Does FIRST give out too many awards? (Opinion)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

All teams get the bronze participation medals. If you win the on-field competition you get a silver, and if you win chairmans, a gold.

Actually, silver is finalist, winners and Chairman's get gold. I think Engineering Inspiration gets bronze. And yes, the participation medals are also bronze

Regarding one team getting multiple awards, if a team is on more than two award lists, they will likely get a Judges Award. This happened to 330 in Sacramento this year. We had more stickers on our pit sign than most other teams, which (we think) means we were on more award lists. We wound up with one award--Judges. This meant that other teams got more of a chance to get an award.

[Daniel Brim]

Originally Posted by EricH

Actually, silver is finalist, winners and Chairman's get gold. I think Engineering Inspiration gets bronze. And yes, the participation medals are also bronze

EI gets a silver medal.

[techtiger1]

My opinion no FIRST does not give out too many awards. Although everyone has brought up very valid points in this discussion. Everyone on these boards know how hard a team works every year on there robots and other things chairmans, Auto desk award, etc. They deserve to get an award for there hard work and commitment to there team. Do I think FIRST has to give out more awards. No I think how things are now are perfectly fine in the award area.

My two cents,
Drew

Go TIggggggeeeerrrsss!

[jonathan lall]

On the subject of rewarding participation, what Karthik suggested about a pin denoting some level of participation in FIRST through high school is far more sound and profound than cheapening the meaning of medals by making thousands of them; again, I always associate medals with distinction (perhaps that's the fault of athletic competitions like the Olympics, and military awards), and I guess clichéd phrases about how a participation medal somehow does just that, simply don't do it for me.

A four-year service pin on the other hand, is an acheivement, and it says something about you. It also provides students with something to strive for. A participation medal cannot do anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

In the real NFL, 2 teams get awards, the winner and loser of the superbowl. That's 6% of the 32 teams. 16% of teams that make the playoffs (12) get an award.

Correct. And those teams reach the playoffs based on a tiered system of how long they were in the league or the awards they got at NFL regionals.

Oh no, wait a second. The NFL doesn't have regionals and NFL teams reach the playoffs based on their standings. This means the NFL doesn't have to deal with the prospect of cutting more trophies than there are teams.

Therefore, your first figure there, 6% of the 32 teams, is the only one even close to analogous to what we're talking about. If you want an analogy about the motivation behind FIRST's awards and the NFL, here's one: The NFL's main concern is to maximize profit. If the NFL did what FIRST is (I hold) doing with its awards, it would reward teams for attendance in their stadiums and highest revenue from ticket sales.

Originally Posted by Philip W.

I believe Jonathan was merely using the Waterloo regional as an example to express his ideas and opinions.

I congratulate Philip on actually reading what I had to say, rather than reading into what I said. I specifically used Waterloo as an example, because it was a regional of 24 teams (which I said). Don't get it twisted, what Joe said suggests my post had an accusatory tone toward Waterloo Award winners, which is patently false. But it does bring into question whether the number of awards per regional is good, considering there will always be small regionals.

[Mike Ciance]

i have some pro and con views on this

PRO: I think that awards can be great, because they push teams to achieve in more ways. I think creating more awards would help to even further expand the FIRST experience

CON: There are some awards that I feel should be done away with. One is the participation medals. A participation medal doesnt really mean much to most people, and we all know that. It's more of an "I didn't do good enough to win anything" award.
Another award I think should be discontinued is the Spirit Award. The intent of this award is well, but it promotes extremism. The team that wins this is usually a team who was chanting through the entire competition and waving things in the air that block the views of people behind them. I'm all for team spirit, but trying to be as obnoxious and loud as possible doesn't seem like spirit to me.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

On the subject of rewarding participation, what Karthik suggested about a pin denoting some level of participation in FIRST through high school is far more sound and profound than cheapening the meaning of medals by making thousands of them; again, I always associate medals with distinction (perhaps that's the fault of athletic competitions like the Olympics, and military awards), and I guess clichéd phrases about how a participation medal somehow does just that, simply don't do it for me.

A four-year service pin on the other hand, is an acheivement, and it says something about you. It also provides students with something to strive for. A participation medal cannot do anything of the sort.

Correct. And those teams reach the playoffs based on a tiered system of how long they were in the league or the awards they got at NFL regionals.

Oh no, wait a second. The NFL doesn't have regionals and NFL teams reach the playoffs based on their standings. This means the NFL doesn't have to deal with the prospect of cutting more trophies than there are teams.

Therefore, your first figure there, 6% of the 32 teams, is the only one even close to analogous to what we're talking about. If you want an analogy about the motivation behind FIRST's awards and the NFL, here's one: The NFL's main concern is to maximize profit. If the NFL did what FIRST is (I hold) doing with its awards, it would reward teams for attendance in their stadiums and highest revenue from ticket sales.


I congratulate Philip on actually reading what I had to say, rather than reading into what I said. I specifically used Waterloo as an example, because it was a regional of 24 teams (which I said). Don't get it twisted, what Joe said suggests my post had an accusatory tone toward Waterloo Award winners, which is patently false. But it does bring into question whether the number of awards per regional is good, considering there will always be small regionals.

Drawing a comparison between the NFL and FIRST is completely irrelevant. Dean doesn't want FIRST to be anything like professional sports, so how can you possibly associate the two?

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Cory

Drawing a comparison between the NFL and FIRST is completely irrelevant. Dean doesn't want FIRST to be anything like professional sports, so how can you possibly associate the two?

Dean has to want FIRST to mirror some aspect of the NFL as we know it today. After all, he's looking to create role models (of which there are some in the NFL), get folks excited about science and technology (as the NFL has done with football), and fill up arenas from here to Seattle (which the NFL and other sports do).

It's been said before--sports are fine and good, as long as you've got your priorities in the right order for you.

[Anubuss]

I look at it this way. FIRST's goal is to recognize achievments made by teams. When you look at just the science/technology part you have unlimited options. Such as awards for most innovative drive train or arm divice, or even things in depth like most innovative programing method. Then there's the insperation aspect, and again, many options. So does FIRST give out too many awards? I say they don't give out enough, but only becasue they currently don't have the funds to hand out as many as they could.

[jonathan lall]

To the unnamed mod who fixed the title of this thread, thank you. I usually make fun of people that use "to" instead of "too" because it bugs me too know end.

Originally Posted by Cory

Drawing a comparison between the NFL and FIRST is completely irrelevant. Dean doesn't want FIRST to be anything like professional sports, so how can you possibly associate the two?

Cory, what would you propose we compare this competition to? It still is a competition right? If you can produce a better parallel, we'll use it. But you must understand it is neccesary to compare FIRST with something that shares similarities with it in order to illuminate certain aspects of it that may be... well, suspect.

No, FIRST is not the NFL. No FIRST teams don't all get a maximum of one award. Was it not clear to you I understood and acknowledged these facts fully before you chimed in? We should take them for what they are: evidence, not proof.

But back to the sporting comparisons, Dean himself said FIRST was supposed to (among other things) curb the systemic pro sports worship in American culture, because frankly, there are more important things. Do you really think it's strange that we are drawing parallels to the NFL? I needn't remind you we're all part of teams that wear uniforms in large stadiums and compete for an ultimate prize. But if that's not enough to convince you, Dean also refered to FIRST in 2003 as something else quite explicitly:

Originally Posted by Dean Kamen

The Superbowl of Smarts

You suggest that Dean doesn't want FIRST to be anything like professional sports. As Billfred points out, how do you know that?

Originally Posted by Anubuss

I say they don't give out enough, but only becasue they currently don't have the funds to hand out as many as they could.

How do you figure they don't have enough money to cut some more plastic? They already make over a thousand trophies every year. It doesn't cost much more than that.

[Freddy Schurr]

I would have to stat that more awards, more fun. Because everyone should be recongize for what they did.

I hope that FIRST will create more awards to give out next year.

[Dave Campbell]

An additional thought...
I am packing up my bike for an Olympic Distance Triathlon I am doing in two weeks and thought of another reason to support participant medals -
I am an avid runner, cyclist and swimmer. I will never reach the Olympics, I will never win a major race. I just want to be competitive in my age group. Every race in which I compete I receive a finishers medal, or pin. It is very different than the winner's medals (and super-sized checks.) But I am nonetheless proud of my accomplishment of completing a Marathon, Half-marathon, Century Ride or Triathlon. Run a marathon, or two and walk away empty handed from them and you'll get what I'm saying. The medals I have earned are significant to me and I display them right next to my participant medals and awards my FIRST teams have earned. I will never understate the value of recognition of completion and always celebrate the success of others. It is an enlightening time to watch and learn from those who win and get recognized for their success.

If winning another website award for your great work online is not gratifying, don't submit your URL for the award. I'm sure that there are other teams that work hard and would love the award in their hands. My team won a regional website award in 2003 and we were extremely proud of our accomplishment.

[jonathan lall]

Originally Posted by Dave Campbell

The medals I have earned are significant to me and I display them right next to my participant medals and awards my FIRST teams have earned. I will never understate the value of recognition of completion and always celebrate the success of others. It is an enlightening time to watch and learn from those who win and get recognized for their success.

