Why is Engineering Inspiration viewed as second place to the Chairman's Award?

[Broboraider]

Originally Posted by Red2486

As far as competing at the Championship, I believe the teams that best embody each award should win the award. Maybe these teams, who don't win EI at the their qualifying events, win at the Championship because they are the best EI teams, but were awarded the Chairman's Award because they were also the best at that, and that award is more prestigious.

Not a 100% sure on this, but from region to region are all CA candidates judged on the same criteria/ grading sheet? If so is there universal criteria for EI or does that vary from regional to regional?

If there isn't an universal criteria for EI could this be a reason why a team might win CA at one regional but then give their same presentation at different regional to different judges and win Regional EI?

[Broboraider]

Originally Posted by MechEng83

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...7&postcount=14

I know this can be usually the case when going for Chairman's doesn't guarantee a team to be in the running for EI. but at least from experience within the district model. the teams that usually win EI are from the chairman's pool. In fact at least in MAR, many teams have won both EI and DCAin the same season entering the district championship

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by Broboraider

I know this can be usually the case when going for Chairman's doesn't guarantee a team to be in the running for EI. but at least from experience within the district model. the teams that usually win EI are from the chairman's pool. In fact at least in MAR, many teams have won both EI and DCAin the same season entering the district championship

2015 Indiana DCA - 135, 234, 4272
2015 Indiana DEI - 461, 1501, 1741

2016 Indiana DCA - 868, 1741, 1747
2016 Indiana DEI - 135, 461, 2197

[Truelight]

When I first started in FRC and up until recently I always was very upset with the way FRC judging was run. I felt that from the criteria to the judging it self there were many ways to improve it.
After having more time to think things through, I've found that the judging in FIRST is done in a way to foster creativity and innovation. For example if you say for the chairman's award they said the team that starts the most teams or mentors the most teams will win, this would limit teams to whatever criteria FIRST would set and it would also distract from what the Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration awards are all about.
Connecting this to OPs point, there is overlap with Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration and that's OK.
I fear the more we limit any award like this, teams may focus more on how to win, more than how to do good in the world through innovative methods. My point here is that right now yes you could argue these awards are subjective and not set up the best way but this is what acts as the insensitive for people to go out and do new awesome things. Whether they start doing these things for the right reasons or not, I believe in the end they will see what it is really all about.

I am the first one to admit that in my early stages in FIRST I just wanted to do things because it would make our team have a better shot at winning chairman's or EI. It was only after doing some of the new and innovative things our team, like many others do, came up with that the reflection of our community impact came back and hit me (along with help from some great FIRST alum, and our teams mentors along the way) Whether it was people just saying thank you after an outreach event, seeing people that you first hand brought to FIRST thrive in the program, or meeting amazing people that do incredibility things in all parts of the community. All of this helped to show me what it was all about. This all started with me having the wrong mindset and the sometimes seeming ambiguous judging criteria (along with many passionate people on my team) brought me around and showed me that sure you can do things that sound good but the judges will really pay attention when they see your teams true passion and how it has impacted the community.
Every team has this, I can take time to learn how to express it.
The things that stick with you are not winning the awards but the impact you make on people. This is what it is all about. The awards like EI are just a cherry on top.

[David Lame]

As a relatively new (three year) mentor, I can say that my ultimate goal in FIRST would be the Engineering Inspiration award. Well, that isn't quite true. My ultimate goal is to inspire great engineering in the upcoming generation. I was just incredibly proud to see some of the student accomplishments on my team this year, not necessarily on the playing field (we didn't have a great year), but on spreadsheets. In code. On drawings. Talking with teenagers about no load rpm, stall torque and stall current. Seeing kids do great things, and knowing that I had a role in it. Very heady stuff.....at least for a geek like me.

Nevertheless, I would also like to win the award. Yeah, it's just a reflection of the real work, but it would still be pretty cool.

With that in mind, are there more specific criteria for the award than "inspire engineering", or whatever slightly longer version of that that appears in the admin manual?

What about the awards statements themselves that are read out at events? I would like to hear what other people did to win the award, and those other awards that are given out. Is there a place I can look up FIRST award citations? A lot of chairman's videos end up on youtube, but if I don't happen to be at the event when the Innovation in Control award or the Engineering Inspiration award is given out, is there any way I can learn what teams did to get them?


