**FIRST EMAIL**/Judges Information for the Team Yearbook

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Wow. An 'essay' about "Most Competitive for Which Awards" strikes me as being tactless and tasteless.

Not a fan.

I would think that you would use this space to highlight robot and team components that correlate well to award criteria. IF your team has put a lot of effort into an area related o one of the awards (not necessarily because there is an award) this may also be a place to highlight that (e.g. a team focuses on developing a consistent image, they may mention that this relates to the Imagery award)

As humble as we would like to be, sometimes bragging is necessary. This is no different than a college application or resume/job application where one must talk about their qualifications and strengths.

EDIT: I'm also not a huge fan of this category and I hope that judges do not dwell too long on what is contained here or ignore the potential for a team to compete for an award not highlighted here.

P.S. Thanks for the answer Mark!

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

I would think that you would use this space to highlight robot components that correlate well to award criteria.

As humble as we would like to be, sometimes bragging is necessary. This is no different than a college application or resume/job application where one must talk about their qualifications and strengths.

P.S. Thanks for the answer Mark!

Last season, I would never have imagined our team would win the Engineering Inspiration Award at the Silicon Valley Regional, and had I similarly been asked to identify which awards we were in contention for, I would have omitted it. This question, thus, gives me pause that if I had done so, judges would've spent less time speaking with our students and evaluating our program and its suitability for that award. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The judges are meant to have a complete understanding of the awards they must present and really ought to be capable of identifying and investigating teams that meet the criteria for each award. I see that this might be a way to make their job easier -- but having judged FLL events -- I don't think their job should be easy. It should be the hardest job at the event and I'd hate to think that a great part of someone's robot or team goes overlooked because they didn't realize it was something special.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Last season, I would never have imagined our team would win the Engineering Inspiration Award at the Silicon Valley Regional, and had I similarly been asked to identify which awards we were in contention for, I would have omitted it. This question, thus, gives me pause that if I had done so, judges would've spent less time speaking with our students and evaluating our program and its suitability for that award. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The judges are meant to have a complete understanding of the awards they must present and really ought to be capable of identifying and investigating teams that meet the criteria for each award. I see that this might be a way to make their job easier -- but having judged FLL events -- I don't think their job should be easy. It should be the hardest job at the event and I'd hate to think that a great part of someone's robot or team goes overlooked because they didn't realize it was something special.

Well stated!

Ideally this category would allow the judges to make sure that they ask about a particular robot or team element that the team believes to be special without causing them to narrow their vision down to only elements highlighted here. Team members should already be aware of these elements and be able to talk about them without being asked directly so I think your concern regarding the use of the answers to this question is a very valid one.

I will definitely be talking to my team about what we want to put in this box, if we want to fill it at all. Unfortunately, with the existence of the box it makes me wonder what kind of attention we will get (or lack thereof) from judges by leaving it blank.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

It should be the hardest job at the event and I'd hate to think that a great part of someone's robot or team goes overlooked because they didn't realize it was something special.

I agree completely here. I thought that section is a little strange, as in if you don't put the awards down you think you should contend with, then will you even have a chance?

I guess you could just put "all of them" and be done with it.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

I guess you could just put "all of them" and be done with it.

That's what I was thinking. Or "whatever you think we should be in the running for."

[Amanda Morrison]

I'm with Maddy - I hesitated in answering that for our team. What do you really say without limiting the judges, even unintentionally?

What really struck a chord with me was the variety of things passed off as 'Judges' Information'. I really fail to see how many, if not most, of the questions included should matter to the judges when making their choice. A few of them even offended me, to be honest. Come on, take your pick: asking about the free/reduced lunch statistic of our schools and asking about the ethnicity and gender of our students REALLY turned my head. What could the judges possibly be using these for? What decision would be made by these criteria?

