Is FIRST about Robot?
 

I decided to start a new thread instead of hijacking other threads. There are people who thinks that FIRST is not about robot, and people/teams who want to make robots more competitive are missing the point. The person I mostly want to have this conversation with is Blake but others are welcome to chime in and have this discussion. Blake, you know we are miles apart in our opinion on a number of issues based on our past discussions. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for you and your opinion. In fact if we ever have a chance to meet, I want to sit down with you and listen to more of what you have to say. I am sure I can learn something from you.
You said in the other thread that "The on-the-field performance of teams/robots is not the central focus of the FRC program described on FIRST's website, nor is it the thread tying together the many descriptions offered by FRC's founders and current leaders." Let's examine that more closely.
This is a link to a quote from Dean Kamen and is on the FIRST website. http://www.firstinspires.org/sites/d...an-quote_1.png

He said FIRST is more than robots. I think most people agree. He never said FIRST is not about robots. The program is FIRST Robotics Competition, not FIRST Robotics Science Fair and Exhibition.

Mission
The mission of FIRST is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting Mentor-based programs that build science, engineering, and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

Methodology
Engage kids in kindergarten through high school in exciting, Mentor-based, research and robotics programs that help them become science and technology leaders, as well as well-rounded contributors to society.

I highlighted what I think are key words. As the lead engineering mentor of my previous team, what was I supposed to do? Do you not want me to teach my kids all the engineering skills they need to make their robot more successful on the field? Should I only teach them but tell them not to implement it because FIRST is not all about robots? Should I not teach them how to make their robot work as they have dreamed it would? Should they not have a robot they would get excited about because it performed well on the field? I am confused.

Blake, why does on the field success and off the field success have to be exclusive. Look at the HOF teams. (I don't know all the teams so I am only listing teams I know. I apologize not mentioning some teams.) Look at 27, 1114, 359, 341, 111, 67 and 254. They always have competitive robots too. In Michigan, there are also teams like 33, 68, 503, 1023, 2337 and others who won Chairman's at MSC and have competitive robots every year. They are all an inspiration to me and my former team. My former team didn't do too bad either, winning the last 4 district events as 1st pick or Alliance Captain #1. They also won Chairman's at MSC last season.

Blake, I hope you will stop advocating that one is more important than the other. I think they are both important. I wanted my students to have the total FIRST experience and not just the robot. It does not have to be exclusive. It just takes more work. Doing one and saying the other is not important is an excuse and a disservice to the students you are trying to inspire.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

I've learned more about humans from this program than I did robots :D . I don't think that would've happened with the stress, pressure, and fun of competition. Having competitive robots and events is important.
However, I believe that competition is a way to inspire students. It's when adults get overly competitive (i.e. angry enough to swear over the outcome of a match, pushing for their own designs) that something is wrong.

Er, so I guess my answer is: FIRST is about robots only to the student.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

I think the robots are a means to an end (a tool of sorts). Through building robots, we can achieve that goal that FIRST set out. The question is, how important are the robots? Look at it like any other tool - like a screwdriver needed for screwing in a screw. You need the screwdriver - it's kinda important to get the screw fully tightened. Same thing with FIRST - you need the robots to get the inspiration. Even though many outreach events' goals aren't the robot itself, but spreading FIRST, what is there to show and get people interested if there isn't a robot? That is why I think the robots are absolutely critical as a tool to achieve FIRST's mission.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

I find that this program is about the robots, only because it's NOT about the robots. And because it's not about the robots, it IS about the robots. To quote myself from over a year ago...

And the two students above me nailed it.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

I'm sure everyone finds the stories of world class, hall of fame worthy chairman's award winners inspiring. To me, though, it is so much more inspiring to see amazing robots on the field that other high school students built.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Well, Mr Ed Law, FIRST is about the robot in the truest sense of your question. Again, I will restate your original question:

Is FIRST about ROBOT?

Yes. Yes it is.

Before I delve into this, I must acknowledge that most of the members (current, past, students, and mentors) of FRC 4607 are probably gasping as they try to process the answer... "Did Jurek just state that FRC is all about the robot?"

