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

[IKE]

Originally Posted by rmyoung

Is it worth suggesting some way to recognize the next tier teams, the 'almost there, keep going'? Not adding more awards or taking away from Chairman's, but sending the message that you're on the right track, or that you reached a milestone? Judge's feedback is nice but very brief and a bit vague, and ours has almost always been the same - nice job, keep it up, start some new teams.

Let me hop back on my FiM soapbox for a minute. With the 7 district awards, finally there is some recognition for the "almost there teams". In my opinion, FIRST does an absolutely lowsy job of recognizing really good efforts that aren't "the best". Who gets awards, the winners.
I wish they would take a lesson from 4-H and/or SAE design comp series. 4-H May only award 1 Grand-Champion, and 1 reserve Grand Champion, but they also award several "honorable mentions". While striving for the grand champion, it felt good to get one of these "honorable mentions".
For FiM, I have been suggesting giving of season seeding points for Chairman's. X points for applying, and Y points for being nearly there or "Honorable Mentions". I was told this makes the judges job tougher, but having judged many other competitions, I personally believe this makes it easier as you don't feel so bad leaving Team 4444 out in the cold because they were only 99.99% as good as team Winners. With 10 points this year going to the District chairman's winner, I would give 2 points for applying, and 4-6 for an honorable mention (judges discretion on number).

Just like FRC is not solely about the robots, and the robots are the hook, the Chairman's award really isn't about the award, but the award is the hook. Without the award, many would still do the work, but would they document it and share it they way they do now? I know our team wouldn't. In fact most of the stuff we have done the last 2 years, we have been doing for the last 6 years I have been on the team. The biggest difference the last 2 years is the documentation, and the fact that once the students won a District, they believed they had the ability to do more. Altruism is a lot to ask of most teenagers. Childrens brains are hardwired to be self-serving. This is for preservation of the species. That is why we work on sharing at a young age and continue to work on it into adulthood. We have a hard enough time making the freshmen save a piece of pizza for a mentor arriving late from a hard days work. By Seniors, most of them "get it".

[artdutra04]

Don't gauge the success of your team against others, gauge it against how well your team does with the resources available.

Keep aiming for 110% output each and every season, and eventually you'll become a team capable of HOF-style outreach efforts.

[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.

[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.

[kjolana1124]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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.

Maybe it's simply because we haven't been presenting that long, but I like the feedback they supply. What does annoy me is the fact that we got absolutely no feedback at Championships. If the judges want stronger contenders for future years, they should explain what would make us stronger.

For FiM, I have been suggesting giving of season seeding points for Chairman's. X points for applying, and Y points for being nearly there or "Honorable Mentions". I was told this makes the judges job tougher, but having judged many other competitions, I personally believe this makes it easier as you don't feel so bad leaving Team 4444 out in the cold because they were only 99.99% as good as team Winners. With 10 points this year going to the District chairman's winner, I would give 2 points for applying, and 4-6 for an honorable mention (judges discretion on number).

I'm not sure I agree with this. I personally like the fact that there is only one Chairman's or only one EIA. Yes, the districts do allow there to be more than one, but that's a little different. To have like runner-ups kind of seems to defeat the purpose. While I will (and have admitted) that it shouldn't be a reason to strive for Chairman's, people do attempt to go for this award because it's so highly revered. Giving teams a "well, we still kind of like you" option may cause them to settle and not have to worry about always pushing that extra button. The worst thing you can do if you want to win CA is to fall into a comfortable pattern. CA should be hard, like everything else worthwhile.

Altruism is a lot to ask of most teenagers. Childrens brains are hardwired to be self-serving.

Most teens are not FIRST teens. Give us a chance, we'll surprise you every now and again.

[Tom Line]

Not to nitpick... but I'm going to nitpick.

If you're feeling stress, and pressure, and believing that there might be a bar that's been set too high for chairmans...

You're doing it wrong.

I can see the presenters having stress - any good presenter does before going on stage for the big event. If, however, you're stressing during the off and on-season about the award, I'll say it again: you're doing it wrong.

Chairman's is about helping other people. Getting them involved. Opening their eyes to how they can help. There shouldn't be any stress in that picture.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox now. I do have one additional comment though. I wager very few teams would pursue a course towards a chairman's ideal if that award didn't exist. FIRST holds the winner up high to tell us how good a job they did, but don't fool yourself. The Chairman's award is really about motivating EVERY team to pursue that agenda. Even if they only pursue it a tiny bit.

Every team that does even a single outreach, demo, or community service event because of that chairman's flag and medallion has already won.

[nlknauss]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

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.

