Chairman's Award -- is the bar too high now?

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I forgot one thing I had planned to put in my previous post, which basically echoes the post before this.

What another team accomplished doesn't change what you've accomplished. Just because another team did something incredible and outstanding, it doesn't mean what you did isn't incredible or outstanding. Even if you don't win the Chairman's, it doesn't mean what you did is any less impressive. You shouldn't be any less proud of the effort you put in because of what another team did.

Sean brings up a great point here. Although it seems obvious, it isn't always internalized. When I was with FRC103 I was fortunate enough to play a role that helped lead to a Championship Chairman's Award. When I left Palisades HS for Lower Merion and founded FRC1712, in no way, shape or form did I say anything to anyone about the desire to "win" a Chairman's Award.

HOWEVER, I have stated from the beginning that my one non-negotiable item, as long as I'm a part of FRC1712, is that the team must always document, submit a CA entry, participate in the interview process, and make earnest efforts to improve year-to-year based on feedback. That effort has led to much growth and many accomplishments in Lower Merion and, in different ways, I'm just as proud of our students, mentors and overall team here as I was the day this photo was taken of 103. (yikes, did I really have that much hair?)

Will 1712 ever "win" a Chairman's Award? I have no idea. Will 1712 ever stop trying to better the community and students through the CA process? Not while I'm a part of this team it won't. I've seen too much growth in two totally different communities to ever say "we're not doing that anymore." I refuse to part of a team that "only" builds a robot and tries to win a game on the field (although standing on Einstein someday with that trophy would be cool, too ).

In my estimation if a team chooses not to "do this" because it doesn't think it can win, it's TOTALLY missing the point and value in the process. I've been wrong lots before, but that's the way I see it.

[JesseK]

Something tells me the source of concern regarding CA is not the fact that the 'bar has been raised' for the national CA award. I have a feeling that it's FIRST's lack of feedback to those who submit CA at the regional level, and lack of genuine thankfulness to the teams for their efforts year after year even though they didn't win any awards for it. The feedback form for CA is a joke some years -- in 2 of the 4 years we were eligible for CA, the feedback form simply regurgitated what the students presented.

If FIRST really wanted to turn CA into a less competitive vehicle to further spread the message, they could send CA-submitting teams letters that explain how to further the specific efforts that teams have already put forth so that those efforts are more inline with FIRST's overall mission. The purpose of such a letter wouldn't be to aid a team or tell a team what they did wrong at competition to not win CA, but rather to begin providing teams with constructive feedback in a more focused manner. I also believe it would open up communicative channels so that the actual award is administered more evenly across regionals.

Statistically, if nationwide 50% of teams do outreach and then present it at a regional, then as it stands currently only 11% of them are even recognized for it (50 regionals * 2 awards / 900 teams, with some rounding and estimation).

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by JesseK

If FIRST really wanted to turn CA into a less competitive vehicle to further spread the message, they could send CA-submitting teams letters that explain how to further the specific efforts that teams have already put forth so that those efforts are more inline with FIRST's overall mission.

I think the activities and accomplishments of the Chairman's Award winners ought to be a valid indication of the efforts FIRST is looking for. If you want to be recognized as the best model for teams to emulate, emulating the teams that have already been so recognized seems a good way to start.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I think the activities and accomplishments of the Chairman's Award winners ought to be a valid indication of the efforts FIRST is looking for. If you want to be recognized as the best model for teams to emulate, emulating the teams that have already been so recognized seems a good way to start.

I never stated I wanted my team to be the best for FIRST teams to emulate. I simply implied that CA is as abstract as it is competitive an thus most teams' efforts go unrecognized. If FIRST truly wants more impact sooner, they could provide quality feedback that enables teams to fully expedite their efforts.

[Foster]

Rich wrote: In my estimation if a team chooses not to "do this" because it doesn't think it can win, it's TOTALLY missing the point and value in the process.