Yes, FIRST is about the robot. Everything we do is about the robot. However, I am talking more in the literal sense. Our marketing squad, PR squad, Logistics Department, Fabrication, safety, outreach, etc. are all in place because of the robot. If it was not for the robot - my team membership would dissolve/devolve into many parts (DECA; some hobby-groups such as CAP, computer/gaming, web design, tinkerers, etc; Supermileage Challenge; Student leadership such as NHS, Student Council; theater; HS News; Yearbook; etc.).

FIRST is an organization that revolves around a robot. FRC 4607 does not become the team it is today if my former co-coach and I set out to create only a robot. We decided to forgo the importance of the robot build itself and concentrate on bringing in the best students in Becker to create an organization that would be the most inclusive activity in the school. We went after the students that were heavily involved in Student Council, Theater, Debate, Wrestling, Basketball, Civil Air Patrol, Boy Scouts, Trap, etc. We sought out kids that were interested in Welding, fabrication, hunting, D&D (and other like strategy games), racing, etc. We wanted the kids that would spend hours on their March Madness brackets, were heavily involved in Fantasy Football, etc.

We wanted the best of all in Becker. Why? Because we saw this as the matrix to pull them all together in order to reshape the culture in our school. We saw this as the vehicle to bring in students that were not tied into the school that had a lot to offer.

We knew that the kids that were interested in building a robot would join. We did not have to seek them out. These students were going to be 'all-in" no matter how we developed the team.

Four years ago we set out to reshape the culture at Becker High School with 8 students that were interested in FIRST. We started one FRC team in 2013 and had some success. In 2016 we had 45 students on FRC 4607, 48 students on FTC teams, and 35 students on FLL teams. We are now the largest activity in Becker and have Banners that hang alongside our State Basketball, Gymnastics, and Football banners.

Just yesterday we had our FTC kickoff and our small auditorium was packed with parents, mentors, and students grades 7-10. We also received a brand new trailer from two new sponsors - and they wanted to do more. They paid for the trailer, wrapped the trailer, and then stocked it with a metric crap ton of Mountain Dew and Coca-Cola. As I sat there trying to take it all in, the President of one of the companies kept stating that he wanted to do more for the students - and then gave us more than we expected. This is the power of a program 'about' a robot.

Is FIRST about a Robot? Yes. Is it all about the robot? Heavens, no. Our largest departments on FRC 4607 are our Marketing and Business wings. In 4+ years we have gained over 24 sponsors and 10 partners. Annually we work with over 20 different schools to help build FRC in Central Minnesota - and we are involved heavily with 3 post-secondary institutions.

Sorry/not sorry for (not)making your point for you Ed, but FIRST is 'about' the robot.

The robot is important - but the students come first.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Hi Ed,

While JMonkeyEngine was installing on my PC, I took a look at CD and saw this. Thank you for taking the time to start a conversation.

I'll think for a bit, and then write you an worthy answer that isn't shooting from the hip.

Blake

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

The robot is certainly important. But I don't think that's what FIRST is about. I had the benefit of seeing this thread right before going to the gym, so I had a good long time to think about it before getting home to post.

I'm going to start with a comparison... are the Boy Scouts about camping? Merit Badges? No, but those are some of the first things you think of when you think about scouting. Instead, it's a values-based youth development organization. "The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness." FIRST falls into the same boat, I think - we all see and think about the robot, but that's not what it's about.

When I think about what FIRST is about, I have to think about what the students get out of it. So, the first thing I did was look at the Dean's List nominations I've written in the past few years. In them, the robot does come up - typically, it takes up about 1/4 of the nomination. But I've only ever mentioned on-field performance once, in one sentence burried in the middle of a nomination. When you think about how much time we spend on the robot, it's a little shocking that that number isn't higher. The rest of the nominations deal with outreach, leadership, enthusiasm, dedication. When it comes to the impact we have on these students, it's not about the on-field performance at all.

But you know, that's really all based on my perspective of how we impact the students... so I went away from the Dean's List nominations and instead looked at the WFFA nomination my students shared with me. In it, they talk about learning complex concepts, being pushed outside of their comfort zones, improving their confidence and capability. The robot barely comes up (only in an anecdote about it falling from the top of the pyramid a few years ago), and on-field performance is never mentioned. These kids don't value their mentors because we help them win competitions or awards. They value us for the long lasting, direct impact we have on their lives.