Rich threw it all together above folks. But to add, make the award your own and make it work for your team and community. After having spoken with many Chairman's Awards Finalist at different Regionals, they all have different game plans and styles. That is what makes the award unique challenge, it allows teams to demonstrate how to solve a problem in a variety of different ways while making a lasting effect on society. I always enjoy hearing all of the different stories from region to region and nationally.

[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.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by kjolana1124

I'm not sure I agree with this. I personally like the fact that there is only one Chairman's or only one EIA. Yes, the districts do allow there to be more than one, but that's a little different. To have like runner-ups kind of seems to defeat the purpose. While I will (and have admitted) that it shouldn't be a reason to strive for Chairman's, people do attempt to go for this award because it's so highly revered. Giving teams a "well, we still kind of like you" option may cause them to settle and not have to worry about always pushing that extra button. The worst thing you can do if you want to win CA is to fall into a comfortable pattern. CA should be hard, like everything else worthwhile.

Ask anyone on 2791 if we're satisfied with that Judge's Award we got in WPI.

[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.

[Alex2614]

I believe that both are true. While the bar is set a little high, and gets higher each time, i don't believe there is such a thing as being TOO high.

Take my team, for example. We are one of three FRC teams in West Virginia. We have begun the process of changing our ENTIRE STATE with FLL, FTC, and FRC teams all over, presentations, etc. While we do not go abroad and travel overseas to start teams like many Chairman award-winning teams do, we still do a lot. And it comes down to what the judges feel is more important (our team as an example): going overseas, or focusing on changing a state that doesn't have much excitement of science and technology at all. Again, i'm just using 2614 as an example, this can apply to anyone. I think that if the judges do their job, they will see what impact a team has had, not just how far they've reached.

There will always be teams that do more than yours. Some teams just simply have more resources or are in an area that actually needed FIRST to be spread, unlike a lot of larger cities. Some teams are just blessed with these things, and these teams will win chairmans if they use their blessings wisely. However, that doesn't mean that other teams don't DESERVE chairmans. But i do feel that a team shouldn't do things just to win chairmans or engineering inspiration. They should be doing them because they want to make an impact. And any team that does this out of their hearts deserves recognition, even without an award to show it.

Yes, the bar might be a little high, but that should be the inspiration for other teams to strive for. Not all teams will win chairmans, but most of them do, however, deserve it in one way or another.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by kjolana1124

I'm not sure I agree with this. I personally like the fact that there is only one Chairman's or only one EIA. Yes, the districts do allow there to be more than one, but that's a little different. To have like runner-ups kind of seems to defeat the purpose. While I will (and have admitted) that it shouldn't be a reason to strive for Chairman's, people do attempt to go for this award because it's so highly revered. Giving teams a "well, we still kind of like you" option may cause them to settle and not have to worry about always pushing that extra button. The worst thing you can do if you want to win CA is to fall into a comfortable pattern. CA should be hard, like everything else worthwhile.

The winner is still the winner. I am not saying hand out 3 RCAs at each event (I don't fully understand why they do this at MSC, yes I have been told the reason and I am OK with it..). What I am saying is to recognize extraordinary efforts. There is an area of the world (not Michigan or CA) where 2 teams end up winning about 50% of the Championship slots EVERY year. This is Robot Performance, EI, and Cahirman's. The only thing they don't win is Rookie Allstar. Nothing against those teams (they are great teams and very deserving and should continue to inspire excellence), but it would be very frustrating to continuously come in "second" or "third" when there is no associated award. An honorable mention does not cheapen the Grand Prize in 4-H. Having won many honorable mentions as well as many Grand Prizes, I never thought, man I wish they only gave out 1 trophy because that would make it even more special for me. Think of it this way, when you go home from a competition do you say "We lost", or do you say we were QF, SF, got 2nd? Does the fact that there is a SF round cheapen the victory for the winners? Does being a World Champion get cheapened by there being Division champions? That is all I am asking for. Right now from a Chairman's perspective, there is nothing that tells you if you were 2nd or 42nd. Nothing that tells you, you are almost there, keep your chin up. It seems like FIRST has the Ricky Bobby philosophy, "If you are not 1st, your last". Yes, I just quoted Talledega Nights in a Chairman's thread.

One of the best things about FiM is now there are a lot of teams that consistently made it to the QFs and SF that are now getting an opportunity to play in the finals and finally take home a medal. With the District Chairman's awards, they are finally getting the recognition they have been "deserving" for many years. Remember it is For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. FIRST does a really good job on the Inspiration part, but could use a little work on the Recognition part.

IKE

Still having trouble with the concept? Which would you rather do, pick 1 student on your team to give a $20K scholarship to, or pick 3 students (1@$10K and 2 @ $5k). Clearly the $10k student was most deserving, but it allows you to recognize a couple others that have also made significant contributions. Seriously, try this exercise.