Something New – Chairman’s Award Eligibility

[Racer26]

IIRC EI Winners in Canada /were/ getting a similar grant (at least one out of the last 3 years), and I know that FIRST Robotics Canada does actually have some grant money they use to help make sure that every qualifying Canadian team DOES go to CMP.

[Kims Robot]

On one hand, I think this is a great change for teams. More chances to present = more chances at winning, better practice for the presenters & lesser chance of judge biasing per region/past winners. I think it will result in a much better pool of RCA winners to present at the Championship, and I like the idea of strengthening the RCA pool.

On the other hand THIS:

Originally Posted by pfreivald

One thing I'm leery of is the demand on judges!

Being involved in a brand new district, I was already worried that we may struggle to find volunteers and qualified judges... now at the qualifier event level, there is potential of needing 6+ RCA judges at each event just to be able to cram all of the presentations into one day. In a district with 9 events that means potentially recruiting 27 additional Judges... or taking time away from interviewing teams for other awards. And more judges means more cost to events - food and shirts at the very least. I'm certain everyone will find a way to make it work, but its going to add just a bit more to an already strained volunteer system across the globe.

I really hope they took the time to talk with a lot of the Judge Coordinators/Judge Advisors before implementing this. I would guess that they have, but I didn't seen any reference in Frank's post to how they would handle the extra work placed on the event committees & volunteers.

Originally Posted by EricH

Something that I would like to see in Chairman's, or even in EI, though I doubt it will be (come on, Frank, prove me wrong!) is for teams to be officially able to "upvote" another team, especially if the team doing the "upvoting" has already won at that level in that year, or is in the HoF.

Creative teams have already taken this opportunity. Many teams leave the judges with packets. Those packets can include letters of support from other teams. It's not an official request system, but it has already been done.

Personally I'm not sure I'm a big fan of a "system" that allows teams to vote/promote RCA winners, as I think it will end up a popularity contest and you will see more lobbying and coercion and competitive mindset than you do now. I get the idea that if other teams are backing this team, it makes it more likely that that team has legitimately done all that they say they did, but I'm not sure a voting system is really the right way to gather input.

[Jon Jack]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

I really hope they took the time to talk with a lot of the Judge Coordinators/Judge Advisors before implementing this. I would guess that they have, but I didn't seen any reference in Frank's post to how they would handle the extra work placed on the event committees & volunteers.

I figure an interview team could see about 24 teams in a day (4 teams an hour * 6 hours). So events where less than 24 teams are applying will not have an issue. Remember, not every team applies for the Chairman's Award. So I think it would be very unlikely you would see 40 teams competing for the Chairman's Award at a district event. I imagine the most you'd see would be around 20.

Where this becomes a problem is at the regional level where you would have 50-60 teams competing. I've seen regionals out here where there have been 20+ teams competing for the Chairman's Award and the judge team was really crunched for time.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by EricH

Something that I would like to see in Chairman's, or even in EI, though I doubt it will be (come on, Frank, prove me wrong!) is for teams to be officially able to "upvote" another team, especially if the team doing the "upvoting" has already won at that level in that year, or is in the HoF.

I don't like this idea at all. There are already enough cliques and circles in FIRST, and there are plenty of great teams that get left out of the popular crowd.

From a team standpoint, at many events, it will increase the competition for Chairman’s Award. As this is our most prestigious award, I think that’s OK. Earning Chairman’s Award should be a very competitive process.

Perhaps it's just how it's worded, but I didn't get a great feeling from this part of Frank's statement. I like to see teams recognized for what they do anyway, not do special things to get recognized. For example, we mentor elementary school teams in our local area because it's the right thing to do, and we want to get more students involved in robotics, not because we're competing to win an award for doing that. The minute you start mentoring or outreach for the purpose of winning an award, in my mind you have already lost.

I hate how Chairman's awards have become so based upon quantitative evidence, that often gets pretty far stretched. I can say that our program has reached over 10,000 students, with some validity to that claim. However, if you went and surveyed those 10,000 people and asked them personally if our program has had an impact on them, chances are 9,000 or more would say no.

The Chairman's award needs less emphasis on the numbers of students we reach, teams we start, or relationships we build, and more emphasis on the qualityof such programs, and the stories behind them.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Perhaps it's just how it's worded, but I didn't get a great feeling from this part of Frank's statement. I like to see teams recognized for what they do anyway, not do special things to get recognized. For example, we mentor elementary school teams in our local area because it's the right thing to do, and we want to get more students involved in robotics, not because we're competing to win an award for doing that. The minute you start mentoring or outreach for the purpose of winning an award, in my mind you have already lost.

I totally agree with this. When I was preparing our 2013 submission, I had to steer everybody-- including mentors who have been with the team for years-- away from the mentality of "we're doing it for Chairman's." Lo and behold, the year we approached it from that direction was our first RCA. To be honest, it's not entirely rooted out, but at least the lead mentors have seen that that sort of attitude is a problem-- I doubt it will persist much longer, at least on my team.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I hate how Chairman's awards have become so based upon quantitative evidence, that often gets pretty far stretched. I can say that our program has reached over 10,000 students, with some validity to that claim. However, if you went and surveyed those 10,000 people and asked them personally if our program has had an impact on them, chances are 9,000 or more would say no.