At least those are optional. Making 'team budget' a required field offended me quite a bit. Maybe I'm really off this time, but that should make no difference whatsoever for the judges. I've been on teams on both ends of the spectrum, and I don't want our finances - for whatever reason - to be a part of the process. I don't want a pity award given to my team because we struggled with our fundraising, and I don't want some judge discriminating against us because we're a little better off than another team up for the award. Like a lot of FIRST vets, I've been around the judges that are discriminatory or biased and don't want this information to factor into their decisions.

I know FIRST doesn't have it easy training the judges, and I know HQ does a pretty fantastic job considering the number of regionals and individuals involved. But it sure strikes me that someone is looking for demographic information about our team and billing it under the 'Judges' Information' headline, and that bothers me - especially if it means that the judges are seeing the results.

[Beth Sweet]

Yeah, that question has been on the list for a few years now and has always struck me funny. I always list all of the awards, except for the ones which require submitting something we didn't submit. I know what their intent is, but I do tend to wonder how the judges take it...

[synth3tk]

"I've got a million dollars and built this crappy robot"
"We only had $500,000 and built this really nice winning robot"

I'm only assuming that's what the financial information is for.

[Pat Arnold]

This explanation is on TIMS about why FIRST collects Team Demographics:

FIRST judges use demographics to evaluate teams during a competition and to support the maintenance of grants which allow FIRST to put on competitions around the world..

Note: All information is optional. However, you will stand a better chance at impressing the judges if you fill in all the information.

Note also, the terms used on this page are from the United States Census and required by some of our grantors.

I understand why the info is needed, but it seems likely to influence judges according to their personal biases. Asking teams to identify awards they feel they are most competitive for does not bother me. Selling oneself and one's achievements is often necessary, even mandatory, to garner attention for a unique approach or a job well done (As long as the information is factual).

[Ben Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

I really fail to see how many, if not most, of the questions included should matter to the judges when making their choice. A few of them even offended me, to be honest. Come on, take your pick: asking about the free/reduced lunch statistic of our schools and asking about the ethnicity and gender of our students REALLY turned my head. What could the judges possibly be using these for? What decision would be made by these criteria?

I concur.

I think that those fields are completely irrelevant to judging. My dad was a judge at the NJ regional for three years, and there were a few judges who wanted to hand out awards based on pity and background (and pretty uniforms, and shiny metal parts). They had to be gently reminded what the purpose of having awards are about. I asked my dad about this and he said that as of 2 years ago, he never saw TIMS information passed to judges, but that doesn't mean it does not happen now or at other regionals. He hasn't been a judge for a few years now, so things may have changed. The whole "All information is optional. However, you will stand a better chance at impressing the judges if you fill in all the information." doesn't sound good, as it is implied that the information will be passed on to judges.

This is what I told the students on my team: it's better to lose every single match, and earn every point, even in vain, than it is to win every award and match without earning it. I know it's a cliché, but awards should be earned, and not given. Even asking for that information goes beyond the scope of what judges need to know. Teams should be judged by their merits, not their demographics. I don't like playing the GP card, but a part of being a professional is being judged on the quality of your work and your ethical integrity. Race and free lunch vouchers shouldn't factor into it.

I think this information is entirely irrelevant to judging. Moreover, it puts the validity of the awards in question for ALL teams. How would we know if a team's ethnic makeup factored into an award. It puts the validity of the process in doubt.

Also, a team's budget is NOT a good tie-breaker for what team is more deserving of an award. Good design and engineering doesn't need to have a big price tag. However, doing something on a small budget should NOT be a part of the awards process, not because doing something on a budget is not difficult and deserving of recognition but because the term "budget" is so vague since high-cost fabrications, materials, and labor can be 'donated' by sponsors.

Two teams doing the same thing with different amounts of money cannot be properly measured due to the reasons stated above. As a result, the figure is meaningless, and serves no purpose but to have the potential to bias judges in favor the team that claims the smaller budget. The same holds true for socio-economic information. I would want a team to win an award because they earned it, not because they come from a neighborhood where people don't drive BMW's to the country club.

