Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Want to share your solution to this logistic nightmare?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I honestly don't buy it. Is average human nature reasonably constant? Sure. But you've now assumed that human nature is the only controlling factor in these motivational conditions. That I don't buy for a minute, and not even pointing out the jump reads as a false equivalency. Maybe FRC and FLL are the same on the the relevant metrics: maybe investment cost doesn't matter and average time commitment is the same or irrelevant, and so on and so forth. Maybe the aforementioned drive for non-qualifiable FLL teams to be "World Class" is not linked to the existence of a single World Festival. I don't know. I have no evidence of any of this either way, and thus (quoting myself) will not "assume that FRC and FLL are comparable". I would honestly be interested in your evidence, or I would advise anyone against jumping to a similar assumption.

I agree with you on the fact that substantively contradictory statements cannot both be simultaneously true.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Big questions. Do I know all the answers? Nope. I'll do my best based on my interpretation. I don't claim it to be right, just my best guess.

Firstly it's important to point out the teams don't actually know if they will qualify or not prior to the start of the season. (at least as far as I know) So are the participants demotivated? Absolutely not. They still grow partially due to the fact that they don't know if they will qualify prior to the event.

Second. Good FLL teams aren't fundamentally good because they want to attend a world event. They are good because they enjoy what they are doing. They don't do FLL for the event. This is pretty obvious because basically nobody gets to go to an international event. The fact that they are using LEGO is the biggest draw here I think.

Third. It's been like this for ages. For sure 2008 this was the case. Probably in previous years too. In general FLL teams have a shorter lifespan than say an FRC team. Parents have kids that get older, teachers retire or move schools. It's not uncommon for FLL teams to run for 3-5 years (or shorter) and then close due to lack of members/coach not at the school anymore. Or some teams graduate to FTC or FRC and just mentor an FLL team in the area.

Fourth. FLL's youtube culture is great. Just as strong as FRC showing how well their robots can perform at various tasks. I think this pushes the kids to keep improving.

Fifth. There is (almost) always next year. Normally (always?) after you lose the lottery you get a spot next year.

Sixth. Alternate world class event is an okay consolation prize if you get invited and can afford to go. People still prefer world festival though I think.

Seventh. FLL is more of a showcase of your robot. Repeating the same thing over and over again. There are no playoffs anymore (for the most part) Not a huge thrill or anything.

Eighth. Most FLL teams aren't super elite high achievers.

So.

FLL grows because despite the large negative for a few teams, it's well... only a few teams. The program has an overwhelming amount of positives.

Most participants are motivated.

And lastly, the teams that do have a season ended due to a lost lottery spot, if they care enough normally they are good enough to get into another international invitational. Then they bounce back next year.

No it's good to ask for clarification. I have drifted too far in the "this is the way it is" camp. It's a good reminder.

The fact that society thinks you need to be a certain age to be able to do something? That is hard. FIRST is helping with that to some degree. I suspect it's less heard of since it's a very small, and not particularly vocal minority 9-14 year olds. The "non-serious teams" aren't doing anything wrong. If that is the way they want to run it like that it's fine.

If you mean solving how only some regions get spots? That's simple, add more teams to world championships. 10-20 more isn't terrible. And they already did that this year. So i'm not exactly sure how many regions are counted out now, but I suspect less.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Warning - Long post follows.

I replied to Brennan's original assertion, with a couple of questions. I didn't reply to a case built on evidence, by citing additional evidence that leads to a different conclusion. And, that is still true.

Instead I pointed out that FLL has grown (a historical perspective), continues to grow (a reasonable projection), and is not full of demotivated participants (if I'm wrong, let me know), despite suffering under "handicaps" that some might say would doom a STEM program that includes/uses a competitive component.

However, replying to you, I agreed to build a stronger case (stronger than a naked assertion) that FLL's success is worth considering when wondering how FRC might fare under an FLL-ish hierarchy of competitions.

Below, I'll do that by complementing Brennan's recent post with this one, and I'll risk giving you the "talking stick" by asking you to estimate three percentages in a hypothetical future, and ask you to give an opinion about what those percentages would mean to the entire, top-to-bottom population of FRC students in that future. You will either help me make the case that the sky probably isn't falling (and won't fall), or not.

