Why even bother submitting a Chairman's Award if we're not gonna win?

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by J_Miles

While I understand your purpose, Carolyn, I hope you don't mind me playing the Devil's Advocate here a little bit, because I think that it might spur a little bit more of discussion. Please don't think that I am attempting to significantly degrade the Chairman's Award, its prestige, or its importance within the greater FIRST community - rather, I'm attempting to play the Devil's Advocate - based on things I've seen and heard from quite a few students and alumni - to spur civil discussion

Jared, you WOULD.
This definitely was NOT the intent of this thread, but as it's been brought up, and I do enjoy open-discussions, I'll indulge your Devil's Advocate with taking time to respond to your long post.

Originally Posted by J_Miles

Opinion: Why the Chairman's Award is Kinda Sorta Irrelevant

What is inspiration? How can you define it? How can it be quantified? That is, after all, for the judges to decide. This, in and of itself, seems to be a slightly flawed system - after all, what inspires a thoroughly matured adult judge is most likely NOT the same as what will inspire a five- or six- or seven- or eight-year-old child, or even a teenager. If a team chooses to place emphasis on inspiring youth, then is it not entirely possible that a program that delights this target group falls flat with adult judges? Even if some of the people affected by this team's work submit letters of support - the decision ultimately lies in the interpretation of this team's program and the intent and purpose of the letter of support; it all goes back to the judges.

When you write a paper for school, especially in college, your grade is dependent on your professor or TA's interpretation. No matter how much time you put into it, how many hours you labor over your presentation and essay, the end result is judged by someone else. You may receive a rubric, but usually rubrics are not fully clear on how exactly these assignments will be judged. It's up to you to put together the best work that you can, and hopefully it will be judged fairly.

When you have a job, your work ethic is judged by your boss, and sometimes your bosses boss. In the "real world" there are certain times a year that employees go through review processes. These review processes are often (perhaps even *usually*) not fair. The decision ultimately lies in the interpretation of what is best for the company; it all goes back to your bosses.

There ARE set criteria for the award. There ARE specific questions laid out in the Administration Manual. There ARE feedback forms, with certain questions that are deliberated over heavily by judges. Certainly, there is a human aspect involved, but there is human aspect in every way that any business is managed. This is simply Real Life. (#RealTalk)

Originally Posted by J_Miles

Recognition for this sort of work and effort is extremely important. With that said, it's not hard to imagine (and I have certainly seen evidence of this) students - and even mentors - on a team become so jaded or disillusioned with the idea of the Chairman's Award that their efforts in creating their presentation or writing an essay or making a video become single-minded in scope. The Chairman's Award is no longer about the criteria, but about the Blue Banner and the automatic bid for Championship, the Michigan State Championship, or the Mid-Atlantic Region Championship. It becomes about checking boxes off of a list - causing teams to want to do the things they believe (or even worse - know) will win them the award and discouraging them from taking risks, from starting groundbreaking programs with grand dreams and hopes - the sort of programs that can make a flying leap towards FIRST's "goals and purpose" rather than another generic baby step.

I can not name one single team who won the Chairman's Award by going through a list and figuratively checking boxes off a list that they think will help them "win" the award. Perhaps other people *think* that they know teams like this, but my experience in talking to Chairman's Award winning teams leads me to to believe that each team deserved to win that honor.

That doesn't mean that other teams do not deserve to win, but there can only be one winner. Which draws me back to the INTENT of this thread:
WHY submit, if not to win?

When a team becomes jaded or disillusioned because they have not been publicly recognized by winning an award, then perhaps they need to reassess their priorities in the purpose of creating their submission. Once again, bringing it back to the original question: WHY submit, if not to win?

Originally Posted by J_Miles

Is that wrong? I tend to think so. Certainly teams that are making breakthroughs, the teams that are blazing trails are the teams that tend to win the Chairman's Award at the international level and be immortalized into FIRST's Hall of Fame. But getting these kinds of teams TO the Championship in the first place can be difficult when perennial Chairman's Award Winners become complacent with their "Winning Formula." Once that paradigm becomes established, how long will it take for the new guard to be ushered in? Would it ever?

New teams win the Chairman's Award every year. Certainly some teams win multiple times at the Regional/District level, but there are still teams winning this award who have never won it before.

I have met a few teams who have become complacent with their "winning formula," and what tends to happen is at some point these teams do not win. (I specifically refrain from using the term "lose" because I strongly believe that no one ever loses when they create a Chairman's Award submission. ...once again, leading me back to my MAIN POINT of this thread: Why submit a Chairman's Award if I know that I won't win?