I'm going to talk with my Co-advisor as to how we want to fill this out - I want my team to be judged on their merits, not their make up. If FIRST needs to know that kind of information, they can find it through the US Census, outside of TIMS.

It's interesting. now that I am advisor of a team, I am the one going through a lot of the paperwork, and there are a few form fields here and there that give me pause. These are some of them.

[synth3tk]

I don't really see what the problem is here. Fill out the forms or not. There really is nothing about it. Don't fill in the optional sections. If there is a problem, take it up with FIRST officials.

[JaneYoung]

In my office where I work at a university - we submit a budget proposal each year. Part of our presentation/proposal breaks down into percentages of the pie in several areas. Ethnicity and income are just 2 of the percentages (pieces of the pie). One could ask, why do this, aren't you providing services to all currently enrolled students? Theoretically, yes. The pie helps give us and those who approve the budget, a look at the type(s) of students we have helped over the past year. It also helps us look to see that our office is providing the outreach needed to make sure we are reaching all the students that may need our services. It's a look at the big picture.

When I first started helping our team, there were some lively discussions regarding these questions, not everyone in agreement or on the same page - students or mentors. My stance was to answer the questions to the best of our ability. It provides FIRST with a view of 418 and it also provides an opportunity for the team to look at itself and see how it is developing/progressing in different areas.

The essay regarding the awards - again, I view this as an opportunity for the judging community to take a look at us through our lens and it also gives our team an opportunity to assess ourselves, looking at the different aspects of the competition and seeing how we feel we measure up in each area. Where we feel we are strong and where we think we need some work.

This said, I understand how there can be different thoughts and opinions regarding this topic. Our team has had those differences and the discussions that have occurred as a result, have deepened our understanding of ourselves as a team and our roles in our community.

Just a couple of thoughts -
Jane

[GaryVoshol]

The demographics of the school often have little to do with the demographics of the team. A poorer school with a rich sponsor will have better resources than a team with fewer sponsor resources, even if the second school is in the richest community in the state.

[Amanda Morrison]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

The demographics of the school often have little to do with the demographics of the team. A poorer school with a rich sponsor will have better resources than a team with fewer sponsor resources, even if the second school is in the richest community in the state.

So then why would I want a judge making their own assumptions about our team makeup, budget, etc., and using those for or against us as a factor for giving out an award?

It was posted above and it's true to an extent - fill it out or don't. My problem is that I shouldn't be asked to give information to the judges if it's going to bias an award decision in which my team may be involved... and it seems like I'm not the only one.

[Lil' Lavery]

Whether we like it or not, for now, we have to play by the rules of the "game". Even though I strongly disagree with the reality that these have and will be used as tie-breakers in certain situations, for now we should use them to the best advantage of our teams. If we do not submit the information, the judges may or may not make assumptions, and I'd rather not take that chance. Nothing is perfect, even the judges. The essay in particular, and the statistics if utilized and "spun" effectively during your face-time with the judges, can be critical to enhancing your chances at awards. Even if your essay is something along the lines of "we hope that we are competitive for all awards because we felt that in order to get the most out of the FIRST experience we needed a well-rounded team and focused on every FIRST criteria and aspect". Everything can be put forth in a positive manner, you just have to find a way to express it.
In my experience, years where my team has had less than favorable statistics in one area, we talk about how we are striving to fix them (ie, our active recruitment of girls). We show positive trends.

That being said, none of these factors should ever weigh into an award process. The fact that they do is haunting.
Money IS an engineering design constraint, and it should be treated as one, a constraint, not as a handicap. As long as the team designed within their constraints, they should be applauded, not biased against because their constraint wasn't as tight as another team's.
I get where they're trying to go with the ethnicity and free/reduced lunch aspect (ie you're reaching out to those who might not be already exposed to such programs), but they shouldn't force the issue, or use it against the teams from less diverse areas (financially and racially).