Cynette wrote: (in a personal email) Robots Rock! Kids Rock! Why wouldn't you do it?

So my team isn't solving world hunger, none of our mentors on are in-line for sainthood, we don't raise $3.2 million a year for charity. But we have done two years of CA submissions and we will keep doing it. It's a way for us to say "we are changing the world" (one kid at a time and sometimes in bulk .. dlavery) It is not about the award, it's about the mission.

I would like FIRST to display the names of each team at each event that submitted for the Chairmans Award. Celebrate that those teams made the effort to document what they do to make a difference.

And I'd like to see the essays posted. Show all of us what they did to make a difference. Show us the projects they have chosen. Maybe rather than starting my own project I can jump on theirs (thats the old 1+1=3).

The bar is high, just look at the HOF teams. But their robot puts its wheels on one at a time just like ours, so we can be a HOF winner too!

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by Foster

And I'd like to see the essays posted. Show all of us what they did to make a difference. Show us the projects they have chosen. Maybe rather than starting my own project I can jump on theirs (thats the old 1+1=3).

YES! 100% agree.

The Killer Bees are trying to do this. Every project that we do, we want other people to do as well, and we want them to invite us to participate in theirs!

For example: We're participating in a Walk for Hunger in Pontiac, MI this Saturday, and we want as many teams around our area to come walk with us and raise some money for the local very needy community.

Other example: We're collecting science, technology, car (etc) magazines, applying a cool sticker on them about FIRST, and donating them to doctor's and dentist's offices and hospitals! We'd LOVE if other teams all over the country (world!) did this as well.

So, let's all share our ideas somehow.

[Mr MOE]

Originally Posted by Foster

The bar is high, just look at the HOF teams. But their robot puts its wheels on one at a time just like ours, so we can be a HOF winner too!

During our rookie year in 2000, MOE 365 was sitting in the FIRST Epcot ampitheater during the Nationals Awards ceremonies (it was called "Nationals" at that time), we listened intently to the description of the team that won the Chairman's Award that year. We were in awe of all that this team had done to spread the message of FIRST and to change the culture in their area of the world. That team was Team 16, The Baxter Bomb Squad. Our team members watched and saw how excited and overjoyed they were to have been recognized this way.

In the back of my mind, I was saying to myself, "Wow. What a team. I can't imagine all the work and effort that went into all they did." To me, personally, at that time, BBS was tops. Winning the top award in all of FIRST. Amazing.

Over time, with that memory in the back of my mind, I saw our team of green take FIRST's message to heart and do things in our local community that aligned with FIRST's mission. I remember Woodie Flowers telling all the students in attendance at that National Championship that each one should feel special, because only a very small percentage of students their age participated in FIRST. He was absolutely right. There were so many others that had yet to be inspired by FIRST. Opportunity was there.

Seven years later, after being so proud of students and mentors alike for starting local programs, growing interest in FIRST and science and technology in our area, and helping peers in many ways, it was our team who was on that stage accepting the (now) Championship Chairman's Award.

In the back of my mind, I recalled my sense of awe in Florida in 2000 and said to myself, " there is some team out there in the crowd, who will hear what our team has done, and will be inspired like we were." And I fully expect that team to be on a different Chairman's Award stage in the future.

We are all part of the legacy that FIRST has created. By doing what we can to connect more students to FIRST programs and have them experience the excitement of what science and technology can be, we are all part of "raising the bar" for our society. Thank you to all the teams that do this (and it truly is everyone). Special thanks to those who document it and share it with others.

Bring it on!

[waialua359]

Simply put, there are more teams then there were 10 years ago. Thus, the bar keeps climbing............
Teams that are deserving year in and year out, will eventually get their due. 341 was due for a while now, and I can think of a few others where its only a matter of time.

