Incentives for Chairman's submissions

[Caleb Sykes]

My team recently had to make a very interesting decision: whether to make a bad Chairman's award submission this year or to not make a submission at all. For those of you unaware of how teams qualify for the MSHSL robotics championship, here is a link to the process. At its core, it is very similar to the standard district point system introduced by FIRST last year. I am assuming that the system will remain largely the same for 2015. The difference that I would like to highlight is the 10 bonus points that teams receive for submitting for the Chairman's award. Interestingly enough, I distinctly remember someone (Jim Zondag?) stating that the reason FIRST did not include something like this in their standardized point system was so that teams were not incentivized to make poor Chairman's submissions just so that they would earn the free points, which is exactly what we are being incentivized to do because of the MSHSL's point system.

My team is growing very quickly in many areas, but we are still a year or two out from having a solid Chairman's submission. However, if we had the desire to do so, I am confident that we could throw together a sub-par submission just to get the 10 points. Were this incentive not in place, I would have encouraged our business team (who would be doing the brunt of the work on this) to expand in other areas, like submitting for the entrepreneurship award by making a solid business plan and getting more sponsors. However, with this incentive in place, I feel as though we are being told that our priorities are a bit out of whack, and should instead be shifted more toward submitting for Chairman's.

I feel that the decision we ended up making is irrelevant to this discussion (if you want to know, pm me) as I am much more interested to know what everyone thinks about the incentive itself. Should something like this be adopted into the standard district point system? Or is the MSHSL encouraging the wrong thing? Are bad Chairman's submissions any better than no Chairman's submission? What if the time spent on a Chairman's submission could have been used to get more sponsors or submit for other awards?

[Jacob Bendicksen]

I'm still ruminating here, so this might be a little disjointed. Bear with me, if you will.

I think any Chairman's submission, even a bad one, will help the team in some way. Submitting for Chairman's is a fantastic way to identify the areas where your team is doing well and those in which you're not, and even a poorly written submission will do this for you. Now, a poorly written submission might not win you anything (well-written ones often don't win), but as long as your team understands what you wrote, it'll help you understand your strengths and weaknesses.

However, there is the fact (as I understand the system) that a Chairman's submission written the night before it's due will earn a team the same amount of points that a submission worked on for months will. This isn't fair to the teams that spend months and months working on theirs, but I don't know if there's a good way to tell the difference without reading them.

So, yeah, it's great for teams to submit, but it's not fair to the teams that put a lot of work in when they get as many points as a team that wrote it the night before. I don't know how we can reward the teams that put more work in, but there's gotta be a way.

Hang on. Now that I think about it, there is a reward for those teams: winning a Chairman's Award! Though even the teams that didn't win often put a lot of work in... Perhaps rewarding the teams that present at an event would be better?

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

Perhaps rewarding the teams that present at an event would be better?

I believe current rules require that a team submit for Chairman's Award and present at at least one regional in order to receive the 10 point bonus. I might be wrong there, though.

[Kimmeh]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

I think any Chairman's submission, even a bad one, will help the team in some way. Submitting for Chairman's is a fantastic way to identify the areas where your team is doing well and those in which you're not, and even a poorly written submission will do this for you. ... but as long as your team understands what you wrote, it'll help you understand your strengths and weaknesses.

I can't help but feel like even a "poorly" done Chairman's submission is better than not at all. While right now, it may start out as just another task to get done, there may be a point where it takes on greater meaning to your team, and the team decides to see it as more than another requirement. If/when that happens, you've already spent time laying the framework.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I believe current rules require that a team submit for Chairman's Award and present at at least one regional in order to receive the 10 point bonus. I might be wrong there, though.

This is correct- we count presentations, not submissions.

Back when this was first implemented, we had practically no teams subbing for chairman's from Minnesota. The intent isn't for teams to just do it the night before... We want teams to be submitting so they are actively looking at it every year and doing what they need to do to improve. You get feedback from the judges to help you know the best areas to focus on, and it gives you a great chance for introspection, if you use it appropriately.

Towards the OPs comment about doing a business plan... I actually think a business plan is critically important for chairman's. It guides the team leadership, defines what your team thinks is important, sets recruitment and continuation goals... It's a very important document overall.

Also, being a team that has been submitting for chairman's longer than most in the state, I can tell you that your first submission isn't going to be all that great, even if you think you're ready for it. It takes a few years of experience to figure out how to do it, so putting in some effort now will help when you really are ready.

[jwfoss]

There is no reason not to submit for the award unless you simply do not have enough people to do so. The experience of going through the process will not only help your student grow but also help them better understand the process in the future.

[JesseK]

It has been said and needs to be restated:

Chairman's Award is not about the submission; it is about the process.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by JesseK

It has been said and needs to be restated:

Chairman's Award is not about the submission; it is about the process.

Very true. And despite the "points just to submit", only 40 teams in the state (out of 180+!) Submitted last year. And that is up significantly from where we were just a few years ago. From most of what I've heard, those submitting are doing so seriously, and not just throwing it forget the night before. Including this in the states criteria has helped to inspire teams to put in the effort and go for it, even if they look at it and say "there's no way we will win against team XXXX at our regional... They seem to win it every year and do so much more than we do!" I'll leave it to other to post there results, but I know for my team that, even though we've never won, doing the submission and presentation has helped us grow and succeed as a team overall.