The opinion I'll ask for is your answer to this question: Overall, would that future's *entire* FRC population, in the aggregate, be healthy, and would the FRC program be likely to have a strong effect on how many fence-sitting or non-STEM students are swayed to pursue STEM careers?

Let's get to it:

The portion of the one Brennan post that started this particular sub-conversation said "The main problem with the FLL qualifying system is that not every region gets a qualifying spot. So you could have a season where it is literally impossible to qualify for the world championships. FRC should/would NEVER stand for that."

Here is a counterargument that relies on imagining what likely futures might hold (Brennan already wrote several strong counterpoints. I'll write something different from the points he already enumerated).

I believe that the original statement, quoted above, conveyed that in a competition structure where maybe 50% (or just about any other reasonable number you care to choose) of regions are guaranteed to send on-the-field winners to additional competition(s), and the remaining 50% (again, you can pick just about any other reasonable number) use a lottery to determine which of their on-the-field winners will be invited to additional competition, the entire program will suffer very serious/significant harm because teams' members will lose motivation.

Well, in the future(s) when this hypothetical competition hierarchy is implemented (because it is believed to be the best compromise available), I think it is reasonable to say:

1) That there will be many teams in each region.
2) That there will be more than one opportunity to compete within each region.
3) That earning a Regional championship will be a significant and praise-worthy accomplishment.
4) The only on-the-field way to earn a spot in post-regional on-the-field play is to win your region (and get an auto-bid, or a chit in the lottery).

So... In this hypothetical future, in each/any year, in the regions subject to the lottery that year, what percentage of the program's teams/communities will then decide

1) That the 1 in 2 chance that on-the-field excellence won't result in post-regional play, sucks so much motivation out of them that they decide to more or less permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture?

2) That the chance that some typically excellent team won't be at the post-regional competition, sucks so much motivation out of them that they decide to more or less permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture?

3) That all STEM programs are so uninspiring that they decide to not participate in any of them, and therefore permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture? (OBTW, "permanently" is a strong word, the more proper phrasing would be "until a new mentor/sponsor reinvigorates them.")

And, if you are still playing along, after estimating those three percentages; please also offer an opinion about whether the total top-to-bottom program is strongly effecting the choices of many, many, many on-the-fence and non-STEM students'.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I will assert that as a parent, and as an AYSO assistant coach, a Boy Scout assistant scoutmaster, a Little League and travel squad assistant coach, and as an FRC mentor (and who knows what else) that what motivates kids changes substantially between the ages of 10 and 18. AYSO participation drops precipitously after age 12 (as it does for many other athletic activities). I'll speculate that simply "participating" is not as motivating after that age. There is a very well known intellectual leap that occurs in that age range. Any parent will recognize how young teens often have trouble relating to their younger compatriots. Abstract reasoning, including reaching for goals outside of their immediate concrete experience, becomes much more important.

The FLL program is well designed to address the preteen student population. (I'd be interested in seeing the statistics on participation for the 13-14 age group vs other age groups.) But that doesn't mean that it will carry into the older group for FRC. Aiming for achieving success becomes much more important as a motivator for older teens, as well as greater social acceptance.

That premise has been the basis of my comments (and I've often made allusions to the AYSO program, how it fizzles after age 12, and has not significantly changed the culture around soccer in the U.S.--immigration has had a much bigger effect.)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'll bite. But first the most important aspect of FIRST is not to motivate existing teams. It's to create an environment in which individuals in STEM careers become models of respect for student. And along those lines, specific STEM programs/teams become "stars" that have a fan base much like teams and athletes have in sports. This was Kamen's key insight as how create a STEM program that is DISTINCTIVE from other STEM-oriented education programs. In other words, FIRST should not become like the Siemens Competition in MST.

1 & 2) The top 10% of teams that aim for Champs every year will not work as hard to create engineering solutions to face the best in the world without a better than 50% chance of attending Champs. They will then not inculcate the same work ethic that shows up in outreach as well as Regional/District competitions, which will then lead to less motivation for at least 50% of the remaining teams if not more.

