FRC Blogged - Something New – FIRST Dean’s List Changes

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Hallry

It wasn't until my junior and senior years that I began to breathe-eat-and-sleep FRC.

Indeed. And it seems you are still getting nutrition from it. (Shouldn't you be in school, kid?)

OK, it's been said, but I like the interview thing (and request Skype-like considerations at District CMPs), but will take a wait & see attitude on the So/Jr thing. Seems kinda limiting.

[MechEng83]

I think the big underlying issue is that FIRST and Teams view the Dean's List award very differently.

Teams want to recognize the students with the most/best/lasting contributions to their team and the broader FIRST community, often whom are seniors who have a proven record of dedication.

FIRST wants to promote the award as something akin to a National Merit Scholar award, which universities like to tout in their recruiting numbers.

It's prestige for the deserving student, vs. prestige for the universities who recruit Dean's List winners.

For 2 years, FIRST has recommended teams choose Juniors, as they would be given preference, yet teams kept nominating Seniors -- and Seniors kept winning.

I won't presume to know the inner workings of FIRST headquarters, but while Frank has been the herald of positive changes, I feel like this change was forced in by other powers, as it's clearly part of an agenda which doesn't mesh with the intentions demonstrated by teams in their nominations, or even the judges for the award who continued to recognize seniors despite the award's stated preference for juniors.

[Nathan Streeter]

This:

Originally Posted by swethaly

I understand why they're doing it, but it defeats the purpose of the award. In the words of Woodie Flowers, "You get what you celebrate", and the description of the Dean's List Award states that its goal is to recognize the exemplary students who best express the ideals of FIRST. In that scenario, the expressing FIRST ideals and being an exemplary student is celebrated, so that's what FIRST would get. However they've been turning the award into a coveted title for college applications.

My initial problem with the "we favor the Juniors" policy is that puts the Seniors at a disadvantage... and now excludes them entirely! But my real problem with it is that the driving reason why FIRST is doing it is to give themselves recognition (by being associated with these excellent students during the college application process)... FIRST gets little recognition by Seniors getting the award... but FIRST ideals are celebrated most by just giving it to the students who "get it" the most!

It's sad that a program as great as FIRST still has selfish people* making the decisions... who will sometimes stop acting in teams' best interests.

P.S. The interviews are probably a good idea. Probably volunteer-taxing to conduct... but worthwhile.

*For the record, I think all people are inherently selfish... This isn't a dig against FIRST, just me wishing it wasn't the case.

Originally Posted by MechEng83

I think the big underlying issue is that FIRST and Teams view the Dean's List award very differently.

Teams want to recognize the students with the most/best/lasting contributions to their team and the broader FIRST community, often whom are seniors who have a proven record of dedication.

FIRST wants to promote the award as something akin to a National Merit Scholar award, which universities like to tout in their recruiting numbers.

It's prestige for the deserving student, vs. prestige for the universities who recruit Dean's List winners.

For 2 years, FIRST has recommended teams choose Juniors, as they would be given preference, yet teams kept nominating Seniors -- and Seniors kept winning.

I won't presume to know the inner workings of FIRST headquarters, but while Frank has been the herald of positive changes, I feel like this change was forced in by other powers, as it's clearly part of an agenda which doesn't mesh with the intentions demonstrated by teams in their nominations, or even the judges for the award who continued to recognize seniors despite the award's stated preference for juniors.

See below:

Originally Posted by swethaly

I understand why they're doing it, but it defeats the purpose of the award. In the words of Woodie Flowers, "You get what you celebrate", and the description of the Dean's List Award states that its goal is to recognize the exemplary students who best express the ideals of FIRST. In that scenario, the expressing FIRST ideals and being an exemplary student is celebrated, so that's what FIRST would get. However they've been turning the award into a coveted title for college applications. In this scenario, FIRST celebrates focusing more on individual efforts than being a role model for others, so FIRST will get a bunch of students who only want an award for their college applications.

[Brandon_L]

Originally Posted by Samwaldo

I wanted it as something to remember my dedication and the organization that changed me into a leader.

This is the part that FIRST is missing - while intended to help with college admissions (which it does), many would honestly just like to see their efforts recognized. College brownie points are just a plus to these kids. As said somewhere before in the thread, some of these kids pour their hearts and souls into these programs in an attempt to grow them and, thus, inspire even more students. Isn't that what FIRST is all about? I believe these are the students that should be recognized.