Originally Posted by J_Miles

The worst thing about this is that teams who repeatedly face this sort of competition may become jaded with the award and not only stop presenting but also allow their outreach to wither and die. In that sense, the Chairman's Award is self-defeating. And that's bad news for FIRST and its goals.

Actually, I could point out a couple teams who have won the Chairman's Award in years past, but became complacent in their winning and let their outreach slow down, and then they did not win the award, letting in a new team. In that sense, the Chairman's Award is the opposite of self-defeating: if a team can not keep up the outreach and attitude, then the title passes on to a new team. And that's a great thing.

Originally Posted by J_Miles

Perhaps it calls for a different mechanism by which the award is given - require all teams to submit a proposal alongside a robot at competitions? Perhaps only allow teams to conduct an interview if selected initially by judges AT the competition? Make the Chairman's Award selection process more accessible and available to the opinions of more than simply the judges? Make the process for winning the Chairman's Award at regional or district events more similar to the Engineering Inspiration Award?

There is likely no single best solution, but the system as it currently stands removes the emphasis on the outreach itself and places the emphasis on "the most prestigious award" given out to teams by FIRST. That prestige inherently brings with it a sort of desire and lust for success that doesn't belong in the culture that teams truly deserving of the Chairman's Award are attempting to build.

This goes back to my very specific point in my very first post of this thread: this thread is NOT meant to be a way to point out the issues with the Chairman's Award or how it is judged. It is NOT meant to be a way to figure out different solutions. It was meant to be a thread to discuss what *is* good about the Chairman's Award and how teams can keep a good attitude about it, because the Spirit of the Award goes far beyond simply winning a blue banner.

I love discussion about this kind of thing.
But I think there are two separate issues here:

1. How the award criteria is laid out, judged and awarded. There are great things about this, but there are also great flaws in the system.

2. The attitude that students, mentors and teams have regarding the Chairman's Award.

Jared, your post seems to reflect more on the first, putting "blame" on FIRST. My initial post was intended to reflect on the second: helping teams understand the value of the award beyond winning something. I think both are valuable things to discuss, but I also think that when you twist them together, it gets very complicated and people choose sides, which honestly does not help either issue.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by Carolyn_Grace

leading me back to my MAIN POINT of this thread: Why submit a Chairman's Award if I know that I won't win?

This is probably one of the main reasons my team doesn't even make any attempt at a Chairman's award. We do however try to win as many other awards as possible each year, especially awards about robot design, because we put the majority of our team's focus on a team building a robot to compete in an event - and even that has mixed results.

So I think the main underlying reason is because we as a team have determined how we participate in the FIRST program, and we chose to participate by building students, a robot, and enjoying the experience of the sport.

I have on many occasions brought up the need to try a Chairmans award, but just thinking of how little we do is in NO WAY any matchup to any other team. So really the time and energy is better served elsewhere.

Even more important, what is the real interest in winning it? YES it is the greatest honor FIRST can give a team, YES it will give us some nice swag for the trophy case, YES it will give us national recognition and we will no longer be that team between 173 and 175, YES we will be forever mentioned in a list of the most amazing teams in history of FIRST... but for a team like us, all of the students and mentors just aren't as interested in doing all of the work. We would have to shut down the entire robot part of our team to have enough resources, time and people-power to compete with the likes of teams who have won at the regional level forever.

It's too much of a hurdle and that is ok. Mentors and students of our team understand the importance of the Chairman's Award, and know what it means for the winners. Trust me, we do want to see our team's number in the hall of fame and be remembered. But we can't do it - many teams can't do it - and that's alright.

I don't want every team to submit a Chairman's award because they feel like they have to. Having this secondary project is great for a program like FLL, but for FRC it has a lot more meaning when its something your entire team must strive for. You can't just walk into a Chairman's presentation and list off a couple good deeds - which is what the Chairman's award would turn into if everyone had to. By making it an award that some teams don't bother with, you heighten its importance because it really is a bigger challenge that you think - and thats a good thing too.

[DonRotolo]

This may be controversial, but if you are doing something just so you can win chairmans, you are doing it for the wrong reason.

[CENTURION]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

This may be controversial, but if you are doing something just so you can win chairmans, you are doing it for the wrong reason.

YES!

The Chariman's Award should not be a goal, it is a recognition.