And then I thought about the mentor meeting my team had last night. It's a regular occurrence that lets us figure out, as a group, what we're doing with the team. And you know what? The robot was practically a sideshow at the meeting. We talked about scheduling, outreach, leadership roles and team organization. We talked about how we needed to push the captains and the rest of the team. We talked about the changes we would like to see to improve the student experience. But whenever the robot came up, it was in terms of what the students would learn if we did X or Y in the offseason.

So sure, the robot is important. It's the vehicle we use to accomplish everything else. But it's not what FIRST is all about. FIRST is about those relationships between mentor and student, about inspiring the next generation through direct example and interaction. It's about exposing students to a whole world and way of thinking they've never seen before. But it's not about the robot.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

One definition of about is "all around." To me FIRST is "all around" the robot. Our team doesn't have a single robot that still functions as designed, but our students have rich experiences and a wealth of knowledge about what was done (and why), and we see them leaving our program with keener, more imaginative visions of their future. And that's all the functionality we need from those old robots.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

There have been a few posts in this thread that try to walk the line, saying that FIRST being about and not about the robot are compatible. In my opinion, this is simply balking at the question being asked. Working to be better at robots has a cost. Let's look at a few cases.

Many FTC teams rely on FRC students to be mentors. However, there are a number of FTC competitions during the FRC season, so the seasons could overlap. Students who mentor FTC while also on an FRC team will necessarily do less for their FRC team than they would if they weren't mentoring. For the FRC team, this has a cost: if the best FRC students are mentoring FTC, the FRC robot quality could suffer.

At an offseason FRC event, is it better to give everyone who wants a chance to drive the robot or is it better to be more selective and use it as a training ground to identify and develop the best drivers for future FRC seasons. For teams large enough where this is an actual choice (if you have 14 kids who want to drive, you can't choose both), the former could be more inspirational.

I know of a few teams who host an event at the end of build season where they demonstrate their robot to sponsors/community/etc. Clearly, this is great in advancing FIRST's goals. However, it takes away a day of working on the robot. There's even a team that hosted such an event despite the fact that their robot wasn't performing nearly up to their standards, and they really could have used the extra day. Would you have made the same choice?

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

To be completely honest, I have never understood this separation between the robot and other aspects of FIRST. They are all intertwined into reaching for the same goal, which is to inspire students into STEM. That is the primary and honestly the only goal of FIRST. As a former student, for me personally, FIRST was in fact about the robot. I only thought about how to build the robot, rather than anything. That has given me lots of technical background and hands on experience. This is invaluable. Yet, I did learn other things, ie how to work with other people. However, the robot is the main way that these things are done. Furthermore, many people only seem to see the negative aspects of competitions. However, I believe that strong competition is the only way to learn.
Say if you are the smartest or most athletic or just overall best student in your school, and for some reason the best student, from some arbitrary metric, is "successful" in whatever terms you may want to have. Then what motivation would you have for trying any harder in school. There is absolutely no reason to try harder. However, if there is competition, you yourself work harder, and in the process learn much more.
Hence, the aspect of competition is critical for FIRST. Without competition or the general spirit of competition, a student will not learn, either the technical points of the robot, or even how to work with others. There is almost no way to learn if there is no final goal at the end. The primary goal for a FIRST team should be to build a good competitive robot. However, one must realize that when building a good competitive robot, many other invaluable skills are gained, without which a student cannot function in the modern world.

PS: I feel like this post is almost definitely going to be taken the wrong way. Please prove me wrong CD.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Woodie Flowers has described the robot in FRC as the campfire that we all gather around. I agree with this 100%. If the campfire is weak or dying, it can be hard to draw more people in, and keep the ones you have.

John, your story of past robots was enriching as well.

-Mike

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Participating in FIRST is a lot like practicing yoga. There are skills and techniques you perform but they should never be practiced in a way that is counterproductive to the goal.

FIRST's mission is to inspire the next generation in STEM. Their values promote respect, cooperation, challenging oneself, and striving for excellence. The robotics competition is a focal point. The real test is how your engagement in robotics competition supports of FIRST's principals.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Please come work long hours learning Math, Engineering, Sales, Marketing, Communications, Publishing, Logistics for no school credit, in fact you'll need to work harder on your regular school work to compensate.

Anyone want to come? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Lets build a big robot that weighs 100 lbs with lots of motors and gears and metal that we can cut and drill and a ton of programming. The we will go compete with that robot with other teams.