To be honest, I haven't really seen that sort of exaggeration as a problem, at least at the regional level in my state. That doesn't mean it isn't there in some areas-- it may just be that the Minnesota FIRST community is too young to have a significant problem with it-- last year was probably the first year that more than five Minnesota FIRST teams competed for RCA at each regional (I don't know the exact statistics, but the number has been dreadfully low for a long time).

In my experience at least, the judges have been very good about asking where numbers come from that we like to throw at them (especially really large ones). Part of the reason I think we hear the large numbers when the judges are describing the team is for shock value-- "Holy crap, they have 50 FLL teams?! (an exaggeration, to be sure, but I think the point is there)." It's less a "personal" award (like the Dean's List or WFF/WF award), and more an award for the entire team-- right? Plus there tend to be engineers on the panel, and we all know how much engineers love numbers!

Originally Posted by sanddrag

The Chairman's award needs less emphasis on the numbers of students we reach, teams we start, or relationships we build, and more emphasis on the qualityof such programs, and the stories behind them.

I agree with this, with the caveat that I think most successful RCA/CCA winners do both. It's the ones that submit and don't win it-- those are the ones who approach it from a single direction. I haven't been at an event yet where it wasn't a team that deserved the Chairman's Award that won it, and I don't see that changing with this system.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

To be honest, I haven't really seen that sort of exaggeration as a problem, at least at the regional level in my state.

I have. "Team XXXX has reached over [number that has exceeded a million] people throughout their blah blah" in the awards announcement has been true for several years in a couple of states.

We do demos at the Grape Festival in our home town, which draws 90K-125K per year, but we don't claim 90-125K people reached per year in our essay or presentation. But there are teams that will take the total attendance of a fair or festival or other activity and add it in, in the hopes of winning the RCA (and then the national CA)--and not doing so is, in my limited experience, the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not complaining; it is what it is, and part of advertising is spin...but I wouldn't encourage my team to do it.

All I'm saying is that yes, it absolutely happens, and is common.

[VexisDarksteele]

I wholeheartedly support this new system; as a former Chairman's presenter for the past two years, I can personally attest to the sheer amount of pressure that the previous system laid on our shoulders. Defeat was absolutely crushing, because you know that there is no second chance for that year -- any improvements made would not be enacted until the following season. Yes, the old system did instill a strong sense of urgency to push ourselves to be the absolute best we could, but I believe this new methodology will still achieve that while also granting teams a more rapid approach to evolving/improvement.

I think (/hope) that this change will encourage a lot of younger teams to start trying for Chairman's as well. Now that it's not quite "do or die" anymore, teams will begin to recognize that they may very well have a fair shot at winning the award, and just by trying for the Chairman's Award they will become even better teams than they already were.
Really, it's kinda crazy how a lot of young teams completely forgo trying for the CA because they're "waiting to become better/stronger" before they'll consider making an attempt. Applying for Chairman's is like being handed a step-by-step instruction booklet on how to become a strong team; in the beginning, teams will no doubt do community outreach solely for the purpose of the award. Why? Because that's the first step in the instructions. But once they build that foundation for themselves, once they get the feel for the process of success and are able to function without that guidebook, they will flourish and become truly great for all of the right reasons. And the best part about it? Even though the requirements for Chairman's are set in stone, the ways in which each team accomplishes them are entirely unique.
Trying for Chairman's right off the bat was probably the best decision our team could have made, as it DID show us what we need to do and why. We're still learning and adapting, and I think we always will be, because no team can ever stop improving. It just really helps a young team to hit the ground running, because once it finds and spreads its wings, it will one day be able to soar.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I have. "Team XXXX has reached over [number that has exceeded a million] people throughout their blah blah" in the awards announcement has been true for several years in a couple of states.

(snip)

I'm not complaining; it is what it is, and part of advertising is spin...but I wouldn't encourage my team to do it.

All I'm saying is that yes, it absolutely happens, and is common.

I never said it didn't happen, just that I didn't notice it as a problem. I then theorized as to why that might be. Apologies if that was unclear. It may be common in your region but that doesn't mean it's common in others.

On a related note, my team runs the robotics demos at the Minnesota State Fair, which had over 1.5 million attendees. There are about thirty teams that compete or otherwise present at the Fair, and I've never heard any of them use it as "exposing FIRST to over 1.5 million people," despite the fact that the competitions and presentations at the Fair have been going on for almost five years now. Make of that what you will.

[waialua359]

As a HOF team, I think this is absolutely a great idea.

HOF teams were given the opportunity to give input during the summer about how we felt about the proposed (and now official) change to the RCA.
The biggest concern as shared by others here was making sure enough judges were available to accommodate an increase no. of teams competing for it, especially at bigger regionals.

Every year, there are great teams that get left out of an RCA based on the regional they choose to enter in.
Its just so much better to take it out of the equation, for the most part.

