I’ve been in the works of organizing our team for next year, and a subject I’ve come across is team applications. Mainly applications at the beginning of the year for potential students to fill out, so they can get reviewed and either accepted or denied.
While I think this would be useful of solving the team’s problem of finding and keeping people serious about robotics, I also feel that this would go against FIRST, since we’re not really inspiring others if we turn them down (Turn downs would only be for explicit reasons, most likely to keep seriousness and productivity on the team, and unproductiveness out).
Should I go with making my team the most efficient it can be, bettering the experience for those on it, or should I try to involve everyone, so they may get the chance to become inspired?
What are your thoughts on team applications, and why?
When you do an application, you don’t have to reject anybody.
If you’re smart about it, you can use the application to get contact info, emergency contact info, and what part of the team a person wants to be on (mechanical, electrical, programming, non-technical, CAD, that sort of thing). That makes sorting them into subteams easier, and it makes it a whole lot easier to contact them if you need to. (And I hope you never have to use the emergency contact information, but if you need it it’s there.)
You can ask someone to leave the team later, if you need to; usually, that would only be if they’re being counter-productive or if there are “other issues” that need to be resolved.
I do see the benefits to having some type of application. Some believe that it makes kids more committed, or makes huge numbers of potential students more manageable. Knowing what little I do about your team, I don’t think you are overwhelmed by potential students. The numbers of committed students seems to be more of what you are trying to address.
Commitment is a hard thing to pin down, and even harder to obtain in it’s pure form. Some coaches, teachers, and even FIRST members I know believe that commitment comes from attending a certain number of days, raising a certain number of dollars, or doing some other unpopular thing to “pay your dues.” Efforts to “enforce” commitment have been unsuccessful at best and disastrous to the organisation at worst. If these applications are an attempt to establish some system that creates commitment, I would suggest trying to find some other method.
In my personal experience, the application can both turn down qualified applicants with other interests and activities, and attract students that like the prestige of being in an exclusive club. GRT, for example (who has an application process, as well as only letting sophomores through seniors join the team), has turned down students including some friends of mine that I believe would really thrive in FRC. However, they do really seem to have a problem of too much interest, which the application process seems to have solved.
Applications seem to be created to curtail participation (which doesn’t seem to be your problem), or to improve the quality or “commitment” of those that do attend. In my opinion, applications are effective at dealing with the second concern, but fail at creating commitment (like all other systematic approaches).
I welcome other opinions, and hope that my own has helped.**
This. In my mind, an “application” implies the possibility of rejection, while this seems more like paperwork associated with joining the team. If this is what SuperNerd meant by “application,” I would encourage him to peruse it. Informational paperwork seems like a good idea in almost any organisation.
I’ll look into this, since it does seem like a good option.
Our team’s problem isn’t commitment, since, surprisingly, we have a good amount of committed students. It’s productivity. We have students who come all the time, but don’t do anything, and often disrupt the productive ones. Basically, the point of the application is to see if the students who want to join will be serious about the work given to them. Commitment, while important, has never seemed to be much of a problem on the team.
First don’t call it an application call it an information sheet. That way it wont imply a refusal of acceptance. Always let them join. Next all new members should show there worth by accomplishing some of the not so glamorous tasks like fund raising , cleaning, paper work, painting. You know what I’m talking about. This will cut the dead wood so fast you wont believe it. Unless the new member has come with a legitimate letter of recommendation from a teacher or mentor or is known to have outstanding skills that cant be denied, all should start at the bottom. The cream will rise to the top fast. Redirect the potential achievers to positions that use there best qualities effectively and efficiently. If you have a member that is not very productive and can talk a good game about why they are not productive then guess what? You just have got your self a good public relations person or sales person. Every team needs a smooth talker. The point is look for the best qualities one has to offer and put it to good use. That’s the making of a good leader. Also take into consideration a members personal issues. Things might not be going so well for an individual at times. You will always have over achievers and under achievers. Its a fact of life. As long as every member has at lest one hand in at pulling the cart you will get your robot to the big show.
Thanks so much! I appreciate everyone’s advice, from this thread or PM! One of the many reasons I love FIRST and CD is because of all of the knowledge people are willing to teach you. I’ve benefited immensely from everyone here. Thanks!