As for the specific contents of the question from the opening post, I have heard it said that EI is a second place chairman's award. For me, personally, I would see it as a first place, but apparently, that opinion is not universal.

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by Broboraider

Not a 100% sure on this, but from region to region are all CA candidates judged on the same criteria/ grading sheet? If so is there universal criteria for EI or does that vary from regional to regional?

If there isn't an universal criteria for EI could this be a reason why a team might win CA at one regional but then give their same presentation at different regional to different judges and win Regional EI?

If you are looking for a checklist of requirements for EI, you won't get one because it does not exist, and it's not possible for one to exist - inspiration can happen and be measured in as many ways as there are teams. Truelight hit the nail on the head here:

Originally Posted by Truelight

For example if you say for the chairman's award they said the team that starts the most teams or mentors the most teams will win, this would limit teams to whatever criteria FIRST would set and it would also distract from what the Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration awards are all about.
Connecting this to OPs point, there is overlap with Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration and that's OK.
I fear the more we limit any award like this, teams may focus more on how to win, more than how to do good in the world through innovative methods.

Judges are guided by an experienced and trained Judge Advisor, which should ensure that the judging process at its core is similar across all events. Judges also receive a handbook, which is not public.

But, there is the awards manual, which explicitly sets guidelines for EI, and while it does not give an explicit set of guidelines for CA, the descriptions of the submission contents are the guidelines there:

https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...-manual-06.pdf

EI specifically recognizes engineering outreach, impact, etc. FIRST has many facets and can inspire people to pursue many passions (engineering, science, technology, math, teaching, medicine, outreach, etc), but this award is primarily about ways a team is inspiring others to the field of engineering. Applying for CA is neither a guideline nor requirement.

CA is a more broad and is about the experience: the impact of the team on their community, sponsors, and the team members itself, and the partnership that forms between those groups. FIRST is a competition of engineering, so naturally this experience will involve engineering in some way, but FIRST is not "FIRE: For Inspiration and Recognition of Engineering" - it's more than robots, and the CA recognizes the "more than robots" part (though robots can be a method used to achieve the "more than robots" impact). From the awards manual:

Originally Posted by 6.4.5 Submission Content

The Chairman’s Award is presented to the team judged to have created the best partnership effort among team participants and which best exemplified the true meaning of FIRST through measurable impact on its participants, school, and community at large.

The FIRST Robotics Competition is not about machines; it is about the experience of people working together toward a shared goal. Documenting and preserving your team’s FIRST experience becomes an important component of the over-all FIRST experience.

There is some overlap between the two awards (measurable impact), and the qualities of some activities can satisfy what the judges are looking for for both awards, which is why many teams win both in the span of a season or successive seasons. But they are two very different awards.

[Red2486]

Originally Posted by Broboraider

Not a 100% sure on this, but from region to region are all CA candidates judged on the same criteria/ grading sheet? If so is there universal criteria for EI or does that vary from regional to regional?

From the FRC Administrative Manual:

"6.14.7 Engineering Inspiration Award
Celebrates outstanding success in advancing respect and appreciation for engineering within a team’s school or organization and community.

6.14.7.1 GUIDELINES
■ Extent and inventiveness of the team’s efforts to recruit students to engineering with particular emphasis on the most recent year’s efforts. Measurable success of those efforts.
■ Extent and effectiveness of the team’s community outreach efforts with particular emphasis on the most recent year’s efforts. Measurable success of those efforts.
■ A commitment to science and technology education among the team, school, and community.
■ Achievement of the FIRST mission and ability to communicate that at the competition and away from it.
■ Efforts are ongoing, not strictly concentrated on the build and competition season."

While I am sure that the judging varies from event to event, I am fairly certain that the award follows this criteria. As far as differences between EI and Chairman's, you can see that here in the "emphasis on the most recent year's efforts" and "commitment to science and technology education". Much of the language is similar to the Chairman's Award, though, and so we can see where the overlap may occur.

The Chairman's Award is much easier to judge consistently (though surely discrepancies still do exist), I believe, than other awards because of the constraints on submissions. Often, Chairman's judges are also more experienced judges with that award in particular or with the rest of the FRC judging process.