Our team has applied 7 times in our history and have won it 4 times now. In 2002 SJ, 2006 LV, 2007 NJ we didnt win. We won in 2003, 2008, 09, and 10 in SJ, HI, HI, and AZ respectively. In 2003, we felt we had a well-rounded program, but was rather limited in our outreach and sustainability plan at the time. Currently, we are very proud of how far we have come, considering the challenge of being from Hawaii. To be able to meet many teams year after year and compete in multiple events throughout the year, it has been a great opportunity for our students!
My job is to ensure that these opportunities continue, learning from the best of teams. If you cant walk away from any tournament with at least 3 new innovative and impressive things teams are doing, then you've missed a great opportunity!

[Rich Kressly]

No offense intended, so I won't quote folks above, but ...

Looks like some are focused solely on extrinsic motivators and not looking at the intrinsic. It's pretty easy to look at this as "what FIRST wants" and "they need to provide more feedback to get people to do this" but, if that's where the conversation ends it all seems kind of cheesy to me.

I firmly believe that FIRST "wants" us to do this because it's important to work at positive culture change. Why aren't more teams looking "inside themselves" in this pursuit? I mean, I'll flat out tell you, I personally feel no different in these efforts with 1712 than I did when I was a Hall of Fame member with 103 performing outreach and working hard at the same thing. Yes, the recognition is very nice and other people view it as a credibility thing on occasion, but when I go to bed at night, how I feel about myself and the efforts 1712 has made without the award itself feels EXACTLY the same way it did when I was at Palisades.

Lower Merion is a very different community and we've developed a very different approach to outreach, etc but at the end of the day the positive change is palpable and the satisfaction of a positively changed community is where it's at.

I'm frightened by the thought that someone wants to reduce all of this to a point system somewhere, in fact, it really makes me feel sick. I like the fact that its somewhat open ended and I don't want any judge checking boxes in this case instead of talking, reading, learning, understanding.

As for students being "wired" differently and the implication that they can't/won't/shouldn't be altruistic ... I just don't buy it at all. I just spent a weekend in Dallas with some incredible 20-somethings (along with many older folks as well) who were all there on their own dime, giving back to an effort they first learned as FRC team members. I also see it every day in the students we work with and I see it in their actions and decisions they make on their own long after they leave us. Is it hard? You bet. Is it frustrating? You bet. Does it run completely counter to what modern American selfish culture teaches them? Oh yes.

Kinda like the unfairly difficult nature of the robot thingy part of what we do, maybe we need to do this because the most meaningful efforts we can make in life are the most misunderstood, unrecognized, and thankless - but oh so incredibly necessary.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

I'm frightened by the thought that someone wants to reduce all of this to a point system somewhere, in fact, it really makes me feel sick. I like the fact that its somewhat open ended and I don't want any judge checking boxes in this case instead of talking, reading, learning, understanding.

Agreed, Kres. Some things don't need to be nailed down, pigeon-holed, or boxed in. The Chairman's is one of those.

Working with students and mentors who are extremely analytical by nature has been an interesting challenge for me over the years. They've helped me grow in that area and I hope that I've helped or contributed to the areas of the team where outreach is important, sharing knowledge and expertise is important, and helping the communities around us understand who we are and what we do/stand for is important. To assign numbers and check boxes to that and force the team into constantly grading itself, would just make these personalities more analytical and data driven. The Chairman's Award and the Woodie Flowers Award and now the Dean's List Award - need more freedom to develop than that. This opinion may not be in the comfort zone of those who sigh with pleasure when surrounded by numbers, data, and whirring machines, true - but there is great wisdom in having the robotics competition and awards recognizing that aspect of FRC. There is also great wisdom in recognizing the accomplishments and growth of the FRC teams in areas of impact, development, and celebration. You have to look no further than MOE to understand this.

Jane

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

I'm frightened by the thought that someone wants to reduce all of this to a point system somewhere, in fact, it really makes me feel sick. I like the fact that its somewhat open ended and I don't want any judge checking boxes in this case instead of talking, reading, learning, understanding.