How about now? Who wants to build a robot?

It's all about how you hide all of the good stuff in something nice. Like Mom blending a carrot in a chocolate milkshake to get vegetables in the diet. If you want to think it's about the robot, I'm good with that. But please have this nice helping of real world engineering, life skills and having some of the best fun of your life.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

I think part of the reason this question is so difficult is the ambiguity of the word "about". When we ask whether FIRST is about Robots, do we mean "Are robots the main practical focus of and direct reason for most of what we do?" Or are we asking "Are robots the deeper meaning behind what we do?" To me, FIRST is "about" robots in the same way The Great Gatsby is "about" a rich guy and his friends having parties. It's the main focus, takes up most of the time, and if you wanted to experience it as just that and nothing more, that would be fine. But the deeper meaning behind FIRST is in inspiring students and changing the culture, and understanding that can help you get more out of the program.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Let me clarify the intent of my question. Should we try to build the best robot that the team's resources allow to compete the best we can? Or is on field performance not important so we should not focus on the robot too much?

This has nothing to do with how much adult involvement there is so please don't go there.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

I'd say that we definetly should try to build the best robot we can. That is the way, after all, you learn the many skills in FRC. Without trying to build the best robot we can, why are we here?

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Striving for excellence is a part of every good team. But assuming that excellence means winning competitions is a very bad assumption. Just take a look at the record for the 2015 Championship Chairman's Award winners, team 597. I think we would all say they pursued excellence and achieved it on the biggest stage in FIRST, without ever winning an event.

Every team is going to have a different mix of involvement, mentorship, funding, and resources, and the key really is for every team to identify the goals that will best impact their students and community, and then pursue those goals.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Thanks Jon. This is really what I want to say. I absolutely think that teams should strive to put the best robot they can on the field and do their best to win. But just as absolutely for me you should not judge your success and failure in this venture by whether or not you win. Winning is fun. But if winning is the standard for success then most teams are failing at most competitions. For my part, when people say "FIRST isn't really about the robot" what they really mean is that FIRST isn't about winning competitions with the robot.

I keep coming at this question as a coach. Someone who coaches FRC as well as Track and Field and Cross Country. In my other sports we definitely try to win. But we don't always win. We judge our success largely on whether most of the kids have a positive experience and get better (faster, farther, higher). In FRC we judge our success mostly on whether kids keep coming back, say they enjoy the experience, learn new skills, and then go on to pursue careers in STEM fields.

We absolutely strive to build the best robot we can. But that is a means to an end, not the end.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Ed,

Earlier today, I had a devil of a time with my Internet connection but I was able make some progress. I spent the time my connection was up, going over my recent posts to look for any place where I might have written the ideas you describe. There seem to be some "disconnects".

I still plan to write a reply that covers my take on the fundamental, philosophical topic, if you will; but first let's try to reconnect the disconnects.No sweat - I can unconfuse you about how I feel about that part of things. Within the last week, in this post 346, I wrote this "... you feed the STEM hunger of eager/inspired students, and you feed them as much as you and they can handle - because it's fun."

Again, within the last week, in the same post 346, I tried to explain my point of view with these sentences,
"When planning club/team activities, whenever we reached the point of having to choose/recommend how we are going to spend our chunks of scarce time, I try[sic] to think hard about whether I/we should invest those hours and energy into making an OK robot better, or into introducing new people to STEM opportunities.

Those two things certainly aren't 100% mutually-exclusive, but they aren't 100% identical either; and the clock is a merciless taskmaster."

So I agree with you, good robots and the other parts of being an FRC team aren't exclusive.

Where I suspect we might disagree is the subject of whether build a best-possible robot is the primary mission of an FRC team, and/or on whether FRC teams need to build a best-possible robot in order to accomplish their primary mission.

Everywhere I searched (so far) for any place I might have accidentally written that an FRC team's annual robot isn't important, I came up empty. I'm glad that I didn't accidentally write that in any of the places I looked so far. Can you point to any place (so that I can fix it)?

With that in mind, I think we agree that being a well-rounded and good FRC team easily includes, and certainly doesn't exclude building good robots.

Where you and I (and others who would encourage both of us) probably diverge is on whether "best-possible robot" is the enemy of "good-enough robot".