This sums up what I was going to say. We don’t do it anymore, but I had to fill out an information sheet-type thing when I joined my freshman year.
That being said, we do have other requirements for being on the team, such as minimum GPA (everyone must maintain at least a C average in all classes), volunteering at Brunswick Eruption (unless you have a really good excuse), and completing 10 hours of community service before the beginning of the build season each year.
The community service requirement is brilliant! I am going to talk to my son/ team vice president to see if that can be added to our requirements. My son and I volunteer every Saturday that we can for Habitat for Humanity. A community service requirement would prove a commitment to the team and a prove the individual is motivated.
Of course we collect necessary info from each student, and advise them of certain requirements, but there are no rejections. Unless there’s no form submitted :rolleyes:
What we do is set forth a service requirement (ours is 10 hours): Show up at the team carwash in September, show up at our fundraising events, show up at shop cleanup, etc. No exceptions to the 10 hour rule, failure here is that you’re not welcome on the team. For those laggards who are eternally late, we do offer some make-up sessions doing the ‘dirtiest’ work, like carrying supplies, wiping down machinery and tools, taking out trash…
Then we have performance reviews - one at the end of week 2 and one at the end of week 5. Students are rated on productivity, seriousness of purpose, and effort (to name a few). The week 2 is to put the slackers on notice, and the one in week 5 determines if they travel with the team or not. The standards can be as low or high as your team leadership likes, but there MUST be a rubric (score sheet) so all students know exactly what is expected of them.
Just like a real job.
(This system contributed to our winning 3 Entrepreneurship awards so far this year)
We have never had the problem of too few interested students. We have always had and application, recommendation, and interview process. This in process in itself weeds out A LOT of potential applicants which is a good thing. If you can’t work your way through an application, most likely you will have too much difficulty in much more complicated things we do. This year we actually turned down a few students for various reasons. We have also expedited a few applications through the process due to personal recommendations from people such as myself. The application process has traditionally opened in October, but this year we’re planning to do early application in May (end of previous school year) for next season’s team. We also plan to have a trial period in which students are accepted for a probationary period to gauge their interests and we can see their performance and commitment before the season.
We do not have the number of adults to support a team of 50 students. We can get by with 32 but that’s about tops. You don’t want a situation where more students = less work getting done (which often happens).
One difficulty we need to solve is finding a way to make the application process more standardized and objective. We made an error rejecting a student this year. We later reversed our decision an welcomed him to our team, which was one of the best things we ever did in this particular case.
If you have to try out for football, why not have to try out for robotics? My question is what exactly should the tryout be, and does it justly prove or disprove that a person would be a good team member to have?
That is a link to our 2010 business plan (2012 to be posted soon).
We have an application process. The application and information is in the business plan.
The “interviews” are conducted by the lead teacher, a few mentors, and our team captains.
We learn -
If the student is interested enough to fill out the form and sign up for an interview time, show up, and show some interest in what we do.
What the student knows about the team, the program and what we do.
That the student and their parent(s) understand the time and financial committment (fees and sponsorship requirements) to be a part of the team.
All students apply and have an interview. Returning students must also hae a resume. For returning students, the interview is also like a “performance review” where we talk about what they have learned, what they would like to learn, ideas for change, etc.
It is very rare that a student who goes through the interview process and wants to be on the team is not asked to be on the team.
We also have a ‘pre-applications’ open house so that perspective new members and their family can come to the lab, see the robots and the programs we do, talk to other students and mentors, and get a good feel for what “robotics” means.
Our team is in much the same situation. We are miles past the point of diminishing returns and being able to provide a quality experience for every member of the team. At our first few meetings this year we had 100+ interested students. We are looking at implementing an application/interview/probation process to make it possible to provide the experience that we want our students to have. I’ve been reading through old threads on the subject as well, and have thus far come up with this outline…
Every interested student must fill out an application every year. Acceptance in one year does not guarantee acceptance in future years.
The application process will include
General Information so that we aren’t running about in December trying to get completed emergency contact and student driver forms
An Interest Survey which will use a 1 to 5 scale asking the applicant both their interest level and current skill level in each area of the team, to help us put together a balanced team
A paragraph describing why the applicant would like to be a team member
A personal recommendation (I don’t think this will be required, but will certainly be a helpful addition)
A statement signed by both the applicant and their parent to ensure that they understand the approximate time commitment expected of team members
All returning members will be subject to a performance review/interview in which they will have the opportunity to speak about what they accomplished as a member of the team and their plans for their future as a team member. (I’d like to say we’ll have time to interview all of the new members as well, but that’s stretching our resources a bit thin I think).
