Chairman's feedback form: Gracious Professionalism

[Chris_Elston]

Just curious what might be some feedback to what other teams do to address the question "Team exhibits numerous examples of gracious professionalism".

Do you actually have examples of things you've done for teams in your chairman's essay? Or maybe expand on what that question means to your team? We do several things that we believe are GP, but maybe they aren't in the eyes of the judges and wanted something to compare that too.

Better yet, how are you clearly communicating to the chairman judges you are meeting the Gracious Professionalism bullet points?

[KelliV]

When in doubt give information directly. "Team XXXXX believes in GP and this is how." Sometimes judges are VERY familiar with FIRST, other times they aren't.

[AllenGregoryIV]

We do have examples of things we have done for specific teams in our essay, summary questions, and presentation.

Our submission can be read here.

[BigJ]

It seems like judges want to see more than just helping other teams as well -- our RCA feedback last year listed a point to improve as "Examples of GP not related to [the list of categories in the rubric that involved FIRST and FIRST teams]".

[Chris_Elston]

Originally Posted by BigJ

It seems like judges want to see more than just helping other teams as well -- our RCA feedback last year listed a point to improve as "Examples of GP not related to [the list of categories in the rubric that involved FIRST and FIRST teams]".

What category rubrics are you referring to?

[BigJ]

The ones on the feedback form at the regional level from last year. I don't have a copy handy to write examples from, sorry.

[Chris_Elston]

Originally Posted by BigJ

The ones on the feedback form at the regional level from last year. I don't have a copy handy to write examples from, sorry.

Oh ok. Yeah I have those bullet points. The GP one is the reason for my post, as I am trying to help my chairman's team understand that question from the judges.

[cadandcookies]

Honestly, my team has mostly ignored that in our submissions and hasn't ever really been asked a question about it while I've been a presenter. At least the judges at our regionals seem to take our actions at tournaments and overall submission as sufficient evidence.

[Chris_Elston]

[quote= At least the judges at our regionals seem to take our actions at tournaments and overall submission as sufficient evidence.[/QUOTE]

This is a VERY INTERESTING comment you made. It seems it's also important to the judges what they see in your team at the moment right there at the event is maybe more so important than what you did the whole year or past ten. I think it might be a gauge of success that it should be percolating all throughout your team. And if it's not 100% a shining example at the event, then they must assume all your documentation is null and voided.

What's interesting is to have a lower score in Gracious Professionalism than all the other marks on the chairman's feedback form, yet you WIN the Gracious Professionalism Award at the regional...at least that is what happened last year. So just trying to make heads or tails of judge logic and what it is exactly we aren't communicating to them.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Chris_Elston

What's interesting is to have a lower score in Gracious Professionalism than all the other marks on the chairman's feedback form, yet you WIN the Gracious Professionalism Award at the regional...at least that is what happened last year. So just trying to make heads or tails of judge logic and what it is exactly we aren't communicating to them.

Remember that in most cases the GP Award and RCA are judged by different judges... the GP Judges are often actively searching, while the RCA judges (I'm guessing) mostly rely on incidental contact and the interviews. Not to mention the drastically different interpretations of exactly what "GP" even means.

[JB987]

"Not to mention the drastically different interpretations of exactly what "GP" even means."

And therein lies the rub.

[Steve W]

Is it really GP if you have to list the things that you have done. GP is a way that the team is or isn't. I guess that teams that actively seek out teams having issues, provide material for those that lack, make themselves available at events are what should be noticed or talked about by others. Patting yourself on the back and listing all to whom you have helped shows a team trying to win an award.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Is it really GP if you have to list the things that you have done. GP is a way that the team is or isn't. I guess that teams that actively seek out teams having issues, provide material for those that lack, make themselves available at events are what should be noticed or talked about by others. Patting yourself on the back and listing all to whom you have helped shows a team trying to win an award.

It's one of the criteria on the rubric that they want examples. I agree that it can be kind of silly, though.

Last year's listed "10. Exhibits numerous examples of gracious professionalism" or roughly among that wording (I copied it from our presentation brainstorming google doc).

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Is it really GP if you have to list the things that you have done. GP is a way that the team is or isn't. I guess that teams that actively seek out teams having issues, provide material for those that lack, make themselves available at events are what should be noticed or talked about by others. Patting yourself on the back and listing all to whom you have helped shows a team trying to win an award.

Steve, this is a debate that is much better had in person but I don't hear people bring this side of the argument up enough and I think it's something the entire community might need. Our team doesn't do any of the things we do for other teams because of the award, if the award didn't exist we would happily give away parts & advice like I always do. We would invite teams over and help them build their robots, we would still post in our build blog every night and share our designs. However we also do a lot to win the award. We spend weeks writing an essay and making sure that we have pictures and documentation from all of our events. We work hard on our presentation and our materials for the judges and a bunch more. It is nice to be recognized and FIRST makes the Chairman's Award the highest honor for a reason they want teams to try to win it. Hundreds of students work really hard each year to try to win these awards and every time someone says we shouldn't do things to win the award it diminishes their efforts just a bit. I'm sick of the we shouldn't do it for the award argument, if a team feels that way fine don't submit for the award that is every team's right but I sure hope more teams do try to win the awards, we are a much better program because we celebrate these things and elevate the teams that win them to such high regard in our community and because teams try to win them. The entire chairman's award process is about documenting how you have helped the community and why you should be a role model team and this is a piece of that. I assume that every single hall of fame team wanted to win the award and did a huge amount over a ridiculously long time to win the award, was that their only motivation absolutely not but it is always part of it.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

I think the components of most teams' Chairman's submissions cover at least a few examples of how they exhibit GP. We don't talk about it specifically, but because we've mentored other teams, done good things for the community, etc., I think the judges get the idea that we are graciously professional. (At least the judges in the PNW, I don't have much experience anywhere else).