I don't mentor because I want to win the Woodie Flowers award, I mentor because I absolutely love teaching, answering questions, and inspiring others.
(Well also I'm just hooked on FIRST. I swear, I can quit whenever I want!)

Do good things, and the awards will follow.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

This may be controversial, but if you are doing something just so you can win chairmans, you are doing it for the wrong reason.

I don't think you're going to be treading the water with this statement. I don't see any other way of describing the approach other than wrong. Chairman's is a recognition that your team is a true embodiment of what a FIRST team should be like. Doing things for the award is not an embodiment of what a FIRST team is about.

[Bill_B]

If there were to be a requirement associated with the CA, instead of submitting one, teams should be required to read the submissions of the other teams that were recognized. Maybe there should be a digest or precis of each event's submissions for this purpose so that the self-assessment aspect of them is demonstrated to the rest of the teams. Either or both procedural changes would help raise awareness of the importance of the CA. After all, attending teams see the results of the other teams' designs and construction in the robots already. They should get the chance to appreciate all the other efforts in which CA winners have engaged.

We have an Engineering Inspiration award. Teams should come to understand that the CA is another name for the culture-change inspiration award.

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

After all, attending teams see the results of the other teams' designs and construction in the robots already. They should get the chance to appreciate all the other efforts in which CA winners have engaged.

One of the best ways to do this? Talk to them! Seriously! Go to the team's pit - if they don't have a multitude of binders, handouts, and other materials to show you, any EI or CA team will certainly have passionate members who can share their efforts with you.

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by dcarr

One of the best ways to do this? Talk to them! Seriously! Go to the team's pit - if they don't have a multitude of binders, handouts, and other materials to show you, any EI or CA team will certainly have passionate members who can share their efforts with you.

And the way to motivate your team members to do this is ? ? ? ? ?

The education process in primary schools is to require the study of language and arithmetic. If we expected 7-year olds to appreciate the value of being able to converse and compute on their own, the illiteracy and innumeracy of the population would be far greater than it is now. It isn't that there is a lack of available sources. It is more a "lead a horse to water" problem for the defeatist or indifferent attitude. How can we cure the feeling that if I'm not already good at it, further effort is not going to help?

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

And the way to motivate your team members to do this is ? ? ? ? ?

I think it comes from having a team culture of always trying to do better and be inspired by those who are further along the path to greatness. As an example, this year my team did not win the Entrepreneurship Award we were hoping for, but the students who worked on the award were eager to go down to the pits and talk to the students on the team that did. FIRST is special because everyone is in it together and I've never come across an award-winning team that wasn't open and excited to share.

[dsmoker]

This is a great thread, and something I have thought about for years, ever since we started submitting for Chairman's in 2007. I don't think we'll ever win the award. We are a small team, and just not capable of the kind of level of outreach that I think Chairman's demands. But I'll tell you this - when we started this process back in 2007, we did very little outreach. Now, we do robot demos regularly at schools, museums, corporations and community events. We mentor FRC and FLL teams. We volunteer at FLL events and last year sponsored our own FLL event, which we plan to do again this year. We just learned that we are getting a grant to start new FLL and JrFLL teams in our area next year as well. We volunteered with our sponsor Comcast to help rehabilitate homes in need of cleanup and repair, and are planning more such community projects. We have stronger relationships with our sponsors, doing demos at their offices and inviting their representatives to attend competitions (which they do). We attend off-season competitions, which we didn't do before 2007, and operate year-round instead of just from January to March.

Did we do any of this to WIN the Chairman's Award? No. We did it to make our team a stronger, better team, one that does more than just build a robot together. Has it made us a stronger, better team? Clearly.

Will we ever win the Chairman's Award? I don't know, and I don't care. What we will do is continue to work together and grow as a team, giving our students a variety of experiences they wouldn't have had otherwise. That's what I care about. If in the process we happen to win the Chairman's Award, or any of the other awards that I think just submitting for Chairman's puts you on the radar for (like EI, which we won in 2010), then great. That's just icing on the cake.

[Adrienne E.]

