Does FIRST give out too many awards? (Opinion)

[jonathan lall]

Ask anyone on these forums: FIRST is a lot of things. It is based on a pessimistic thesis about American culture put forth by Dean Kamen that challenges otherwise-vegetating high school students who get themselves into trouble and idolize athletes, to instead embrace the arguably more important engineering, manufacturing, science, and computer science world. It provides valuable corporate partnerships, and elicits a by-product of making young people and corporations more responsible about the future; indeed, these partnerships are the focus of the Chairman’s Award, an arbitrary standard which is said to exemplify the ideals upon which FIRST was created. Last but not least, it teaches valuable personal and cognitive skills that range from leadership, to problem-solving, to artistry. Those of us who have been around some time know better than to think all of these ideals were realized fully to begin with. This of course means simply that the mission of FIRST is evolving as it expands to never-dreamed-of levels and as new opportunities and challenges present themselves. It's still chiefly a robotics competition, but in the process of competing, a lot of good things happen. Certainly it’s not a bad thing to admit this evolution of goals I just described exists, and FIRST’s upper administration has obviously taken note; 2004’s Chairman’s Award for example, showed that FIRST was willing to endorse the brand new concept of multiple-team fabrication alliances. The recent introduction of website awards also recognizes a new niche created. To use another example, FIRST’s constant pressure in the past three years to encourage rookie teams is very clear, not only in Dean’s homework, but in the game itself. But there is another implication of this evolution that I want to talk about: The possibility that FIRST is losing some of its efficacy to reward high school students by flooding them with recognition because of the pressures placed on it that I outlined above.

We’re only coming up with more awards each year, and I think we might be getting to the point of having too many. Of course, we all love recognition. I’m proud that my efforts contributed to my team’s winning regional awards such as being a Finalist and a Champion, the Chairman’s Award, Johnson & Johnson Sportsmanship Award, and of course, the Website Award (you can refer to my Who Am I picture if you think I’m exaggerating about my thoughts on that). Yes, I like recognition for sure, but only if it’s truly deserved. In elementary school, stickers on math tests and red or blue ribbons to signify my track and field dominance were always welcome. When I played sports (the crutches situation isn’t helping nowadays), a cheap plastic trophy that said my team won was something I was pretty cool with. But then at school there were always people that gave out green “participation” ribbons and put stickers on every math test. I won’t lie, I was a pretty smart kid in those days, and the ‘everyone gets a reward’ mentality didn’t go over well with me even then; this was reaffirmed by my getting at least one trophy in softball and soccer every year whether my team won or not.

If you’re smart too, you’re already seeing parallels with FIRST. I was surprised to find out in my second year on the team that FIRST gave out participation medals. Participation. Medals. It goes without saying that I didn’t pick one up for myself. Perhaps it’s a personal failing in me to ridicule the phrase “everybody wins.” I doubt it though; I think FIRST benefits everyone that makes a real effort, but to say that we are all winners, and then back that ridiculous assertion up with medals and awards I find to be one of two things: delusional or condescending. When I see a medal, I think "award," and though you might not make the same connection, I think most high school students are old enough to see the condescension and old enough to be motivated by not getting the prize they were striving and competing for. If the FRC is supposed to treat high school students as adults and prepare them for the adult world, then why did I feel like I was in T-ball when the awards were handed out? Why does it seem they aren't being given enough credit? And if the ‘C’ in FRC stands for ‘Competition,’ why are we making it a big group hug where everyone wins something? Gracious Professionalism is a credo of respect, and is among the ultimate goals of FIRST, but it is not an excuse for us to forget that competition is a healthy thing. Very few would argue against this point, and it’s my belief that FIRST has unwittingly taken away from competition by trying to make everybody happy.

Anyway, let’s take a look objectively at the awards FIRST gives out to teams (i.e. not including individual awards) every year at all thirty regionals:

• DaimlerChrysler Team Spirit
• Delphi “Driving Tomorrow’s Technology”
• General Motors Industrial Design
• Highest Rookie Seed
• Imagery
• Johnson & Johnson Sportsmanship
• Judges’
• Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Entrepreneurship
• RadioShack Innovation in Control
• Autodesk Visualization
• Rookie All Star
• Rookie Inspiration
• Safety Award
• XEROX Creativity
• Web Site
• Motorola Quality
• Finalist
• Engineering Inspiration
• Winner
• Chairman’s