Agreed again, 2nd the motion.

Every team has to have an intrinsic motivator. Every team has to determine their mission and how to best operate in their 'space'. That team has to determine their mission, and explain to the judges how their results align and complement the FIRST vision and mission.

The day that Chairman's judges starts box checking and point scoring is the day that innovation and entrepreneurship in pushing the mission of FIRST ends!

IMHO

Ed

[IKE]

I take no offense. These are excellent points. I do need some help with questions.

1. How do you motivate your newest members to take on a noble cause? The kids we have worked with for 2-4 years seem to get it (some quicker than others). How should we be motivating the newbies?
2. How do you switch a team driven for the win over to driven for the goal? Especially when you are external to that team. As the number of teams increase, how do we plant the seed of altruism into an ever growing population. While this may not be Team 33's responsibility, it is the responsibility of FIRST as a whole and more specifcally how it applies to FRC.

3. Should someone that truly understands what Chairman's is about even re-submit? I am ok with a reactionary answer to this question, but I would much prefer some in-depth thought as this one has been bugging me since the Michigan State Championship.

[Dancin103]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

No offense intended, so I won't quote folks above, but ...

Looks like some are focused solely on extrinsic motivators and not looking at the intrinsic. It's pretty easy to look at this as "what FIRST wants" and "they need to provide more feedback to get people to do this" but, if that's where the conversation ends it all seems kind of cheesy to me.

To just nod and agree with Mr. Kressly here would not be who I am. I most definitely agree with Kressly in that, not to point and fingers or name any names, people are TRYING to win the Chairman’s Award. Winning the Chairman’s Award is not about trying and not about looking at what FIRST "wants". Yes in some ways it is when it boils down to it, but in the end what gets you there is who you are and who your team is. What your team does, community service and the presentation you give specifically, have to fit you and have to be who you are.

This topic came up multiple times in the Chairman’s Chat in Atlanta this year. As a Hall of Fame member, I/we offered this advice. If your team is a really rowdy cheer from the time you wake up at 5 am until you go to bed at 3 am, then that’s the presentation you should give. If your team is the team that is quite and very business professional, or something along those lines, that’s the presentation you should give. As well as defining you, and your team, what your team does in the off season or even during the season should be what you want to do and something you would normally do, NOT something you think you HAVE to do to win the Chairman’s Award.

I will tell all of you this in the Chief Delphi community. For Team 103, our kids and our team does community service because we feel it is right to reach out to our community that way. Every single thing our team does is because the kids and the mentors want to and that’s just who our team is. When it comes down to, “oh well, how many teams did 103 START?” The answer, is none, well only one FLL team. For us, it was more in our hearts and still is to help current FRC teams struggling or in need of a little guidance.

I know this has gone a little off topic of, ‘Is the Bar Set Too High Now,’ but I’m just offering advice. To answer the question of ‘Is the Bar Set Too High Now,’ the bar is only as high as you want to make it. Set your goals and achieve them, and then you have a shot at achieving the big prize. Do not look at what other teams have done and try to do the same. Look at what your team has done and what you plan on achieving. That in itself is pure success, at least in my eyes, and the eyes of all the members of 103.

This has just been my advice and my two cents. The Chairman’s award is what you and your team makes of it. Do not be sad if you do not win, you should look at what your team has done, and ALWAYS be proud of yourselves. If you win the Chairman’s Award, then congratulations, and I sure it is well, well, well deserved because it takes lots of work to get there. Now in my eyes, it was a lot of work, but it is FUN work, work that makes you proud.

If anyone has anyone has any questions about anything please let me know through PM and I would be more than happy to help.

Cass

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

No offense intended, so I won't quote folks above, but ...

Looks like some are focused solely on extrinsic motivators and not looking at the intrinsic. It's pretty easy to look at this as "what FIRST wants" and "they need to provide more feedback to get people to do this" but, if that's where the conversation ends it all seems kind of cheesy to me.

