Lesson 2: Serving as a Judge

Judge Roles

The judging team is made up of two roles.

• Judge Advisor. The Judge Advisor manages the judging process from start to finish and makes sure it is carried out consistently and fairly. Judge Advisors develop the judging schedule, guide judges through notebook review and Team Interviews, facilitate deliberations, submit the final award winners to the Event Partner, and receive any concerns judges raise during the day.
  • The role has firm requirements: a current Judge Advisor Certification (this course), at least 21 years of age, not enrolled in primary or secondary school, no or minimal conflicts of interest with attending teams, and no part in a team competing at the event. Some larger events also use Assistant Judge Advisors, who meet the same requirements.
• Judge. Judges review Engineering Notebooks, facilitate Team Interviews, and deliberate to determine the Judged and Nominated Awards. 
  • Age requirements vary by program, and judges may not be enrolled in primary or secondary school whatever their age. Judging Roles and Responsibilities lists the age requirement for each program.

Supporting the judging team is the Event Partner. The Event Partner runs the event and supports judging by recruiting the Judge Advisor and judges and providing the space and materials the judging team needs. Event Partners do not judge at their own events, and they may not recommend or assign Judged Awards. Anything outside the judging team's control — venue issues, schedule changes, team information — is the Event Partner's to resolve, and those questions and/or concerns are brought to them by the Judge Advisor.

What the Code of Conduct Asks of Judges

The Code of Conduct sets the standards of behavior for everyone in the VEX Robotics Competitions, including the volunteers who make decisions at an event. It encompasses six Commitments. Under these Commitments, event personnel act fairly when they hold themselves to all of these:

• Keep deliberations, conduct reports, and other sensitive information confidential.
  • Scores, rankings, notes, deliberations, and award decisions stay within the judging team, during the event and after it. Conduct reports and other sensitive information are handled the same way. Confidentiality is what lets judges speak candidly in deliberations and lets teams trust that decisions were made on the evidence.
  • This includes feedback. Teams often want to know how they did, and the instinct to encourage them is a good one. Encouragement is welcome; specifics are not. Judges can tell a team you enjoyed talking with them. They cannot tell them their notebook was one of the strongest they read, that the team should stay for the Design Award, that their testing section needed more detail, or how they compared to the team interviewed just before them.
• Judge impartially. This means, judges step back from decisions where they have a conflict of interest.
  • A conflict of interest is any connection to a team that could reasonably affect how you evaluate it — including, but not limited to, your own team, a team from your school or organization, a team a family member competes on, or a team you have coached or mentored.
  • Disclose conflicts to the Judge Advisor as early as you can, ideally before the event. Disclosing one is not a problem; it is the expected thing to do, and it lets the Judge Advisor assign interviews around it. 
  • Judges do not interview or evaluate teams they have a conflict of interest with, and they do not advocate for those teams during deliberations. Stepping back from a team means stepping back from every decision about it.
• Treat every participant with respect.
• Use the authority of their role only for its proper purposes.

Raising a Concern

Most of judging is a straightforward day of reading Engineering Notebooks and talking with students. Now and then something comes up that is not yours to resolve, and there are two paths for it.

• Judging, conduct, and student-centered concerns go to the Judge Advisor. As a judge, you are not looking for infringements or misconduct, and are not being asked to investigate. If a team's conduct gives you pause, or something about a team's work does not add up, bring it to the Judge Advisor rather than raising it with the team or letting it affect a score. Describe what you saw and the Judge Advisor takes it from there.
• Youth protection concerns follow the Youth Protection Policy. If a student's safety is at stake, act right away rather than waiting to report afterward. Reports never go through the person a concern is about. For instance, if it involves the Judge Advisor, go to the Event Partner. Anyone who reports in good faith is protected.

How Judging Unfolds Across the Day

Judging runs from the start of the event to just before Finals, in parallel with the matches.

• Getting started. The Judge Advisor orients the judging team to the awards, the rubrics, and the plan for the day, and sorts out conflicts of interest before assignments are made.
• Gathering evidence. Judges review the Engineering Notebooks that teams submitted and interview teams in pairs, working through the schedule so that every team is seen.
• Deciding. The judging team deliberates, weighing notebooks, interviews, and observations together to choose a recipient for each award being offered. No team receives more than one Judged Award. This finishes before Finals, so decisions rest only on what was known beforehand.

The main activities of your day, evaluating Engineering Notebooks and conducting Team Interviews, are covered in later chapters in this course. See the Preparing For and Judging at an Event Library article to learn more about the full timeline and what each role does before and during the event.