Should the Chairmans Award be Mandatory?

[patrickrd]

Although I respect and admire teams that strive to win the chairman's award, I have never been a strong proponent of it, and here's why:

The mere existance of a team is great, and the existance of that team works towards the purpose of FIRST, which is to inspire kids about science and technology. Even if the team has zero community outreach, no interest in helping start other teams, and huge budget, that is a great thing! All the students on the team are having the opportunity to take part in an amazing project. Certainly it is not an ideal team, for an ideal team would have a greater influence on the community other the students on the team. I give any team that exists at all two thumbs up at accomplishing what FIRST is all about.

For this reason, it baffles me why anybody would even consider making chairman's award mandatory. When I read the idea just now, I was shocked. There are so many great teams out there who have no shot at winning the award, but do an incredible job inspiring the students who are on the team. It is not right to ask the team to do more than they already are. Well, I take that back. It is OK to ask, but it not ok to require.

Two hypothetical scenarios to consider:

1) A team exists that always builds an amazing robot, does a great job inspiring its students, and does an outstanding job in the community showing what engineering is all about. However, nobody on the team is interested in the chairman's award, because the students and mentors do not care about winning an award, but rather making a difference in their community. This is the ideal team, 100% altruistic to the purpose of FIRST.

2) On the other end of the spectrum, we have a team that struggles to even exist. Every year they spend up until the very last days of registration struggling to find enough sponsors to know they can exist for another year. The team has no engineers, and only a single teacher who knows nothing about robotics to make everything come together. But the students have a great experience. Even though they have no shot at winning, they learn a ton just through investigation and experimentation during the 6 week building period. After the season, they again return to getting enough money for the next year.

In both cases, the existance of the team is great. And in neither case, do I see requiring the team to submit a chairman's award beneficial. In fact, in the second case, requiring a chairman's award might make the team feel that perhaps they are not welcome in the FIRST community, because they are not able to influence anyone outside of their own team about science and technology.

Certainly, for those who care about winning the award, the existance of the award is great motivation for doing good in the community. However, for the rest of the teams, submitting the award is a waste of time.

- Patrick

[Aaron Knight]

Here's my 2 cents on the whole issue.

I personally would support a move not necessarily to make mandatory the Chairman's Award but to make teams show that they are carrying out the mission of FIRST.

While I hear and can understand where people are coming from when they talk of essentially dumbing down the Chairman's Award idea with people forced to slap something together and all that, I also understand that Dean Kamen and Woodie Flowers both preach every year in the openers that FIRST is not all about the robot itself, but in creating the robot bettering the lives and the people that the project influences and/or touches.

What, then, is needed to make sure this mission is being carried out?

FIRST already has a partial solution to this, called the Chairman's Award.

Here's an approach I haven't seen here yet: Make Chairman's Award submission mandatory, but not necessarily the participation in the competition that surrounds it. This would take the stress off of those teams already stressed out enough about sponsors et. al. and is really not that difficult at all to do.

All the Chairman's Award asks you to do is come up with four pages of what your team does to better the community in which it is located. Most teams are involved in community outreach, likely many without necessarily knowing it. On top of that, the award asks not for any special layout (although it can aid the presentation for the award itself) but for CONTENT. That is what FIRST wants to hear.

FIRST needs a way of evaluating the success of the program that is not based on the robot itself. A mandatory submission, be it a graphical masterpiece or a few pages of paragraphs done in Wordpad, would help FIRST evaluate where it is and where it needs to be. They need feedback....it isn't that difficult to give them some, now is it?

[Amanda Aldridge]

I, personally, would like to see at least the ES, if not a full chairman's become mandatory. In the past few years, i've seen a disturbing trend of FIRST moving more towards a "battlebots" ::gasp, she said battlebots!:: mindset on some teams. I think that if teams were "forced" to look back and reflect on their team and their FIRST experience, it might help move us collectively as an organization further away from the winner-take-all mentality that's so pervasive in our society. The one-page executive summary shouldn't be so burdensome and time consuming that all teams can't take a few minutes to fill it out. I don't know, just my $.02.

[Rich Kressly]

I'm a little unsure of why people are asking for judging feedback form the Chairman's judges. Since the regional award was put in place, all submitting teams in NJ have received written judge feedback, telling them where they stand in the six categories listed in the manual, pointing out the positive parts of the team and encouragement for the future. Aren't all regionals this way?

Here is one thread that shows some of the feedback 1089 - a rookie - received this year (see BandChick's post that quotes the feedback)

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...k&pagenumber=1

[IMDWalrus]

Originally posted by Aaron Knight
Here's an approach I haven't seen here yet: Make Chairman's Award submission mandatory, but not necessarily the participation in the competition that surrounds it. This would take the stress off of those teams already stressed out enough about sponsors et. al. and is really not that difficult at all to do.

I like that idea a lot, for some reason.

