Exploring The 'We're All Winners' Concept

[Madison]

There are different metrics of success and, while the word 'winner' is likely a misnomer, I think everyone that participates in the program is a winner insofar as they're better for having been involved.

When viewed as a competition, nearly all teams fail, most spectacularly so. If you value other awards equal to or better than winning any event with your robot, even then very few teams are successful.

If you consider those that have participated in a program like FIRST against those that have not, I think our kids are definitely the winners there. They've been given access to amazing people that want little more than to help guide them to success. They acquire skills that many others will not have until long after they graduate college and, perhaps most importantly, most recognize the value of those opportunities.

I don't think that anyone expects the participation medals to be valued as much as gold or silver or a trophy within the context of the FIRST community. I think the participation medals are instead intended to generate curiosity and discussion among 'outsiders,' and to bring new people to the program. For that purpose, they can be very valuable.

However, if participants in the program -- especially its most vocal, well-informed and enthusiastic -- treat participation medals as a condescending gesture or consolation prize, their value in generating interest among the public is diminished.

Were someone to ask about your participation medals, you might say, "Everyone gets them," or you might say, "I build robots. Do you?" One of these responses is the right one.