Along those lines, I have written things like this comment about what I would suggest is a good way to evaluate the success of a FIRST team. "... introducing students to enough positive STEM experiences to open their eyes to the possibility that they might enjoy a STEM career. To do that you don't even need to have competitions. You might choose to use competitions, but they aren't required." (in the PS of this post 214).

Also, in this post 5, I wrote this *opinion* about how I would look at things, if I were FIRST HQ, "I think that the the on-the-field performance exhibited by the teams that are already doing well (in that part of FIRST), is good enough. I don't mean to say that better performance would be harmful; but if I'm right, I do mean that across the globe, for the teams that aren't struggling, improving the on-the-field part of FRC should not be pulling time, attention, and other resources away from the other parts of FRC.".

Another way to say it would be that I (and Mathking, and JWeston, and Jon Stratis, and ...) believe that FIRST intends for the teams' robots to be a means, not an end.

Does the above close up those disconnects?

I don't think I'm writing anything now or before that is substantially different from what Mathking, JWeston, Kressley, Stratis, and others have written here and elsewhere. I suppose write I it more often than them - and thereby make myself a lightning rod - but I don't think that I'm out of synch with them or the many others who share the "means, an not an end" viewpoint.

Blake

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Bottom Line: What will inspire your students the most?

In our case, we raise and spend enough money to make two robots, give the students as much leadership as they can handle, and are satisfied if we can meet all of the game challenges squarely. Your Mileage May Vary.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

It's pretty obvious that this and many related questions (such as the Stop Build day thread) divide people into two camps. I've always thought of these two camps in different terms than people have mentioned here. We all, more or less, agree that the mission of FIRST is the I: inspiration. However, we tend to divide on whether to prioritize what I would call "micro-inspiration" or macro-inspiration".

Micro-inspiration is inspiration on a small scale (i.e. individual students). People who prioritize micro-inspiration are focused on a per-student basis. These people for the most part have leaned away from prioritizing competitive success as they believe, at a certain point, the resources required to gain more success on the field could be better utilized in other parts of the team's organization that would yield better returns on inspiring the individual students on their team. Someone posted in one of the Stop Stop Build threads about how they polled their local teams, and nearly all of the professional educators wanted to retain the Stop Build day. This did not surprise me, teachers are obviously going to prioritize micro-inspiration as this is their career and their passion.

Macro-inspiration, on the other hand, is inspiration at a larger scale. This is caused by programs that go out and inspire entire communities or large groups of people across the country. Initiatives such as getting robots on Meet the Fosters or Degrassi, televised events such as VEX Worlds on ESPN or the MSC production and Robozone. Things that cause a pretty significant portion of people in a metropolitan area such as Detroit to at least be aware that interscholastic robotics exists and is a thriving program that they have the option to join. However, if you solely focus on these large-scale initiatives, you forget the heart of the program; the students.

These two are NOT independent. Macro-inspiration depends on micro-inspiration. You cannot inspire communities without inspiring individual people. In addition, you cannot build an organization that could inspire a community unless the members of that organization are inspired themselves to work towards making that difference.

Personally, I think FRC is a pretty poor choice for micro-inspiration. Not because it isn't effective at this, but because the resources required are huge compared to alternative programs. I'm sure people will post individual counterexamples to this, but I believe that for most organizations, you could take the resources required to inspire 30 kids with FRC and inspire more with FTC or VEX. At the same time, I think it is much harder to get marco-inspiration with FTC or VEX, simply because of the scale of the robots. VEX is putting tons of effort into this, evident by getting a spot on ESPN recently, but I'll dare to say that I'm worried they could be getting close to their potential in this regard. It's just easier to impress the general community when you have large robots move with fluid and grace, performing actions that humans couldn't possibly do.

Personally, I think the people who keep trying to change FRC to be more micro-inspiration friendly are just trying to use the wrong tool for the job, and are trying to modify the tool for a purpose it is not suited for.

I agree with this completely. Google Rich's name, and I think you'll quickly find that he is probably one of the most qualified people to speak on this issue. If you read the rest of the post from which this quote came (which you can get to by clicking on the little blue and white arrow), you can see that him and I probably have differing opinions on this issue (which I fully expect due to his background as an educator), but he acknowledges the viewpoint I hold. The scenario where nearly everyone is happy is when FRC is the elite flagship program that spreads the word and generates macro-inspiration, with FTC/VEX/VEX IQ/FLL teams that follow up and provide micro-inspiration to a much, much larger number of students. These two aspects TOGETHER is what will create a successful robotics inspiration organization.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

It is about the robot!