I haven’t posted in a long time, but this is a topic I’ve been thinking about a lot this year. Mostly because we, as in 148, decided (for various reasons) that we were going to submit a Chairman’s Award this year for the first time in 3 years, and actually put effort into the submission for the first time in 8 or 9 years. One of the main reasons for this is because the team can feel the change we are making in the community and we thought “Why aren’t we submitting? We really are changing culture here.” We found that the hardest part was putting that feeling into words on paper, or pictures in a video, or getting those feelings across in a presentation. Now I’m certain that these struggles are not unique to us, just ones that we haven’t had before since we haven’t really been putting effort into a submission. But these struggles are what really made the experience worthwhile to us.
All of a sudden we started to put together quantitative data of things we felt like were important aspects of the team. As soon as we started listing these facts and statistics a lot of us had a bit of an epiphany. We knew we were doing things to inspire students, and create excitement in a small town about something other then football, but we really didn’t realize how big the impact was. For us submitting, and pretty much knowing we weren’t going to win, was OK because it made our team bond stronger and made us all proud to be Wranglers even more then we were before.
Selfishly my favorite part of our Chairman’s effort this year was, to help us decide who should present at competition we made each student on the team present their favorite team memory or just say what the team meant to them. I was crying most of meeting, because hearing those stories reminded me of why I’m here, and why I believe in this program so much.
So that is my limited experience with why I think Chairman’s submissions are a great part of the program. Even if we have no chance of winning ever, I now know how valuable the experience can be.

[MrBydlon]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

And the way to motivate your team members to do this is ? ? ? ? ?

How can we cure the feeling that if I'm not already good at it, further effort is not going to help?

If anyone in the entire world has answers to these questions. PLEASE TELL ME! As a math teacher who constantly faces these challenges every single day, I completely understand where this is coming from.

My response is that sometimes it's up to the mentor to provide that motivation. Teaching someone how to wire a PD is not any different to me as teaching someone to keep going even when the going gets tough or it seems all hope is lost. That's part of what we're doing. Tell them it's going to be hard. Be there sitting next to them while they work on the essay or executive summary or presentation. Talk through problems with them. Show them winning Chairman's Essays (then they don't have to physically move because that's hard for teenagers sometimes). Show them videos. Simbotics's video from last year constantly inspires me and my team.

/Awkward segue to the real question/ Our team submitted Chairman's Award for the first time this year. It was so hard. But so was the first time we built a robot 2 years ago!!! If it was easy, every single team in the whole world would submit it. But it's not and the lesson of never giving up is extremely powerful. Sure, the first time you submit it might not be the best but a team's first robot also is often not the best robot they produce. Learning and growing and improving, that's what FIRST is about.

To piggy back on a lot of other wonderful answers. Chairman's provided us an opportunity to really nail down the things that we are really strong with and help us focus on the things we need to work on. We just finished our 1 Regional of the year yesterday and already have 4 goals for next season lined up. Also, it helped push us to be more of a full year team. We do outreach throughout the spring and fall. We plan to do parades this summer.

Finally, Chairman's Award connected us with teams and people that we never would have connected with otherwise. FRC Team 2220 from Eagan, MN also submitted Chairman's this year and we worked closely with them throughout the process. Our team now considers them genuine friends. It also connected us with Renee Becker, the wonderful MN FIRST Senior Mentor. Through her we met tons of other teams. It's like a tree. From that Chairman's root, our connections and outreach and goals and team pride and focus have all grown.

So to answer the question "Why even bother submitting a Chairman's Award if we're not gonna win?", my response would be another question "Why even bother building a robot if we're not gonna win?". The answer to both? To learn and grow.

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

"Creating a Chairman's submission" isn't about trying to win an award. It's about purposeful documentation of your program that will help you maintain proper focus on the ideals that drive the program and will help you plan for growth, provide PR materials to communicate the program to the community, and so much more.

If you just focus on it that way, maybe a few years down the road you win that blue banner ... or maybe you don't.

Without this type of focus, how are we supposed to change the culture for the better?

(I'll get off the soapbox now, just search for my name and the word "chairman's" here and I promise you'll find wayyyyy too much to read on the topic )

I definitely agree with you on this!

It has long been our feeling that you don't do things to win Chairman's—you do things because they're the right thing to do. Honestly, if your team is participating in activities solely to put it in your Chairman's submission, you're probably doing it wrong. That's like not committing murder just because it's illegal and not because. You should help other teams, inspire students, and bring about positive change in your community because it's the right and good thing to do, not because you want to take home a blue banner. But maybe that's just me being a little too naively altruistic.

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

committing murder just because

Well, that escalated quickly

Very good points

[alex.lew]

Outreach has really become a key identity for us. It builds us as a team, with everyone able to speak enthusiastically about FIRST and the robots. After a few demos, any student can easily explain to the public how a particular robot operates. Plus, its always fun to bring the robots themselves to offseason events after competition is over.