3) We already know the answer to this one: Prior to the start of FIRST, students pursuing STEM majors and careers had been steady since the the 1950s. In other words the other STEM programs have been failing in motivating students. I don't believe that FRC has been widespread enough for long enough to yet have a measurable impact on this trend.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'll answer directly and also do your breakdown. I think the rest of our question here is "if FRC were run like FLL in terms of having such limited access to Worlds". I'm not sure if you're also referring to other "if FRC were like FLL" points.

I believe (for emphasis, this is my belief) that if FRC had FLL's Worlds, the FRC population in aggregate would be healthy. I take healthy to mean that there are N number of students who are better off for having FRC, where N is great enough to offset any identified or latent costs. According to the latest Brandeis study, 69% of the recent FRC alumni surveyed reported "increased interest in science and technology careers" (report). Setting aside the scientific issues I have with this survey, I would expect that number to be significantly higher with the FLL-style system you specify. However, I would expect it to be slightly lower than a system with the same number of teams and competitive chances that instead flowed into a tiered structure which reliably culminated in the World Championship, without a lottery in between. Because the real question is not "will FRC be good when there are 10,680 teams (same number of students as FLL with current respective team sizes). That's going to be a wonderful problem to have. But just because it's a good problem to have doesn't mean that all the solutions to it are equally good.

Separately, I'd like to point out that I don't personally agree with the hardline "FRC should/would NEVER stand for that" position. I think it's a bad idea, but my beef with the FLL comparison really isn't about its Worlds qual structure.

1. I don't like this "they decide to...slack off" verbiage. What you're really asking is "Will the 1 in 2 (or 1 in N) chance that on-the-field excellence won't result in post-regional play mean that teams are going to cause less net inspiration and culture change? With what percent change?" My overall answer is yet, and my percentage change in net effect versus non-lottery is 2%. Roughly, I think that 1 in 50 teams will be less driven under this system. Not because they decide to be, but because the teams that could be on that cusp (I've been one) are very heavily attuned to the issues that advancement brings with it, both good and bad. I know that 1640 would be a very different team without it. I've also witnessed that this sort of level of...whatever we're calling it...is contagious without a region, at least one in Districts. MAR would look different if tier qualifying were cut this dramatically and probabalistically--it's a community within a community at that level, and one we've come to expect certain levels of inspiration from partnership from.

2. I don't think this structure would affect the elites much, though maybe an elite team would like to speak to that. In terms of excellent-but-not-elite, see the cusp teams discussion above.

3. The argument here seems to be that just because FRC doesn't work for a team doesn't mean that another program won't allow them to make the same contributions. I agree with this premise, but believe it's incorrectly applied. The question is whether an FRC-as-FLL move like this would negatively affect more teams than it positively affects (or substitute "students" or "culture" or just "units" for "teams"). The question is thus not whether those transferring teams will have another STEM program through which to inspire and change culture, but whether their net inspiration and culture change is larger or smaller than it would have been if the alternative FRC structure had been in place. For the transferring teams, I estimate that far greater than half would see a net drop in their impact, if only because FRC had some significant advantage that made them want to start with it in the first place. (And there would've been a major startup influx to reach this number of teams at all). However, I predict that the number of transferring teams itself would be quite low, probably under 1%. On the other-other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the overall attrition rate for FRC rose by as much as 5%. Transferring is a serious investment and requires trust in programs that, even if they deserve it, can be hard to garner. Not transferring isn't a reflection on the character of the teams, just on the structure of reality. Very little of this decision making is as conscious as the questions seem to convey.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Hmmm, so you have been around the bush once or twice.

Lemme see: I am a parent. I am a Boy Scout I have been an assistant Scoutmaster. I have been in high school band. I am a member of and have been a officer of a fraternity. I have coached more than one little league baseball team. I have been an FRC and FVC/VRC mentor. I have organized many an FVC/VRC scrimmage. I have supplied successful advice to local and VP-level corporate STEM sponsors. I have contributed strongly to the explosive growth of STEM robotics programs in my home county, and the surrounding region (without needing to foul up the age ranges those programs target...).