The robot is what we use to trick the kids into learning skills they will use the rest of their lives and the community into funding the program.

This simplest way to understand this is to think about what your team (if you have one) does for public displays.

Does your team display graphs of ACT scores, graduation rates, or how many students go to college?

Or, do you display your robots and then tell the people drawn to it about the success of your program?

We have never been asked to set up a presentation detailing how much we raised a students ACT score or improved the graduation rate. They usually ask for a robot instead, and we tell them about our program in the mean time.

Knufire, I think the micro/macro description you give is good. I have told people more than once that the scale, size, speed, etc... for FRC is better at that kind of inspiration than other robotics competitions. If I read your post correctly, you aren't saying that it bad for micro inspiration, just inefficient because of cost. I think that depends on the size of your team. We have two FTC teams now. To serve the number of kids we have on our FRC team we would need seven or eight more. And it would cost more than FRC. And there would be many fewer relationships built amongst our team members, both students and mentors.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Yup, that is exactly the point I was trying to convey. And cost does not just mean monetary cost, but any other resource (time, capital, etc) that goes into running the FRC team as well. Depending on the amount and type of these resources at your disposal, different programs or combinations of programs might be the ideal scenario for you.

I just think the important thing to realize is to not just look at FRC in a vacuum. So many of these debates about the direction and future in FRC go nowhere solely because none of the people arguing want the same thing out of this program. A one-size-fits-all program simply cannot exist. In my opinion, FRC should go towards where it has an inherent advantage (macro-inspiration) over other programs. This direction (which specifics on is not really in the scope of this thread) might reduce FRC's ability for micro-inspiration, but I see this as an acceptable trade-off because there are several other programs that still excel in this area.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Knufire,

I think you might be thinking too narrowly about how just how powerfully an FRC team can perform that micro-outreach.

Using microcontrollers like Arduinos and Intel Edisons, plus all the inexpensive bells and whistles gadgets (including FTC and VEX parts) you can buy to go with them, an FRC team can connect with school clubs, school classes, scouting groups, public events, etc; and give students and adults a fun, hands-on taste of STEM. If they hustle, maybe they can connect with 25 to 50% of their young(er) peers; demystifying STEM for them.

Along the way they can point out that while their bigger robot is a more complicated machine, any single piece of it is no more complicated than the small microcontroller-based gadgetry the audience is learning to build/use.

Annually the team can also build a new FRC bot and enjoy competing with it.

My point is that FRC teams can have the best of both worlds, and aren't stuck in any one swimlane, or locked into any one method of accomplishing their goal(s). Sure, FRC robots and competitions are expensive, but FRC's not about the robot (and competitions). It's about outreach and culture change, and it uses robots and competitions (and Arduinos, and ...), along with other fun/exciting tools, to get the job done.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

My argument had nothing to do with the people participating in the competition and telling them what they should or shouldn't do.

All I stated was that FRC robots require lots of resources to make, are good for macro-level inspiration, but might not be as efficient in terms of micro-inspiration per resource than other programs. You suggested the same, use other programs and materials... ...to generate micro-inspiration.

If we agree that FRC and these other programs have separate roles in this strategy, then lets not try to make FRC just like all these other competitions. Let it become something that is good at macro-inspiration and let the other programs and materials be used for micro-inspiration.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

FIRST has its mission, its strategic goals, and a competition vehicle in getting students (and mentors, volunteer, teachers, etc. also) there.

Our school community has its own vision and mission, which has changed over the years since we started participating in FIRST. There are some parts of it that is similar to FIRST, and some parts that are different.
What binds us to FIRST is our participation in the FRC competition and following the logistics and rules associated with the competition.

As a program, we have the freedom to pick and choose how we want FRC to help us meet our own goals and objectives. We get to decide how to inspire our own students. For some, the FRC competition is building the best robot they can as their primary objective. Wanting to stop the stop build day because of that reason should be respected by others as their own prerogative.

There are teams that do a lot of STEM-related outreach events that has nothing to do with FIRST.
Shouldnt teams get to decide what and how they use FIRST as their vehicle for inspiring their own students?