Originally Posted by MechEng83

I think the big underlying issue is that FIRST and Teams view the Dean's List award very differently.

Yes. I do not think, at least without warning, that the correct way to "fix" the award is to brute force us into the intent of the award.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Brandon_L

This is the part that FIRST is missing - while intended to help with college admissions (which it does), many would honestly just like to see their efforts recognized. College brownie points are just a plus to these kids. As said somewhere before in the thread, some of these kids pour their hearts and souls into these programs in an attempt to grow them and, thus, inspire even more students. Isn't that what FIRST is all about? I believe these are the students that should be recognized.

I totally agree with this.

Looking at how FIRST defined the Dean's List Award in the 2013 game manual:

Originally Posted by FRC Game Manual

Now in its fourth year, this award celebrates outstanding student leaders whose passion for, and effectiveness at, attaining FIRST ideals is exemplary.

I see a lot of parallels between the Chairman's Award and Dean's List (and for that matter, the WFA)-- the awards are for teams (or people) who exemplify the ideals of FIRST. Those that rise to the top of the competition are those that fulfill the intent of the award for the sole reason of wanting to win, but because they genuinely believe in FIRST's mission and that it's the right thing to do. It cheapens the idea of the award-- recognizing FIRST's ideals to repurpose the award towards another end. On the other hand, I'm very happy that there will undoubtedly be some Sophomores and Juniors who wouldn't have otherwise been considered for the award in time for their college application process.

On a separate but related note, I really hope that FIRST will introduce some sort of Dean's List equivalent for FTC in the next season or so. There are some brilliant high school students in FTC who will never even have a chance of getting the same recognition that their FRC friends do just because of circumstances out of their control. If FIRST is really aiming towards Dean's List being a "college application thing," I hope we'll see an announcement soon to the benefit of FTC students.

[Samwaldo]

I'm hoping FIRST sees this, because I have an idea that would satisfy everyone.

If I recall correctly you can nominate 2 people. Maybe FIRST can require teams to nominate one Sophomore/Junior and the second person can be of any grade level. Equal consideration of all grade would continue.

Nomination 1: Required Sophmore/Junior
Nomination 2: optional Sophomore/Junior/Senior

This system would put more Sophomores/Juniors in the pool or nominations, increasing the likelihood of Sophomores/Juniors winning (which FIRST just showed they want), but still giving an equal chance to seniors.

[waialua359]

Based on the information I received first hand from FIRST at the Dean's List-Supplier's Summit, I learned then that the Dean's List is highly correlated with FIRST's expectation of such recipients and the goal of maximizing their opportunities in getting into universities.
I would have actually been disappointed with the idea we could no longer nominate seniors, but after hearing some of the rationales and intents, I cant complain.

Good luck to all new future finalists and recipients at CMP in 2014.
It was definitely life changing for our 2013 winner at CMP.

[Siri]

I'm not quite ready to jump on the "the interviews rock" bandwagon yet. Well, no, actually, I think the interviews do rock, but this sentences worries me quite a bit:

Originally Posted by Frank's Blog

For Districts, as no Finalists are selected at the District competition level, nominees will participate in brief interviews at the District/State Championship level where their selection takes place.

As Madison and Devon pointed out, I would hate--and argue we should all dislike--if any nominees non-DChamp teams cannot logistically get to their interview. For those that don't know, there were something like 200 teams in 2013, ~50 MAR, ~150 FiM, that would not have been at an event with DL judging. (Note that I'm not asking how many non-Championship nominees have become finalists. To be honest, I'd be surprised if it was that many, but it shouldn't matter. Every one deserves the shot they earned.)

I hope they allow something like Skype/phone, but if not, I'd like to issue a call to action for all district teams. So MAR and FiM, and yes, for the very-full plates of new PNW and NEFIRST: Let's make sure every nominee that wants to do their interview can get there. FIRST has handed us another imperative for a grassroots effort--lucky us districters are so experienced at those now. I see some "adopt a DL nominee for Champs" programs in our future. But really, who wouldn't want to do that?


EDIT: I'm liking the "one required/one optional" method for senior/junior.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by MechEng83

I think the big underlying issue is that FIRST and Teams view the Dean's List award very differently.

Teams want to recognize the students with the most/best/lasting contributions to their team and the broader FIRST community, often whom are seniors who have a proven record of dedication.

FIRST wants to promote the award as something akin to a National Merit Scholar award, which universities like to tout in their recruiting numbers.