Gee, it looks like our resumes are pretty much dead even. You might beat me by a nose in sports, but I think I am ahead by a nose in STEM robotics.

Now, lemme see if you are addressing anything I actually wrote.

You seem to be writing about whether older students might or might not participate in a program, just to participate in it. You seem to be implying that competing to win a single prize/title, or to defeat all opponents present at some gathering is important (more or less across the board) to sustain older students' motivation.

A) Students do fun things. Fun can take many forms. Some of them are competitions, many are not. Think for just a few seconds and I'll bet you can come up with at least three examples of each.

B) In the post you are replying to, I never wrote anything about minimizing competition; but you wrote this, How did we get from me pointing out that FLL has grown and continues to grow, while using a different competition structure than FRC; to you implying that I favor replacing FRC competition with simple FRC "participation"??????

I could go on, but I won't.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Opening paragraph = Close, but off-target, and No

1 & 2) So, if there are 10,000 FRC teams across North America some day, and if FIRST evolves into using the competition format I made up; then 1000 of them slack might off some (but certainly not fold or quit), and 4500 of them might also be a little less excited. I guess that means that 4500 of them are unaffected, and 5500 are doing OK (but are a little less excited).

In what way, shape or form is that horrible, or even bad; if that is the compromise that gets FIRST from today, to a tomorrow of 10,000 teams, the vast majority of which will be doing just fine????

3) You didn't answer the question. I suggested that you speculate about whether organizations that are strongly affected by a future competition structure, will fold, or will simply find a different program to use doing STEM-spiration.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Lots of words written by both of us. ;)

I think we agree (you predicted low percentages of teams would be affected) more than we disagree, about the central point I wanted to make earlier.

In my opinion, almost all of the hand-wringing over the "Championsplit" (cue ominous music) is making mountains out of molehills, as far as the future of FRC is is concerned. YMMV.

The program isn't going to die. The program isn't going to stagnate. The program's growth isn't going to slow significantly.

Very few current participants will care enough to look for alternative programs/activities. Those that do, will find more choices than you can shake a stick at (and I hope they do great things in those alternatives!).

Some people just aren't going to be happy about the change, for any of a number of reasons, but I predict it, and the almost inevitable further splitting in the future, are not going to amount to much more than small bumps in the road.

FRC's challenges are cost per inspired student, and volunteers needed per event; not whether the championship splits.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I agree with most of your opinion, but I disagree about the premise that the Split is thus not a problem. Is the sky falling? No. But does that mean we shouldn't worry about it raining more often? This discussion still deserves to happen. I don't recall anyone saying this was going to kill FIRST (though I wouldn't be altogether surprised if N someones somewhere did), or even really stagnate. But see slower growth than it would have otherwise? Entirely possible. Also entirely unproveable. That doesn't mean people are wrong to be worried (or wrong to be not worried), or to be seeking out better alternatives. Things can be bad and need addressing without being devastating and dangerous.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Still agreeing more than we disagree.

Many, many posts in this thread have described the split in nearly-apocalyptic terms (OK, I'm exaggerating a bit, but also not exaggerating by much).

When I wrote my (provocative?) observations about FLL's history of growth, I was trying to get some readers to un-entrench their viewpoints, just a bit.

Sure let's all continue to discuss (and let's all do less beating of dead horses).

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I told myself I'd stay away from making long posts for a while, but after some of the comments about FLL / younger kids, I couldn't resist responding...
I've worked with kids in many different activities (FLL, Aikido, 4-H, and others), mostly aged 5 to 12, and I wanted to draw some connections I've seen between that and what I've experienced as a student on an FRC team.


In some ways this is similar to my other post on why we care about winning, but it other ways it's not. From what I've seen and experienced, external motivations matter to almost everyone. Once children are old enough to want the company of others, they seek the approval of others and the confirmation that what they're doing is right. Those emotions do not go away, but they do change. Two main things guide that change:
1. Growing up
2. Personality


Growing up: from praise to winning
When they're young, children seek approval from parents and teachers, older siblings and children, and from their friends. For them, "objective" measures include praise from teachers/parents and awards (regardless of who gives it).

As they get older, the emphasis on peer acceptance and other outside measures, grows larger. Perhaps it is connected to when children start to seek opinions other than their parents'. Perhaps it is that they start to identify more with other people in general, which leads them to prefer the company of children their age, who are more likely to identify with them. Perhaps it is something else entirely. Either way, it matters more who gives the praise or awards.

That trend continues, at least in teenagers (or at least in me), but it becomes even more fragile. It's a balance of wanting to hear confirmation that you've succeeded, knowing that you shouldn't be caring that much, and looking for ways to justify that. It's a balance of getting praise from some adults, and knowing that same action will cause others to criticize you, and asking whose opinion matters more. It's a balance of so many things that often just won't balance. Sometimes a completely objective measure simplifies everything. That's when winning on a larger scale starts to matter even more. This doesn't mean praise stops mattering--it doesn't; in some ways it matters even more. It just becomes very complex.

I'll stop there because I don't know how adults feel (plus most posters here are adults, so you're likely to be one and thus be able to fill the rest in yourself). But I'm guessing that same trend continues, except it becomes somewhat more logical (maybe?).


Personality: just wanting to win vs asking why others win
I'm now going to switch from using general outside motivations to winning, which is arguably one of the most objective measures (and just easier to use).

It is here that I've seen a split. Some people are just happy to continue winning. Others get to a point where they're no longer just happy to win and start asking why they won--or why they didn't win. They start looking at those who did win, and try to figure out what they did differently.

Most people, and certainly most younger kids, fall into the first group. Most FLL kids in elementary school are happy to just win something or just to see the points they got. Most FRC students are also happy with this. Having two Einstein winning alliances doesn't matter, because for 99.9% of teams they'll never be there, and so it doesn't matter that much to them.

The second characteristic is one of the main characteristics of CD and of many of the alumni who stay on as mentors. The vast majority of students in FRC do not remember or care who won. I can name the teams on every alliance that's won Einstein from 2011-2015. I would be very surprised if anyone else on my team knows the entire winning alliance from last year. The only reason I know those teams is because I've been inspired by watching them. The main reason they don't is because what matters to them pretty much ends in our teams. (Then there are some in between, who care but not enough to remember specific numbers.) Each way works for us. But for them--and for most students/mentors in FRC--the split champs will not change that much. Getting there will. At the same time there's a much smaller group to whom the split champs changes a lot.

This is also heavily influenced by what a team has already achieved. Teams that struggle just to compete are less likely to care about what other teams are doing. Teams that have never made it to champs before are less likely to care if the one they're at is the champs or a champs. At some point it becomes an individual decision though, or I wouldn't be writing this.


Putting it together: what this means for a split champs
FLL's method works for them partly because they're mostly younger kids and making it to worlds isn't as crucial to most of them, and because if they want it, there are other competitions they can go on to (FTC, FRC, etc.)

FRC has had too many teams at champs for too long to transition to that suddenly, if at all. It also cannot get enough teams to a single champs to cater to the first group, or split champs and justify it to the second. Hopefully someday this will transition to super DCMPs / super regionals and we'll have both again.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

The handwriting is on the wall. If FRC continues to grow, no one should be surprised at the consequences.

Blake
PS: HS students who work their buns off for weeks and months to produce a play, would seem to be passionately immersed in something difficult and inspirational, without any thought of winning a trophy, or a competition. In my experience, the most they can hope for is good reviews, plus positive audience feedback. Does that align well with your thoughts on student motivation, or is it an exception?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

1 & 2) If you're premise is that FRC gets to 10,000 and then institutes this play format, a whole lot will have changed in between, most importantly the establishment of state-level competitive championships a la districts. And that the filter will send teams to world champs, much as other high school sports do the same. (There's a list of those sports in one of these threads...:rolleyes: ). However, if you're premise is that FRC can get to 10,000 with the new format, I disagree with that premise. I believe that FRC will stagnate at near current levels and even shrink if instituted now, which is premise of my answer.

3) I was being obtuse in my answer, which is maybe some small % will go to VEX, but sum close approximation of 0% will move on to other STEM programs.