In the end, I wonder what the survey hopes to accomplish.
Is it to see what the majority of teams want?
Will FIRST make changes to the stop build day based on their own philosophical changes, if any, given the survey feedback?

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

As a team that is routinely faced with the task of integrating FRC students who come from other FRC teams we have to deal with a lot of "my old team did it this way" or "my old team didn't do XYZ". Throw in some well-intentioned but often misguided attempts by their former mentors to impart their own wisdom and it can lead to fun situations.

As teams, I think it would be good to be more accepting of the culture of other teams. Every team is different. Just a thought.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

OK - I think I see what you are getting at.

Sounds like you are describing the possibility of a radical shift in the reason for creating an FRC team (largely removing the parts that currently emphasize grass roots action). It's not implausible, and I can imagine a future in which FIRST decides to push FRC in a direction like that, but when I look into my very murky crystal ball, the probability seems awfully low for at least another decade.

Blake

PS: I don't think what I described was an attempt to make FRC into anything. I thought I was describing current FRC, implemented well. If what I described sounded different, that wasn't my purpose.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

We were talking about this thread this morning, and I really do think that there is no difference in how effectively FRC provides that micro-level inspiration compared to the other programs. It is true that if you only have a few kids then it might not be the most cost effective way to provide that inspiration, but I don't think it is in any way less effective.

Blake, I think you were on target in a description of what a well implemented FRC team can/should be.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Is FIRST about the robot? No, its about Inspiration and Recognition in Science and Technology, as the self-defining name states.

Are FIRST's robotics competitions (FLL, FTC, FRC) about the robot? Yes, since they are all competitions involving robots that represent a team in which the performance of the robot affects the team directly.

Can a robotics competition feature non-robotics elements? Sure, and these ones definitely do. The whole litany of awards which emphasize attaining a goal either in conjunction with or superior to robot design and performance is exactly how FIRST adds said elements to their competitions.

What should your FIRST team focus on more? Whatever the heck it thinks it should focus on. My personal recommendation is tread the line in-between to reap the benefits and experiences of both robot-focused and non-robotics-focused competition.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Hi Blake,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not going back to look at what you posted before to find if there are inconsistencies. You already stated what you believe in and I believe you. But if I catch you saying that in the future, I will PM you.:)
It is my belief also that the robot is the hook. It is the means and not the end so there is no disagreement there. I think your assessment in our difference is correct. Whatever I do, I always put in my all. I don't stop and say it is good enough. I don't teach my students to do just good enough. We set goals and we do our best to achieve them.
I was taught that there are four types of tasks: important and urgent, important and not urgent, not important and urgent, and not important and not urgent. This is how I prioritize. Outreach and robot performance are both important. It is not necessary to say if one is more important than the other. They both need to be done. So if there is a situation when I have to pick one over the other because of limited time, I need to see which one is more urgent. If it is before bag day or a competition, getting the robot ready is more urgent, outreach is not as urgent as we have the rest of the year to do. During the off season, outreach is more urgent especially when there are only a short window of opportunities. Working on off-season robot project to improve our capabilities and competitiveness on the field is not urgent. Actually we almost never do those things. As you can see, it is a very simple decision.
This is how I prioritize things. I am not going to tell anybody how they should prioritize their time. I hope you will do the same. Oftentimes when there is a thread where people discuss how to make the competitions more competitive overall, how to bring the bottom up etc., you gave people the impression that you are telling them their head is in the wrong place, that off the field performance is more important than on the field performance. Maybe that is not your intent but your tone said otherwise.
Thank you again for your reply. We should definitely chat further.

Ed

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Personally i think FIRST is about the robot, well kind of its about seeing how other people think of a problem and how they solved said problem, I know I'm probably not the only one who jumped out of their seat when 330 dunked the ball during one of their Einstein matches, I would have never even thought of that but they did and that's what FIRST is about, building a robot that is good and breaks the meta a little bit.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

FIRST is not about the robot. Period.

Yesterday, my daughter who just graduated in the spring and started college this fall is taking Pre-Calc at college. The instructor is simply awful. To be successful, she goes to the Math Lab for tutoring.

