Chairman's Submission Inconsistencies

[philso]

Perhaps if the judges get some training in "job interview techniques" they can more easily detect when the truth has been stretched beyond the line.

I have also seen teams who undersell themselves. An FLL team we have been prepare for the World Festival was practicing their Research Project and Core Values and did not mention many of their amazing accomplishments such as getting over 1000 students to participate in a survey and providing instructional materials to teachers all over the world AND receiving videos of the teachers actually using the materials they provided. It seems that they were so focused on implementing the mission of FIRST that they forgot that the judging sessions were their opportunity to justifiably brag about their accomplishments.

[OZ_341]

What we always told our Chairman's team was that you had to treat the Chairman's submission process as if you were going to court.

For every claim you make, you must have EVIDENCE. Photos, video, quotations, clippings, or independent statistics. If we did something amazing but did not have evidence to back it up, we did not put it in our Chairman's Award. If we were making a good faith estimate, we would always go with the lower estimate and then cut it back another 10% for safety sake until it was clearly reasonable to all. It was better to go with a low number, than to be perceived as padding your submission. If a cool event was on the schedule but had not happened yet, we did not include it until it actually happened.

It was a high standard that was sometimes frustrating for the kids. Sometimes they did something really cool but had no record of it or they had an event planned that had not happened yet. But we would not include any claims unless there was clear evidence to back it up.

Teams need to find a standard that works for them, but I think that evidence is the key to credibility.
If I were a judge, I would politely ask teams for this evidence.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by philso

It seems that they were so focused on implementing the mission of FIRST that they forgot that the judging sessions were their opportunity to justifiably brag about their accomplishments.

That's pretty inspiring in and of itself.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I agree with Oz above. I believe that teams that are attempting Chairman's have a different way of assessing the actions of their team. They make decisions based on what Chairman's team are expected to do. (of course we we will help, that is what a Chairman's team does. No, we would not do that, a Chairman's team doesn't do those things.)
I cannot tell you how often someone has come to me and told me they know a Team X is doing something or lying about this or that. When I investigate, 100% of the time, the individual has been wrong. They either heard it second hand, out of context or the misunderstood what was being said. Often individuals will hear something one way that was not close to the intent of the person delivering the information. For instance, a student walking by a pit hears "I use a 50 amp charger" and assumes the team is using that for robot batteries. I go and investigate to find that mentor was talking about his boat.
A Chairman's team is truthful, sometimes to a fault. We once turned down a Qaulity Award because the judge's description was for another team. So my default standard for a Chairman's team is to believe what they are saying. If it sounds far fetched, I would ask them to explain. If starting 20 teams with only 10 students sounds like a lot, maybe they are totaling the number of teams they have started since their first season, 15 years ago. That sounds a lot more doable doesn't it. I guess what I am saying is don't listen with a closed mind. What you hear is not always what was said.

[angelah]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

If starting 20 teams with only 10 students sounds like a lot, maybe they are totaling the number of teams they have started since their first season, 15 years ago. That sounds a lot more doable doesn't it.

It could also just be what they focus on. We've started 24 FIRST teams in two years with a team of less than a dozen kids (and only about 6 of them have helped with it.) We have had direct training and support for those teams, too, not just "Hey, you should start a team, good luck with that." We know it sounds far fetched, so our Chairman's video includes superintendents and principals speaking on our behalf. Our team has two main purposes - spreading FIRST teams and training/inspiring the students on the team - so it's just that we put a lot of time into those areas.

When we won Chairman's at a district this year, the judges came to our pit on Saturday morning for clarification, and we were able to show them pictures to prove our facts. I didn't mind at all, and the students thought it was great they had done something "unbelievable." We never expected a Chairman's win, because we don't do things to win it; we have the students present for it because it is good for them.

[gblake]

Wow,

Four things struck me as I read the posts here, the foruth is probably the most important.

1) The notion that I need a community to tell me what to do in situations like this is completely foreign to me. Like the cliche says, "There are two kinds of people in the world, those that ... and those that don't."

2) People saying that it's not Graciously Professional to expose a fraud, if they are aware one has been perpetrated. My reply, "Poppycock!"

3) People saying that it's not their place to expose a fraud, if they are aware one has been committed. My reply, "Of course you have a duty to expose frauds. Do not turn a blind eye when something harmful occurs in your community."

4)

My proposal would be that you ask the team how they accomplished X task that seems improbable. And if there's a reasonable explanation or crossed wires somewhere, that allows them to explain or uncross. I would say that 99 times out of 100, that's the whole problem.

The fourth and most important point is to be biased toward believing, to investigate with a positive attitude, to talk to people with different roles and responsibilities to check facts, and then if you are fully certain that a problem exists, bring it up discretely (especially if you are young, and perhaps have a hard time imagining just how little of the world you have experienced so far).

Blake

[OZ_341]

Originally Posted by gblake

Wow,

Four things struck me as I read the posts here, the foruth is probably the most important.

1) The notion that I need a community to tell me what to do in situations like this is completely foreign to me. Like the cliche says, "There are two kinds of people in the world, those that ... and those that don't."

2) People saying that it's not Graciously Professional to expose a fraud, if they are aware one has been perpetrated. My reply, "Poppycock!"

3) People saying that it's not their place to expose a fraud, if they are aware one has been committed. My reply, "Of course you have a duty to expose frauds. Do not turn a blind eye when something harmful occurs in your community."

4) The fourth and most important point is to be biased toward believing, to investigate with a positive attitude, to talk to people with different roles and responsibilities to check facts, and then if you are fully certain that a problem exists, bring it up discretely (especially if you are young, and perhaps have a hard time imagining just how little of the world you have experienced so far).

Blake

Good Thoughts.