</objectivity>

I’m not going to weigh the awards’ usefulness directly; it’s not going to accomplish anything and it’s disrespectful to those who’ve won them. But that’s a pretty hefty list, and might in part explain why I’ve seen entire teams leave during the awards ceremonies (of which there need to be two at regionals). For those of you that aren’t so good at counting and aren’t wearing sandals, that’s twenty awards. By comparison, the Waterloo Regional had twenty-four teams this year. Since, like I said, I hold awards in a high regard, I find our being flooded with awards takes away from their overall value. I want an award to say “you’re the best at _____,” but in situations (i.e. small regionals) where more than half of teams get awards for most anything and a small minority are left out, not only do the winners think less of their prizes, but the few that didn’t win feel worse.

Like I noted before, all the great skills and virtues associated with the FIRST competition are a natural by-product, but FIRST increasingly makes the process of acquiring these skills unnatural and artificial by rewarding values like team spirit with an award. FIRST is a lot of things, but when it comes down to its roots, it's a robotics competition, that should reach its societal goals passively. Ultimately, something like Engineering Inspiration and Chairman's Awards reward teams for exemplifying these ideals with a resounding "You get it!"

Now, eight of these awards have some corporation’s name on them. Were they all really needed from a competitive perspective, or are the new pressures placed on FIRST’s goals being addressed simply by introducing new awards? Do some of these awards exist at every regional perhaps only at the insistence of these corporations? You decide whether they are appropriate, if we really need them. Let’s say DaimlerChrysler just increased its sponsorship and it’s decided by FIRST to name an award after them. Of course, DaimlerChrysler doesn’t stand for “Team Spirit” any more than the next company, but one of FIRST’s evolved goals is to step up the enthusiasm in the stands for onlookers. It is expanding after all. Instead of having the Judges reward outstanding spirit when it’s really deserved and only when needed, an award is institutionalized in every regional. To compound this situation, I know for a fact that it’s difficult for our esteemed judges to figure out who is most deserving of the Team Spirit, Imagery, Sportsmanship, or Entrepreneurship Awards. It’s not their fault, but it’s still the case. Even if these three values all deserve to be recognized in some tangible way at every regional (which they might), in my experience, I’ve seen many deserving teams overlooked. Let's not dwell on specifics as to why, but let's instead ponder whether we'd be any worse off without some of these awards.

FIRST and its judges have of course realized this problem, and we can see a direct result in the new Chairman’s Award format. I mentioned earlier that it was an arbitrary award. FIRST defines arbitrarily what it wants Chairman’s teams to exemplify, and arbitrarily makes it the most prestigious award. Recently, FIRST has done well to introduce a Hall of Fame and revise Championship eligibility rules around this award. This legitimizes it, but it was also recently decided that submissions be small four-page essays because the judges no longer have time to go through all the submissions thoroughly. It is in fact very difficult to argue that as much time is spend by judges on the most prestigious award as was once the case. Indeed, when my team won at the inaugural Canadian Regional, we had a committee to talk about us and our submission in detail, in addition to our pits advertising our exploits, in addition to our submission being a professional-looking video. We put in a lot of effort because we were supposed to, and were rewarded accordingly. It’s a well-known fact that judges have the toughest job of anyone at a regional (we say it all the time too). But nowadays, the poor men and women in blue are spread too thin.

Furthermore, three of the above awards apply to rookie teams; this is an obvious ploy to capitalize on the rapid growth of FIRST and its need to keep everyone interested (just as the Spirit Award recognizes enthusiasm in the pits and stands). And it makes little sense; I wonder what would have happened if the Waterloo Regional had only one rookie this year. It would be kind of funny if their robot didn’t work and they loathed other teams, yet they got all three awards. Now I'm at the front of the line to help rookies, and I admire their courage, but that doesn't change the fact that there are three rookie awards. And what if all the websites sucked, or at the very least all scored below 80? This brings up the fact that FIRST gives out Website Excellence Awards, as if 30 Website Awards wasn’t enough. Again, I reiterate: if everyone is rewarded, it takes away from the integrity of every award.

Now let’s finish off with a disclaimer and some clarifications: I am not in any way asking FIRST to take any action about this. I don’t think they should backtrack at this point anyway but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t point out what I believe is a bad thing. Perhaps this is where the expansion of awards should end. I don’t believe there was a new award this year, which is good. I think it's getting to be too much. Come to think of it, I’m stating a load of subjective criticisms here that really mean whatever you want to take them as. Some people might take something I’ve said personally. To be perfectly honest, I don’t really care if you do, but if you do, you’ve probably completely missed the point of this post. Before we go, let’s step back and imagine our own team winning one of five regional awards, rather than one of twenty or more. Everyone stands up and genuinely claps for us, instead of progressing to keep the beat of "All Star" by Smash Mouth (terrible song). Nice thought, isn’t it?

