Transparency in Worlds qualifications

I know previously there was a topic on this when it came to how slots for worlds were allocated to states, and how the lack of transparency was an issue for some. I agree with that, but there’s also another thing that just sort of piqued my interest.

So I look at MS VRC spots, and notice 9 teams from VA. I know the original 8 from the State championship, and then I notice another one. I knew from the Skills scores, weren’t close to top 50 in the World, and were low down on the VA skills list, but it was interesting to me.

So I asked, and got the response that they won’t disclose that information, besides telling me the usual info about qualification spots: from the state allocations, top 50 skills, online challenge winners.

I guess what I’m wondering is how exactly those other spots were given out to teams. I guessed the waitlist but RECF wouldn’t confirm or deny it, which makes me uneasy about the general lack of transparency on all of it.

Was Virginia given 9 worlds spots for middle school or 8? If they were only given 8 then that 9th team must be off the waitlist or some online challenge.

8 spots. I checked through all the online challenge winners.

What’s strange is that I thought of waitlist too, but for whatever reason when I asked RECF directly, they did not confirm and told me they would not disclose.

The exact response I got…

“Thanks for your inquiry. We ensure each state receives their spots as promised. In addition, we provide spots to the top 50 in skills and qualified online challenge winners. Outside of those qualifying criteria, we do not provide an explanation for additional spots awarded to teams.”

@Coffee Here is the document that explains how spots are distrubuted: %between% Please do some research before letting accusations fly. For your state, since 6 spots are allocated for middle school, this is the distribution:

  • Excellence Award (1)
  • Tournament Champion (3)
  • Design Award (1)
  • Robot Skills Champion (1)

If there are dual qualifications (within the event, not because of online challenges/ top 50 skills - these don’t count as double qualifiers), then the next highest in robot skills will qualify.

This team was in well after the state tournament and skills scores were finalized.

Two bonus spots were given, which means finalists also go.

But the team in question didn’t fall under any of those categories.

That’s disappointing. If there’s nothing shady going on, why not just tell you?

The “accusations” would not be happening if the RECF would be more transparent about how they award spots and actually follow their documentation.

As others have pointed out, we have posted our process and the various ways teams are invited to the World Championship, and have completely followed the process (and documentation). The 9th team you are questioning was the first team on the waitlist (they actually had multiple teams on the waitlist, but only one was invited).

Hopefully that helps. Hate to see people stating alternative facts (which of course means “not a fact”) or fake news… insert smiley face here (sarcasm intended).

We look forward to seeing everyone at another great World Championship next month.

THANK YOU! As a leader you know that communications is key. Rumors and alternate facts are created when there is insufficient communication :slight_smile:

Awesome, thank you for the clarification!

Glad that RECF was listening and decided to respond. Seems like you don’t have any right to complain, though, considering that when originally asked you said that you award spots outside of those criteria and that you would not provide any information about how this is done.

It was your own people who spread the “alternative facts” and not anyone on this forum.

Glad to see a direct response from the RECF president no less. As I’ve said before, transparency is greatly appreciated.

Speaking of following documentation, could the RECF please also explain why California gives sportsmanship award winners Worlds spots? The documentation (link) mentions nothing about this. Thread: