Pros and Cons of the Championship Event.

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by PhilBot

This grant would not be limited to a specific FIRST activity, but applicable to any technology area needing to be addressed locally. The grant proposal could be part of an award application, and be evaluated at the regional competition.

I do not think they would be up for it. My heart and soul, when it comes to the community, is all about EARLY robotics and other similar programs that are not FIRST endorsed. They are actually 'competitors'. It would be like using your "was-unsatisfied-so-called-corporate-got-free-minutes" from AT&T or Sprint and trying to apply them to your current Verizon or T-Mobile plan. It just doesn't work.

In short, it would be a bad business move.



.

[PhilBot]

Originally Posted by Pavan Dave

In short, it would be a bad business move.

If FIRST was "just" a business, I would agree. But FIRST's mission is to change the culture. It would be very egotistical to assume that the ONLY way to do this would be to participate in a FIRST competition.

My only beef with FIRST is that it's very seasonal, and very age targeted.

For example, we run Summer LEGO tech camps in my area for 1st-5th graders. Likewise we are expanding year-round 4-H robotics programs, and adding programs that encourage young kids to work WITH their parents. Having funding to help expand these types of programs would ultimately benefit FIRST and the culture....

According to the judges, having these programs helped us to win our Engineering Inspiration award... so I don't think it's all about being FIRST and only FIRST.

[Greg Needel]

I like the way you are thinking but to me there is a major flaw in your logic. You are using the fact that you won an award as grounds for deserving of additional funding. I have always believed that while the awards are nice to get they are not the reason for doing things. You are encouraging a system where people who win awards basically get a cash prize. Also a note must be posted that the judges at each specific event are not FIRST employees and most likely don't have any insights as to FIRST's goals in regards to non-FIRST programs.

While I think you have the best intentions at heart I don't think what you are proposing is a good idea.

[PhilBot]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

... people who win awards basically get a cash prize.

I'll probably be posting a lot on this thread... not because I want to force my point, but because I think it warrants the discussion.

I'm certainly not trying to propose a "cash prize" for awards... although the various DARPA challenges and X-Prizes have shown how effective this can be to encourage innovative thinking.

My thought was that rather than just making a Chairmans or EI award all about "what has been done" (which can let new members ride on the coat-tails of prior members), it could also have in important "what will be done" element as well.

The problem with this is that it's easy to say this-or-that program will be implemented in the future with no real way to verify it. But what if the team generated a well structured plan to promote STEM which just needed some financial help..... Whether they get the funds from FIRST, or not, they've still taken the importent step of formulating a strategy.

Actually getting a FIRST development grant would be icing on the cake. Knowing it's possible could make the difference.

As for local judges not knowing what FIRST wants in a Chairmans or EI award..... It seems unlikely to me. By definition, Chairmans award goes to a FIRST team that is a "role model" for how other teams should act. Seems to me that it would be essential for the judges to know what FIRST expects.

Just my opinion

[Greg Needel]

Originally Posted by PhilBot

As for local judges not knowing what FIRST wants in a Chairmans or EI award..... It seems unlikely to me. By definition, Chairmans award goes to a FIRST team that is a "role model" for how other teams should act. Seems to me that it would be essential for the judges to know what FIRST expects.

I was not referring to judges not knowing what FIRST wants in a CA or EI team. I was referring to the cooperate goals of the organization. While the award criteria is fairly defined it is not necessarily a reflection of FIRST's long term goals.

The other thing about this program is that judges at every event are different and there are many qualified teams. As you were fortunate to be recognized for your efforts, there are many teams who are highly qualified and don't. To give a real life example, 1629 does great things but did not receive the CA or EI at Chesapeake. That doesn't discount the work you did, but it is a factor with multiple qualified teams and limited amounts of awards. You guys went to your second event and won, but I can guarantee there were other qualified teams that didn't win at that event also. Going back to my point, not winning an award isn't justification that your efforts are wasted, and as your proposed program suggests it would only be the teams that do win awards which are qualified to help their communities.

There are lots of STEM grants out there to help with the funding of both community programs and your FIRST team. It just takes people to seek them out an apply for them. I still stand by my thoughts that making something like this connected with an award is a bad idea.

[PhilBot]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

Going back to my point, not winning an award isn't justification that your efforts are wasted, and as your proposed program suggests it would only be the teams that do win awards which are qualified to help their communities.

I would hope that if you really knew me, that you woudn't assume those were my beliefs. They are very far from it.

I have never disparaged ANY team, based on them not winning an award.

I said that a Chairman's or EI award winning team has demonstrated to FIRST that they can "formulate a local program to inspire more involvement in Science and Technology". I never said that other teams can't (that's your interpretation, not mine).

My ultimate goal in this discussion is to DISCOURAGE teams from just wanting the "win the award" for the glory of it. So adding a simple "Cash Prize" would be counter productive to this goal. My wish is that by adding a fundable "plan" to the submission, it would encourage the KIDS to think about ways that they can have an impact "in the future", rather than just extolling past actions (which freshman & sophomores may have had no part in).

Sure, mentors could write "yet another" STEM grant application, but I was just trying to think of ways where the FIRST kids (who covet these awards) could be more involved...

Maybe I'm just dreaming...
We can agree to dissagree.

[waialua359]

The biggest con of the championship event is being at a competition with the MOST robots at any one event and only playing 7 matches during the seeding portion (based on the last several years).
I think an extra day should be added where we can mix and match divisions, adding more matches.
This allows teams to see more and experience more with other teams, they may not otherwise ever see at regional events.