[Beth Sweet]

My opinion? Every single FIRST participant works his/her posterior off and each deserves recognition. My opinion? The more awards the better. Each celebrates a different aspect of the team and its excellence. The fantastic thing about this program, in my mind at least, is all of the positives associated with it. The kids are never put down, but rather praised for their hard work and dedication.

So I say, long live each and every award that celebrates the specialness of each team and of each student. Some may say that participation medals baby students. I say that they reward a job well done.

[Lil' Lavery]

The awards celebrate a different aspect of the competition. They dont have multiple awards for the same thing (aside of regional champion/finalist that is, but since that's an alliance, that doesnt matter). The website award and the industrial quality award celebrate two totally different aspects of FIRST. The only awards I can see you saying that for would be the rookie awards, but that is usually the only award most of the rookies even have a shot at.

And most regionals, DO have 2 award ceremonies (Friday night and saturday night). Plus, many regionals now have 50-60 teams attend each year, which makes the amount of award winners (26) (and only 23 of those are eligible for all competitiors) not a huge portion, especially considering 2 or 3 teams usually take home multiple awards.
And about "that pessimistic view" of Kamen's, his solution is working. Of the 2004 fall semester at VCU, 1 in every 3 engineering students was involved on a FIRST team during high school. So, Mr. Kamen most likely had some portion of his view be proved correct, as his efforts obviously have inspired.
And now, there have been several awards that no longer exist. You dont see "#1 seed", "play of the day", "featherwieght in the finals", or offensive/defensive "match of the day" awards any more.

[Conor Ryan]

I'm with Beth too, more awards are better. Look at the number of teams at your given regional we'll say 50. None of these awards particularly overlap each other, they look at the different aspects of teams and their robots. Yes it would help if they could more rigidly define some of them (like Motorolla Quality vs. Xerox Creativity)

But you could also look at this from the perspective that these are all the contributing factor to the Chairman's award, each one of the other awards are standouts in their own category.

Two more quick points
-Awards motivate people to do better, its a proven fact
-All the companies pay money for these, and the more money put into First, the better it will be for all of us.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I understand how you feel. However, I think that each of these awards is meant to enforce a team behavior that went right.

Perhaps the more appropriate correction would be to change the format of awards presentation.

[jonathan lall]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Plus, many regionals now have 50-60 teams attend each year, which makes the amount of award winners (26) (and only 23 of those are eligible for all competitiors) not a huge portion, especially considering 2 or 3 teams usually take home multiple awards.

Let's suppose for a moment that no team got more than one award. There are just over 1000 teams. Depending on how you look at it, there are just over (20 awards times thirty regionals equals) 600 awards. This doesn't include personal awards, Website Excellence, and so on.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

And now, there have been several awards that no longer exist. You dont see "#1 seed", "play of the day", "featherwieght in the finals", or offensive/defensive "match of the day" awards any more.

A good point. Now let's keep it up.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

Let's suppose for a moment that no team got more than one award. There are just over 1000 teams. Depending on how you look at it, there are just over (20 awards times thirty regionals equals) 600 awards. This doesn't include personal awards, Website Excellence, and so on.

But we all know that each team doesn't win only one award, which means that a significantly smaller amount of teams are receiving awards than you show.

I think each award is for something that specifically applies to FIRST, and should be recognized as such.

I think it's borderline ridiculous to say that the Chairmans Award was "arbitrarily" made the greatest honor. It wasn't arbitrary. The Chairmans Award is everything that FIRST stands for. It recognizes the team that does the best job of spreading the message of FIRST to it's team, other teams, and community. I do not understand how this can be considered arbitrary, at all.

The competition is the means to an end. FIRST doesn't want this to be like professional sports, they want it to be the way it is. The more teams that can win awards, the better. Just because you're at a small regional doesn't mean that a team isn't deserving of the award they received.

I also don't think that the amount of awards in any way degrades the value of the winner's awards.

$0.02

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

Let's suppose for a moment that no team got more than one award. There are just over 1000 teams. Depending on how you look at it, there are just over (20 awards times thirty regionals equals) 600 awards. This doesn't include personal awards, Website Excellence, and so on.

