.

One reason to do so is to seed just a little bit of uncertainty in the mind of anyone who would consider laying claim to an unverified fact (as distinct from a known falsehood) to strengthen their essay. "What if someone notices?" is enforcement enough for me: it's enforced in your head, by your fear of embarrassment, and not just by your conscience. There's definitely no need to give FIRST the responsibility of fact-checking anything.

Another reason I'd make them mandatory is so that they can be treated as some kind of a historical record. Wouldn't it be nice to see, decade by decade, what FIRST teams used to do differently? What was important to them back then?

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

What team is he from again?

188

[ebarker]

1) teams that look at and read Chairman's submissions need to understand the architecture of what is happening. In other words, how does their team address FIRST core values without getting too bogged down in the specifics of what the team does to address the points. It is important that people understand how activities ties to the core values.

• mentoring
• helping others
• building a team
• corporate sponsorship
• team spirit
• gracious professionalism

2) public essays does create a system of checks & balances.

3) the business about passing along false information !! - we have a bunch of rookies in 'boot camp' learning about the team. They looked like a bunch of military recruits with the "deer in the headlights" look. We give exam to all team members, rookie and veteran about team history, Chairman's information, and all the rest. The last thing we want is some clown BS'ing to anyone about what is going on. There is absolutely no good outcome to that scenario. If they don't know the answer they need to pass the question to someone else.

Students have to pass a written and oral exam. The written exam will be given in a month. It looks like this:



Teams need to document what they are doing with pictures, news articles, etc. And put it in a scrapbook or some from of communication. We have a scrapbook and a stakeholder report, similar to a corporate annual report.

The issue that we have the most difficulty with is the 'teams started' business. There are other threads that discuss this at some length. We have addressed this issue by stating: "We have directly aided in the development of N new FRC teams", meaning that we have put substantial effort into incubating the team, training the team, helping the team. Figuring out how to assess that is one of the toughest things, what meets the bar and what doesn't. For better or worse, right or wrong our 'bookends' look something like this. A minimal effort is we spend a full day training the team, have them build a kitbot, program it, drive it and phone support thereafter. The maximal effort is we spent 25 or so four hour sessions training the team on everything we could throw at them. There are some teams that spend a few of their build days in our shop getting support. And another team it is completely building their robot in our shop. In every instance there is a guaranteed 8 hour minimum face to face effort, and the instance listed above went up to 100 hours. Phone and internet support always. Agree with it or not that is pretty much our position.

Figuring out contributions like exhibitions, briefings, policy shifts, classroom incorporation, etc is a lot easier to assess.

A team may slip through on occasion by 'cheating' but it isn't going to last long or carry them far.