That's your prerogative. All I'm saying is that "it's not mine, here's why." You should be enormously proud of your run/ride in a marathon, I know I would be. But I just don't believe a medal is the right way to remember what you did. Not for a marathon, and not for FIRST. Whereas I might associate the image of a medal with being "exemplary in one's field," someone else might not. I can't change perceptions, but I know if I were to participate in a marathon every year, I'd want some kind of iconic certificate that not only demonstrates I was a part of it, but also notes my time. That way, I can beat it next year. This not only signifies participation, but rewards trying one's best. This concept is similar in principle to the 4 year pin, but is even better for the application of a marathon. If you don't agree with the irony of the term "participation medal," that's fine, but you must admit awarding medals to the few people that walk instead of run (when they are capable of running) is detrimental if anything. FIRST does this, by the way.

Originally Posted by Dave Campbell

If winning another website award for your great work online is not gratifying, don't submit your URL for the award. I'm sure that there are other teams that work hard and would love the award in their hands. My team won a regional website award in 2003 and we were extremely proud of our accomplishment.

I can be objective about this; I'm actually not sure I believe the Website Award should be included in the regional awards ceremonies, where the students all come down and get trophies for an individual or small-group effort. Indeed, this particular award is not held in a high regard by many. I am most definitely of the opinion the Website Award needs some reform. Does FIRST even need a Website Award? I'm willing to entertain the possibility it doesn't. I was a webmaster before the award even existed and that didn't stop me from taking our site, redesigning it, making it more resourceful, and making it helpful to FIRST teams. Did I put a little extra effort in because there was an award? You bet. But then again, if FIRST introduced the Wal-Mart Best Dancer award next year, teams would stat dancing. I, on the other hand, don't dance.

One more thing:

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

I’m proud that my efforts contributed to [...] the Website Award (you can refer to my Who Am I picture if you think I’m exaggerating about my thoughts on that).

[Beth Sweet]

Mr. Lall, I'd like to start out this post by saying that I have a lot of respect for you for not only expressing your opinion, but also for doing so in such an elequent way.

That being said, I disagree with most everything you are saying. You say that you (and I believe the other supporter of the concept was Karthik...) beleive that better than a participation medal would be a 4 year pin. I vehemently disagree with this concept. In fact, I still would not qualify for my 4 year pin as I've been in FIRST for only 3 years. Howerever, I feel that participating in FIRST has been fantastic on me. I know that this season, I distributed the participation medals and my 1-year seniors were so proud that one of them didn't take off his the entire evening. Those medals, while they may not seem like the correct form of reward, mean everything to some people. We worked so hard this year. Those kids were so proud of their achievements.

The way I see it, FIRST participation makes everyone winners, so there's no problem with giving a winner a medal.

I don't know, I just don't like the idea of saying that longevity is a better indicator of FIRST than the effort put forth. Maybe a yearly pin would work well, but I hate the 4 year idea. In 3 years, I feel like I've had more good things happen to me and been more impacted by FIRST than some who were in the program for 4 years that I know.

[IMDWalrus]

Originally Posted by Beth Sweet

Those medals, while they may not seem like the correct form of reward, mean everything to some people.

Time for a simple question.

If the medals aren't the correct form of reward, than what is? The pins are an alternative, to be sure, but what other choices are out there that would be realistic options?

I know that that wasn't the point of your post; instead, let's consider that a question for everyone who doesn't like the medals as they are now.

[Philip W.]

These participation medals don't satisfy me either. What are they congratulating me for? For putting countless and sleepless nights into building a robot, and spending strenuous days on the greatest competition I've experienced when the other guy gets the same medal for coming into the shop every other week for an hour and goes around in the pits looking for give-aways? Everyone gets the medal no matter what they've done, whether they're the ideal and devoted FIRST participant or the guy you never knew was on the team and because of this, the participation medal has no value as an award. I suppose I can keep it to represent what I've done during the past year in robotics, but to me, the robot itself does that. I could also use it to bring back memories when I take it out of an old dusty box twenty years later, but why keep it when it's only worth 5 letters and a few words when I can keep pictures worth a thousand?

An award, may it be a medal, pin, ribbon, certificate, or even if it was words out of someone's mouth, that congratulates me in some specific way, I would value it plenty more than a participation medal. Karthik's four year pin idea is great that way, it's a specific award that commends a feat. Even the driver's pin (although I am not a driver...yet) would be worth more to me than that participation medal. An award for my work in the pits, or time spent during the build season, or during the off-season, or anything similar would be ideal. Of course, how is FIRST going to know I've done all this?

Even words are better. Having someone congratulate me on work well done is, as I said, worth more to me than a participation medal. Meeting Dave Lavery and hearing him commend me for a robot function that I've helped design and create was worth a lot more than any participation medal. Even my self-gratification is better I'd say.