If any other teams are willing to post their application or questions in which they have used in the past I would love to have them as a reference in putting together the documents that we will use.
Our goal is not to exclude interested students, but we can’t continue as we have been and still provide a quality experience. The plan is to also offer FTC so that everybody can still get a FIRST experience, but our FRC team is well past capacity.
To further add to my previous post: our mentors do conduct interview of team members at some point during the year. This is to help find out their expectations, let them know what the team expects from them, what their interests are, etc. so we can fill them into a role. It also lets the coaches know who is the most serious about it, who is there to sort of hang out, and what they can expect from each student. These sorts of things, as well as the actions of students during the build season, all factor into determining our travel roster. All students, so long as the meet the requirements for being on the team, attend our home regional (or district events/championship as the case is now). Our team tries to offset the cost of travel so each student typically pays $300-$400 to go to, say, the Orlando or Las Vegas Regional (Hawaii was much higher, for obvious reasons). Thus, students who are truly committed to the team and put in the most time are rewarded by being able to go on a trip with the team. I don’t think we’ve ever had an issue keeping this number reasonable and it keeps us from preventing students from being on the team if they want to be.
We detail specific obligations that the students will have on the team(grades, GP, community service) and use it as their understanding and acceptance of the teams rules and conditions. It is the last page of our handbook and a parent must also sign indicating that they understand what the team expects from the student.
Yes, we have had to use the signed application to remind students what they agreed to do.
It sounds like there may be two categories of teams here:
Need every possible available body, don’t need to refuse anyone’s participation
More students want to be on the team than the team can handle appropriately
For #1, recommend: No application, just an info sheet.
Keep track of time spent on the team; obviously this includes time at the shop, but should also include communitiy service hours, time at demos, time spent building the webpage, time spent contacting potential sponsors, etc.
On our team, we pay for the students’ hotel room, some meals at Regionals if they have put in the required hours. If they fall a little short, they have to pay their own way. If they fall a lot short, they are not given an excuse to miss school to travel to/attend the Regional. You don’t have to set the bar too high, but enough to “weed out” the student who just wants the occaisional Friday off school.
For #2, we really have little experience in this realm, so I ignorantly recommend: HELP START ANOTHER TEAM
The different purposes of the week 2 and week 5 reviews is a great idea. I would like to learn more about the standards you set, how you measure performance against the standards, who implements it, how you enforce it. Also, how do students react when they don’t meet the standards at week 5, and how do their parents react?
If this is too much detail to post here, feel free to email me.
I’m asking all these questions because I think our team could improve in this area. The other posts in this thread have also been helpful. Thanks, everyone!
As a student on the Killer Bees I had to fill out an application, collect two recommendations (one from a teacher at our school) and be interviewed by two mentors on the team. It was a great experience. I learned more about the program before I became involved, the mentors were able to get an idea of my personality and what I might be interested in doing on the team, and I was able to ask questions before making a final commitment.
It was also the first application and interview process that I went though, which turned out to be a very useful experience for later in life (well, later that year actually…) when I applied for jobs.
On the mentor side of things, interviews have always been one of my favorite aspects of this program. The applications and interviews are an awesome way to get to know potential students, but we even interview our returning students, and that is sometimes the most rewarding. We ask them questions like the following:
What was your favorite part of the build season (and/or competition season)?
What was your favorite event and why?
What was your least favorite event and why?
What did you accomplish this year?
What do you want to accomplish next year?
What can we do better as a team?
What can the mentors do better to improve the team?
How can you take a leadership role next year?
etc…
It’s a great way to get feedback and assess what we need to do differently (or the same!) for the next year.
My impression is that 33 students generally enjoy the interviews and see the benefits of filling out an application. At least I haven’t heard any complaints about it so far.
(side note: the two mentors that interviewed me as a student are now two of my favorite people in FIRST. I still remember that interview: me dressed in my softball uniform and meeting these two people who ended up making such a huge impact on my life…pretty awesome. :] )