It's prestige for the deserving student, vs. prestige for the universities who recruit Dean's List winners.

For 2 years, FIRST has recommended teams choose Juniors, as they would be given preference, yet teams kept nominating Seniors -- and Seniors kept winning.

I won't presume to know the inner workings of FIRST headquarters, but while Frank has been the herald of positive changes, I feel like this change was forced in by other powers, as it's clearly part of an agenda which doesn't mesh with the intentions demonstrated by teams in their nominations, or even the judges for the award who continued to recognize seniors despite the award's stated preference for juniors.

I don't have any data my back this up, but I feel like your claim that teams don't agree with FIRST on who to nominate is a blanket statement. I know atleast one team that values giving the award to Juniors: my own. Maybe my team is just the exception rather than the norm, but I seriously hope we aren't the only one.

Also: "It's prestige for the deserving student, vs. prestige for the universities who recruit Dean's List winners" is an extreme generalization. The real situation is "Prestige for the most deserving student vs. prestige and tangible benefits to the very deserving student." Prestige to a university is just a side effect.

I'm not saying I agree that teams should be forced to nominate Sophmores and Juniors. I'm saying that nominating Sophmores and Juniors is something that teams should really consider practicing even if they weren't forced to.

[Jay O'Donnell]

I'm not very sure how I feel about this. In all honesty, I am a Junior who will probably now be nominated for deans list (there is only one other junior), and yet I feel hesitant with this new rule. I feel that both of our leading senior members deserve this recognition and I'd much rather see them rewarded for their achievements than me. Now it's kind of hard to know that my team can't even bring up a discussion about putting in our extremely deserving seniors for this award. At the same time, I do understand that this can impact a juniors college application while it is too late for a seniors, but I'm a personal believer in awards being more about what you did to get them then what you get for winning them.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by avanboekel

IMO, this puts too much emphasis on it being an award to show to colleges, and not something that your team nominated you for after 3-4 years of hard work.

It also puts quite a restriction on teams who don't get students for 3-4 years. 190 (Junior/Senior high school only) and 1717 (Seniors only team, IIRC) come to mind. For 190, they can only nominate Juniors, which are on their first year on the team. 1717 is all seniors, so they can never nominate anyone.

I understand the rationale, and I'm all for strongly encouraging Sophomore and Junior nominations, but making it a hard rule seems a little ignorant of the fact that not all teams are in a position where a Sophomore/Junior nomination makes sense, or is even possible.

[SharonO]

I feel like FIRST has really messed this one up. Teams should have been given a head's up for this season that a change like this is going to happen. I like the proposal that requires one of the nominees to fit the "new" rules, but leave the other nominee open to seniors if a team so chooses. It seems to me like FIRST is looking out for themselves and their prestige and not for the students.

I do think the interview process is a great step in the right direction. It has to be very difficult to get a good read on a nominee based on how well the nominating mentor can write.

I really, really hope FIRST listens to the community and revises the NO SENIOR rule (or at least delay it a season to give teams time to re-evaluate their students).

[Akash Rastogi]

For once, I kind of disagree with this change from Frank, at least for 2014. The award should be about inspiration a student provides and recognition of that.

Maybe it would be better for the change to take place in 2015, or not at all. As someone who knows a few seniors who are worthy of recognition, I'm not a huge fan of this new rule.

Sorry Frank!

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Samwaldo

I'm hoping FIRST sees this, because I have an idea that would satisfy everyone.

If I recall correctly you can nominate 2 people. Maybe FIRST can require teams to nominate one Sophomore/Junior and the second person can be of any grade level. Equal consideration of all grade would continue.

Nomination 1: Required Sophmore/Junior
Nomination 2: optional Sophomore/Junior/Senior

This system would put more Sophomores/Juniors in the pool or nominations, increasing the likelihood of Sophomores/Juniors winning (which FIRST just showed they want), but still giving an equal chance to seniors.

Aren't Sophomores/Juniors inherently at a disadvantage when put up against a senior? By the simple virtue of being around longer, seniors have done more, and very likely have more leadership on their team (In our team, all captains have been seniors for 7 years, until this year with our first Junior as a captain).

So, even if Juniors are preferred, judges likely look at the students and think "Hmmm... A senior who is the captain of the team and did all this stuff for the past three years, or a Junior with 2 past years and less team leadership?"

So, having seniors eligible has probably ended up going against FIRST's preference for Juniors. Just something to keep in mind during the discussion.