The problem would be that there's an awful lot of veteran teams running around to multiple regionals sweeping up an awful lot of awards. My team picked up 5 awards. 118 picked up 7. 254 picked up 8. Despite there being an awful lot of awards out there, there's very few teams actually winning them. And I'm certain there's a derth of rookie, 1, and 2 year teams winning them. I think the large number of awards is mostly to give less veteran teams a chance of winning them so they can feel they've accomplished something.

My high school FIRST experience was on one of these teams, and it gets kind of discouraging to work your butt off and still come away with nothing. You have fun, and you have a good experience, but you're still kinda bummed. I imagine it must really wear on teams without fancy machine shops and corporate sponsors that slug it out and come back year after year on sheer determination.

[Alan Anderson]

Two comments:

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

Like I noted before, all the great skills and virtues associated with the FIRST competition are a natural by-product, but FIRST increasingly makes the process of acquiring these skills unnatural and artificial by rewarding values like team spirit with an award. FIRST is a lot of things, but when it comes down to its roots, it's a robotics competition, that should reach its societal goals passively. Ultimately, something like Engineering Inspiration and Chairman's Awards reward teams for exemplifying these ideals with a resounding "You get it!"

A society gets what it celebrates. The goal of FIRST is not to have cool robots; that's just a means to the true end of making science and technology cool. If your position is "FIRST is about robots", then you have valid arguments. The problem is that your position does not match FIRST's position, so it's no wonder that you disagree with the way things are done to further the position.

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

FIRST defines arbitrarily what it wants Chairman’s teams to exemplify, and arbitrarily makes it the most prestigious award. Recently, FIRST has done well to introduce a Hall of Fame and revise Championship eligibility rules around this award. This legitimizes it, but it was also recently decided that submissions be small four-page essays because the judges no longer have time to go through all the submissions thoroughly. It is in fact very difficult to argue that as much time is spend by judges on the most prestigious award as was once the case. Indeed, when my team won at the inaugural Canadian Regional, we had a committee to talk about us and our submission in detail, in addition to our pits advertising our exploits, in addition to our submission being a professional-looking video. We put in a lot of effort because we were supposed to, and were rewarded accordingly.

It seems to me that the submission format was changed to emphasize one simple point: the award recognizes teams that best act in accordance with the desired behavior, not teams that best produce submissions. Rewarding professional-looking videos would promote professional-looking videos, whereas the goal is to promote school-industry partnerships, community outreach, graciousness, professionalism, and the general growth of FIRST's mission.

[Koko Ed]

I actually wish FIRST would bring back some of the old awards they cancelled.
They're fun. This is still about fun. Remember that.
Methinks we take ourselves a little too seriously.

[santosh]

This is very hard for me to decide on. Yes I do believe there are too many awards, but at the same time, I step back and realize that each team did deserve the award they got. This makes the decision very tough. If you can keep most of the people happy then why not. Sometimes I do wonder about the difference in Engineering Inspiration and Chairman's. Overall, I am undecided.

[Bharat Nain]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I actually wish FIRST would bring back some of the old awards they cancelled.
They're fun. This is still about fun. Remember that.
Methinks we take ourselves a little too seriously.

I am with that. Although I was not around when they gave out those awards, I have heard stories after stories and the older awards look very fascinating. I feel that everytime a team takes home an award they feel they have accomplished something and strive to do more. Now, if FIRST is giving out these awards to team's who don't deserve them, then it's definitely not fair. Some team's have the ability and capacity to do things that enables them a higher chance to win an award, while others don't. It's just the way things are.

[tiffany34990]

there are a number of awards but it's small at times it seems to the amount of teams we have in FIRST. the awards simply point out teams that are doing great things. i know it's hard to choose who gets the award because so many teams deserve an award. so they do try to make it fair with various other awards. this is a hard question to answer...pros and cons all the way out...

it though seems harder every years to get like the chairmans especially for rookie teams competing against veteran teams who have been trying for year to win this award.

[santosh]

The chairman's award is basd on what you do that year. It isn't cummulative.

[Andy Baker]

Comparing two options:

Limited awards to a select few vs. An abundance of awards to many

I would vote to have the abundance of awards to many. Both sides have positive and negative aspects, but the sheer impact on a greater quantity of people with the "many" option overruns the the higher value of the awards to the "select few".

Andy B.