Originally Posted by Broboraider

If there isn't an universal criteria for EI could this be a reason why a team might win CA at one regional but then give their same presentation at different regional to different judges and win Regional EI?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain more?

[Broboraider]

Originally Posted by MechEng83

2015 Indiana DCA - 135, 234, 4272
2015 Indiana DEI - 461, 1501, 1741

2016 Indiana DCA - 868, 1741, 1747
2016 Indiana DEI - 135, 461, 2197

MAR
-----
2012
DCA:1218, 433, 11, 2590, 75
DEI: 1923, 321, 75, 433, 3142

2013
DCA:1218, 2590, 433, 75, 11, 2729
DEI: 1403, 3142, 321, 1676, 75, 321

2014
DCA: 1676, 1218, 433, 303, 2590, 75
DEI: 75, 25, 365, 3142, 4575, 1676

2015
DCA: 1647, 303, 708, 1218, 1676, 321, 1923
DEI: 11, 1676, 1218, 2729, 75, 365, 3314

2016
DCA: 1923, 708, 1647, 321, 869, 1218, 1403
DEI: 303, 1218, 2590, 11, 1676, 272, 4575

PNW
-----
2014
DCA: 2046, 4488, 2522, 1983, 3219, 4057, 1318, 948, 4125, 1540
DEI: 3786, 4057, 4911, 4125, 2980, 4043, 2903, 4060, 2910, 2990

2015
DCA: 1540, 2557, 4125, 2930, 3574, 2980, 3588, 4911, 1983, 3219
DEI: 3673, 3588, 4980, 4915, 1540, 2930, 1595, 488, 3024, 3574

2016
DCA: 2257, 4125, 1540, 4911, 1983, 3574, 1510, 2471, 2980
DEI: 3786, 4061, 1510, 2522, 4125, 4911, 3574, 2635, 2046

NE
-----
2014
DCA: 811, 3467, 78, 2648, 1100, 558, 1058, 2067, 125
DEI: 2648, 4546, 228, 3930, 1519, 1735, 3467, 178, 3525

2015
DCA: 467, 195, 178, 4905, 2877, 2648, 558, 1058, 1519
DEI: 811, 228, 176, 1735, 5512, 3930, 78, 2648, 172

2016*
DCA: 230, 4905, 4761, 2648, 4176, 166, 125, 558, 467
DEI: 4557, 5422, 4909, 172, 246, 1519, 190, 2067, 1058

FIM
-----
2009*
DCA: 247, 33, 280, 66, 27, 503, 217
DEI: 85, 68, 2673, 440, 1023, 1718, 815

2010
DCA: 548, DATA NOT LISTED IN TBA, 226, 503, 27, 1718, 33
DEI: 2834, DATA NOT LISTED IN TBA, 217, 247, 1, 141, 503

2011
DCA: 2604, 66, 548, 1, 1718, 503, 2337, 33, 1023
DEI: 2834, 141, 862, 503, 27, 141, 830, 68, 2137

2012
DCA: 1711, 85, 66, 503, 123, 1718, 27, 548, 33, 2137
DEI: 2337, 123, 830, 2834, 1023, 2771, 94, 68, 1718, 27

2013
DCA: 68, 2771, 3641, 548, 2834, 27, 1718, 141, 503, 2337, 1023
DEI: 862, 1711, 141, 2834, 314, 4325, 2604, 862, 3641, 217, 226

2014
DCA: 1718, 33, 2771, 503, 1023, 548, 2137, 1711, 1506, 280, 2337, 68, 2834, 314, 2604
DEI: 1023, 470, 4377, 2337, 3602, 27, 302, 857, 2771, 548, 141, 1, 3547, 503, 4130

2015
DCA: 141, 1023, 503, 4967, 2604, 2137, 280, 3641, 245, 3618, 3547, 1718, 68, 1322, 548, 862, 1502, 33
DEI: 3322, 1701, 3770, 3620, 1711, 1718, 2611, 2834, 94, 2619, 2767, 226, 123, 2771, 217, 2137, 5084, 2337

2016
DCA: 1322, 1025, 3618, 33, 2604, 2834, 66, 503, 3767, 2619, 68, 548, 2137, 85, 4776, 2771, 2959, 1718, 3641, 5090, 1711
DEI: 1, 573, 3602, 1023, 2337, 85, 4967, 3175, 2586, 226, 1502, 3641, 4130, 4956, 68, 2767, 503, 2337, 3322, 3175, 5505

Surprisingly enough between MAR, PNW, FiM, NE, and IN; IN is the only district top never have a team win DCA and DEI in the same and it has happened at least once in the four other districts every year except for FiM (2009) and NE (2016).