The one thing that I'm sure of concerning the Chairman's Award and Executive Summary is that teams should at least fill out the ES. It's not like filling out the ES will prevent a team from fielding a robot - it's one sheet of paper. It's really not that much to handle. More importantly, though, FIRST needs the feedback. The ES is one of the tools that FIRST is using to help refine and better the program and competitions for future years, and making the program that much greater for the future FIRSTers. I feel that almost everyone involved with FIRST would have to agree that that's a good thing.

[Koko Ed]

I don't think the Chairman's award gets the amount of respect it deserves because it is mostly invisable at the competitions and is only seen when it is given out at the awards at the end of the competitions. That's why many teams don't see it as a priority.
Who got the interview on CNN? Team 103? No. It was 111 Wildstang.
The Chairman's award may deserve respect but it is only getting paid lip service as an important award and the naysayers here have shown what they really think of it.
That's really too bad.

[Steve W]

After reading the ES I thought it would be better filled out by the end of May. Making it necessary for all who wish to compete the following year, allows for feedback and reflection. Most people do not fill out forms unless they must. By making mandatory by May 31 then there is no conflict with any build time or competitions. The info is still fresh from the past season and most students havn't begun exams. Rookie teams would not need a submission as they have not yet competed.
When looking at the ES, it seems that it is better filled out after season ends. As for the Chairmans I personally don't agree with mandatory submissions. I would like to see that any submission be entered at each event a team enters. By only allowing one submission and being allowed to choose the event, seems a little unfair. If a team wins at a regional then their submission would not be entered at any other regional, giving others a chance to win. As we all know judging is different at all regionals and what may win in some judges eyes might not be so impressive at another event. This way we may have more of the best submissions competing at the Championship. I think having all of the Championship submissions on display throughout the Championship might also be a good idea. This would give better exposure, allow other teams to see how to submit and what is needed and give new ideas for spreading FIRST to their communities. Just a few thoughts.

[Amanda Aldridge]

Originally posted by Steve W
I think having all of the Championship submissions on display throughout the Championship might also be a good idea. This would give better exposure, allow other teams to see how to submit and what is needed and give new ideas for spreading FIRST to their communities. Just a few thoughts.

Great Idea. I've long said that I would love to see what other teams have submitted in the past.

[Ryan Dognaux]

I've read through all of the prior posts and now have a few things to say:

The Chariman's Award - FIRST's most prestigous award. Now, say you're on a team that basically only builds a robot and that's it. Your team focuses entirely on the robot, and therefore it's really good. - My problem with that is that's not what FIRST is all about. Of course you're bringing students together and exposing them to engineering and such, but FIRST is much, much more than the robot aspect. There's animation, CAD, Public Relations, Chairman's Award, etc. I guess my question would be why "play it safe?" Why not get out there and get more people interested in this wonderful program? Why not help out the community during the off season? And if you do do this, then why not write up something about it and try for this award? Those were just some of the questions going through my mind. Ahem, back on track - Chairmans Award Mandatory?? Well, it would have some positive and negative effects. It could jump start some team's motivation problems, or whatever it is, that keeps them from getting out there in their community and doing what FIRST needs. However, this could also take away from the many teams that already strive to do so much. Chairmans Award's status could fall from the highest award to a lesser distinguished award.

But really, if you do the community service and the starting of other teams just for Charimans Award... you're missing the whole point of it. Forcing Chairmans Award would kind of be the same idea... people would miss the entire point of it.

Hopefully that made some sense...

[Joe Matt]

Some teams cannot simply make ends meet to build a robot, let alone a Chairman's Award. I think FIRST should not make it mandatory and keep it as it is. Let the FIRST teams step up to the plate when they are ready.

[Pin Man]

Both should because it shows how effective FIRST is in student's lives...

[Pin Man]

Originally posted by Ryan Dognaux
I've read through all of the prior posts and now have a few things to say:

The Chariman's Award - FIRST's most prestigous award. Now, say you're on a team that basically only builds a robot and that's it. Your team focuses entirely on the robot, and therefore it's really good. - My problem with that is that's not what FIRST is all about. Of course you're bringing students together and exposing them to engineering and such, but FIRST is much, much more than the robot aspect. There's animation, CAD, Public Relations, Chairman's Award, etc. I guess my question would be why "play it safe?" Why not get out there and get more people interested in this wonderful program? Why not help out the community during the off season? And if you do do this, then why not write up something about it and try for this award? Those were just some of the questions going through my mind. Ahem, back on track - Chairmans Award Mandatory?? Well, it would have some positive and negative effects. It could jump start some team's motivation problems, or whatever it is, that keeps them from getting out there in their community and doing what FIRST needs. However, this could also take away from the many teams that already strive to do so much. Chairmans Award's status could fall from the highest award to a lesser distinguished award.

But really, if you do the community service and the starting of other teams just for Charimans Award... you're missing the whole point of it. Forcing Chairmans Award would kind of be the same idea... people would miss the entire point of it.

Hopefully that made some sense...

Where have you been? that's exactly how I feel... I have been looking for someone that has the same point of view to this as me... Nice post, I couldn't have said it any better myself...

[Jones571]

there is more then building robots?

[Jon Reese]

i think that it sould be manditory! it helps make sure that the team that wins the c.a. actually wins!