Forgive my pointedness...

Misquoting aside (and generally speaking), quality feedback in any organization significantly improves the organization's progress towards its goals. How is presentation of a suggestion for more improved feedback cheesy? It's a simple mechanism to accelerate what FIRST wants, no more. If FIRST hired a consulting firm and asked them "how do we accelerate our message to the broader scope of the world?" then I'm sure feedback to existing efforts would be somewhere in the recommendations.

It's easy to say/imply "my team does XYZ because of our own intrinsic ABC and so should every other team". Great job, the first part of that statement is the point of what we do! Yet that fully implied statement misses the point in the fact that currently the only mechanism FIRST uses to try to motivate teams (CA/EI) is so broad and vague that an FRC team who never visits CD will never understand the scope of their efforts in the broader picture. Thus, encouragement and alignment are simply auxiliary motivators.

Interestingly, half of the outreach we (1885) do is not FIRST-related or even completely student-oriented*. So even though we probably won't win a CA until we start N # of FLL teams and Y # of extra FTC/FRC teams we will continue to do more FIRST and non-FIRST outreach in order to quickly spread FIRST's message to a broader scope of people.

*SeaPerch, Rocketry, Cyber Warfare exercises -- why should people who are older than 18 miss out on the culture change?

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Interestingly, half of the outreach we (1885) do is not FIRST-related or even completely student-oriented*. So even though we probably won't win a CA until we start N # of FLL teams and Y # of extra FTC/FRC teams we will continue to do more FIRST and non-FIRST outreach in order to quickly spread FIRST's message to a broader scope of people.

In FRC, FTC, and FLL, the judges invited to participate have an understanding of the FIRST vision, goals, and mission. In the events that I've been privileged to be a part of, the event planning committee is very careful to invite judges that bring a diverse variety of skills to the competition so that the many aspects of the competition can be covered and judged efficiently and well. We have also been asked to make notes for helpful feedback for the teams.

It may be frustrating to the teams who want specific reasons and suggestions as to where they should improve or where they may be lacking, but I don't think that is the judges' job to figure that out. I'm not sure that is FIRST's job to figure that out. We are a part of a global community where there is so much variety that it would be wrong to limit the possibilities. For example, I think your quote is an assumption. I think that you are assuming that you have to start N # of FLL teams and Y # of extra FTC/FRC teams to garner an award. Perhaps you live in an area where FRC, FTC, and FLL teams are lacking and helping to establish those programs and help mentor new teams would be an invaluable asset to the community. Perhaps you live in an area that is saturated with FRC teams or FTC teams or FLL teams and they are already an invaluable asset to the community so the need to grow isn't the same as an area that is sparse in teams.

Is FIRST supposed to tell you that? Are the judges?

Teams identify their strengths and weaknesses and work those out. They also learn to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their communities and surrounding regions. Dean's, Dave's, and Woodie's speeches help teams with that. Sponsors can help with that, too. A rep from one of our team's sponsors and I were talking at an event this past year and we discussed the lack of diversity in the fields of science, technology, and engineering. We also discussed how that lack is reflected in the enrollment in university majors in these fields. What I know from that discussion is that diversity is very important to all of us and it was reinforced by that interaction. Do we need FIRST to tell us to talk to our sponsors and find out what is important to them or valued? We can spend time in the FIRST website and glean a lot of information and understanding. How many of us do that? People gripe about the speeches and their length at the Championship. Those speeches are often highlighting the impact that we are making and that we should continue to strive to make or increase. They aren't just empty words. These are just a few examples of what FIRST is already doing and providing for teams to think about, pick up on, understand, and get involved in.
--
If we want to put together a list of what would be helpful to teams in understanding the Chairman's Award, let's do that. That is not the same as asking for specifics in how to win the Chairman's Award.

Jane