I can still see manipulation by entering at a later event, where teams may anticipate others winning it at a prior regional or week.
On the other hand, this is no different than teams choosing what regionals to enter as they try to win a blue banner or any categorical award.

Ultimately, I like the idea because the pool of teams competing for the CCA just got that much tougher, and there will be much less worthy teams getting left out of the running by the time CMP comes around.

I just hope one day, the EI award gets to be either judged or a submission can be entered similar to the Entrepreneurship Award during build season, having judges come by the pits to do specific interviews.
Based on my own personal observation, its seems that EI judging varies widely depending on the regional you attend, including CMP. How do judges determine which single team gets it out of 400 teams at CMP?
We won the CMP EI award in 2008. Yet never won it in our 14 year history at the 27 regionals we attended. Go figure?
Good luck to everyone this season!

[SteveGPage]

I think everything has been pretty much said about this topic, but I just wanted to add a quick note based on Glenn's post - I think this is a great idea! I love that this will raise the level of completion for both the RCA and CA, ensuring that the teams that work day in and day out to change their culture, will be recognized.

Thank you to the HOF teams for their input in helping make this happen!

Steve

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I don't like this idea at all. There are already enough cliques and circles in FIRST, and there are plenty of great teams that get left out of the popular crowd.

Absolutely agreed. Peer voting just does not work for this.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Perhaps it's just how it's worded, but I didn't get a great feeling from this part of Frank's statement. I like to see teams recognized for what they do anyway, not do special things to get recognized. For example, we mentor elementary school teams in our local area because it's the right thing to do, and we want to get more students involved in robotics, not because we're competing to win an award for doing that. The minute you start mentoring or outreach for the purpose of winning an award, in my mind you have already lost.

Again, agreed. But I think that this happens with any sort of award that is put on a pedestal. The truly competitive teams will obviously go out of their way to try and earn an RCA. However, I don't really see a problem with this as long as the judges recognize what community efforts are half-baked and done hastily, and what efforts from a team are planned and built upon over time. The best RCA teams have continuous growth and work on their projects year-round, while the teams who rarely win/don't win Chairman's usually aren't putting in the time and effort to build up their own programs and their reputation within their communities.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I hate how Chairman's awards have become so based upon quantitative evidence, that often gets pretty far stretched. I can say that our program has reached over 10,000 students, with some validity to that claim. However, if you went and surveyed those 10,000 people and asked them personally if our program has had an impact on them, chances are 9,000 or more would say no.

The Chairman's award needs less emphasis on the numbers of students we reach, teams we start, or relationships we build, and more emphasis on the qualityof such programs, and the stories behind them.

I can sort of see the truth in this, but then how do you propose RCA judges evaluate teams? The quality of a program is not always portrayed well enough in just essays and quotes from students, but the quality of a strong program is definitely shown by the numbers of students affected by the team. For example, the Simbotics app was high quality and tested through years of iteration from its beginnings as a presentation. The impact can really only be proven by numbers of downloads and views. While I do agree that there are plenty of teams who arbitrarily add in numbers into their essays and presentations, I want to assume that most teams don't try to BS the judges. (of course, many probably do)

Again, though, if you have suggestions on how to make judging easier or more accurate, definitely send it to Frank. I want the same thing you do, but I can't think of a better way either, at the moment.

-Akash

[Carol]

I'm going to throw out a suggestion for discussion.

I worry that with the majority of teams at an event presenting for CA, those teams that do not give a presentation to the judges will be overlooked for other awards. I admit I'm not sure how judging is exactly done in FRC, or if there is overlap between the CA judges and the other judges. Are the deliberations for the CA and the other awards totally separate, or is there overlap?

I have done judging for FTC where every team gives a presentation to a group of judges. There are typically 3-5 judge groups who then convene and decide on the awards. Each judge group summarizes for the others the teams that they consider contenders for each award. The pros of this model is that every team gets to highlight their team's accomplishments; the cons are that not all judges get to talk to every team. I wonder if this is a good model for FRC?

(FTC events are similar in size to most FRC events, 20-50 teams. But are usually one day events - judging has to be done expeditiously).

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by Carol

I'm going to throw out a suggestion for discussion.

I worry that with the majority of teams at an event presenting for CA, those teams that do not give a presentation to the judges will be overlooked for other awards. I admit I'm not sure how judging is exactly done in FRC, or if there is overlap between the CA judges and the other judges. Are the deliberations for the CA and the other awards totally separate, or is there overlap?

My experience in the judging room has been there is no overlap until the very end of deliberations. I cannot speak for all the events, just the rooms I have been in. The RCA judges are doing their thing. The teams of technical and team attribute judges are doing their thing. There are lots of thoughtful nominations and deliberations after all the teams are visited, the ones that best meet the criteria for the award rise to the top of the pile, there may be revisits by different groups of judges, there are lots of post it notes being moved around and everyone tries their best to distribute the awards in a way that makes sense. Sometimes there are exceptions.

Hope this helps.