[Broboraider]

Originally Posted by Red2486

If there isn't an universal criteria for EI could this be a reason why a team might win CA at one regional but then give their same presentation at different regional to different judges and win Regional EI?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain more?

in simple terms:
If team A goes to Regional X and gives their presentation and win EI at Regional X
and if they went to Regional Y instead and gave the same presentation they gave at Regional X then they might win RCA at Regional Y

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Broboraider

In 2015, Team 811 won EI twice.

Great work on digging up these numbers.

The above is half right however after the event it was corrected and awarded to team 2648 who was runner up.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=136107

[Broboraider]

Originally Posted by Karibou

There is some overlap between the two awards (measurable impact), and the qualities of some activities can satisfy what the judges are looking for for both awards, which is why many teams win both in the span of a season or successive seasons. But they are two very different awards.

Ok, that make sense.
But, since they are different awards it is justifiable for an RCA to win EI at champs because of the overlap? I have no problem with teams winning both in a season before champs. I find that the judging process is somewhat fair and reasonable at a regional and district level but In my opinion, I believe that it takes the opportunity away from REI teams to win EI at champs if they have to compete with RCA teams as well. Many teams would love the opportunity to win an REI let alone an RCA. It just seems kinda strange to have an RCA team in the same discussion with a REI for a subdivision EI win

[Broboraider]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Great work on digging up these numbers.

The above is half right however after the event it was corrected and awarded to team 2648 who was runner up.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=136107

thanks for finding that, I found it kinda odd for a team for win EI twice within a division so I thought something was up but could not find that post. I corrected in the original comment

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Broboraider

Ok, that make sense.
But, since they are different awards it is justifiable for an RCA to win EI at champs because of the overlap? I have no problem with teams winning both in a season before champs. I find that the judging process is somewhat fair and reasonable at a regional and district level but In my opinion, I believe that it takes the opportunity away from REI teams to win EI at champs if they have to compete with RCA teams as well. Many teams would love the opportunity to win an REI let alone an RCA. It just seems kinda strange to have an RCA team in the same discussion with a REI for a subdivision EI win

I don't really see how there's an issue. RCA winning teams are not inherently better than teams that do not win an RCA in a given year (or win EI). Different regions have different levels of competition for both awards. You're correct that it's more likely that an RCA team has done work that makes them a good candidate for EI, but at the end of the day, we're looking for the team that best fits the criteria of the Engineering Inspiration award-- the best of the best in that subdivision. I believe that the best team for those criteria should be chosen, whether they're an RCA winner or not.

[trumpthero786]

Originally Posted by Broboraider

MAR

2013
DCA:1218, 2590, 433, 75, 11
DEI: 1403, 3142, 321, 1676, 75

Hey, you forgot 2729's 2013 DCA! Great compilation, though. It really puts things into perspective.

[Broboraider]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I don't really see how there's an issue. RCA winning teams are not inherently better than teams that do not win an RCA in a given year (or win EI). Different regions have different levels of competition for both awards. You're correct that it's more likely that an RCA team has done work that makes them a good candidate for EI, but at the end of the day, we're looking for the team that best fits the criteria of the Engineering Inspiration award-- the best of the best in that subdivision. I believe that the best team for those criteria should be chosen, whether they're an RCA winner or not.

I think you really hit the nail on the head for me with this. I agree with you 100%. For me, it just felt for the teams that just go to champs with an REI award should be able to compete for that award at champs and be compared to other REI teams. It just felt like some REI don't get the recognition they deserve because they are competing with RCA who are usually at a higher caliber. Some teams are EI teams some are CA teams very few are both (this is where the overlaps occurs). For some teams, it is hard to take that step as an EI team to winning a RCA so for that team, an REI might seem like the greatest thing to happen them despite its relationship to a RCA. I just believe that that team that worked hard for a REI shouldn't be counted out of the discussion to win EI at a subdivison