Before I go on, you need some back ground. I m the coach of team 3641, The Flying Toasters. Both of my daughters did not like robotics, but were really into horses, or Equestrian. We have horses at home on the farm. I respect that they like working with horses, and support them with their choice. I honestly have to say, I wish that they were into robots, but again, I respect them and have always supported their decision. And they supported me in my decision to coach robotics.

Now back to yesterday. My daughter was in the Math lab for tutoring when she saw a young man come in with a chicken emblem and 217 on his shirt. Without hesitation, instinctively, she yelled out "Thunder Chickens!" The whole room went silent. The young man was dumbfounded by the recognition, but quickly struck up a conversation with my daughter. In seconds, most of the people in the room were asking about robotics, FIRST, and was really curious.

My daughter was there for tutoring as she had a test that night. Her first test of college. She was nervous, felt ill prepared, and was working herself to being sick. Following her conversation with the young man from 217, she was so excited and geeked, that it carried her through her test that night as she couldn't wait to tell about the experience.

This is what FIRST is about. Human connections. Inspiration. A feeling of belonging. A brotherhood & sister hood. Being excepted.

A robot is just a robot, it is like a drill, like a wire crimper, like a computer. Just a tool. Humans are what we are all about; it is what Dean is about, it is what Woodie is about, it is what GP is about, it is what Chairman's is about, it is what Mentors are about.

Lets look at this another way. Our team is only 6 years old. Our first two years were ugly. We, as a team, did not start getting better and achieving until we befriended other teams, made connections, networking, and sought out working with other teams. When we go to a competition, we go there looking for our friends (other teams & their members). and then we play with robots.

If I had limited time and needed to make a choice between finishing the robot or inspiring a person, what would I do? Simple. Inspire the person first, stay up through the night finishing the robot. Sleep and FIRST are not synonyms. LOL.

FIRST: We build people. Robots are only the vehicle, the connection.
If it was all bout the robot or the game, we'd call it football.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

" I know I'm probably not the only one who jumped out of their seat when 330 dunked the ball during one of their Einstein matches"

The coolest part of FIRST is that we celebrate others successes. We know how much blood, sweat, and gears, it takes to develop the robot that when we see others do well, we are happy for them. Likewise, when we a team win an award, such as the chairmans, we know how rewarding it is for the time and resources committed in outreaches and helping/inspiring others.

This will be my 7th year as head coach. My kids are graduated. What drives me to put in the 1500 hours a year is simply the people. When a season is over, when the next kick-off starts, the last robot fades into memory. BUT, the people I get to meet, work with year after year, the teams I get ot know, and the lasting relationships. that is why I stay with FIRST. I can always build robots in my workshop at home. But it's more fun doing it with others!

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Well said Weberr. I tell people all the time that of all the subjects I have taught, sports I have coached and activities I have participated in, FRC is the most transformative for kids. A large part of the that is changing their level of technical skill and confidence. But the biggest single driver of that transformation is the relationships kids develop with their peers and mentors. The feeling of belonging and shared purpose is powerful. The robot is an absolutely essential means to that end, but it is still just the means.

A coaching friend of mine says this: "If you having your athletes work hard, learning and doing their best is not your primary motivation as a coach then you will spend a lot of your career unhappy." He says that in the context of doing well versus winning. It means that if you derive your satisfaction from winning, you are setting yourself up to be unhappy. Sometimes you perform really well, and still lose. Sometimes you don't perform well and you still win. Which won should make you happier? When we lose a match in which we played well, I know that my most important task is to build on what we did well. The kids need to see that even if I am unhappy that we lost I am more happy that they did well. Because I want them to be resilient and to be focused on doing their best.

It is way to easy to be consumed by the loss. Who among us hasn't seen at least one team lose a close match in FRC where they played really well and they walk away angry? Most of the time when I see this I see a mentor who is just as obviously (at least to me) upset at and focused on the loss.

If you as a mentor derive your satisfaction from winning, your students/athletes are going to realize that and internalize it. The same way they will if you derive your satisfaction from performing well, from the kids learning and having a positive experience, they will internalize that as well. Please remember this.

We strive to build the best robot we can. Some years we do a better job than others. On the average, the quality of our robots is improving. We are always trying to improve our technical skills and add new skills. We make eliminations most of the time, but we have never won a regional or an off-season event. We have been close, so tantalizingly close. But we have not won. While I really do want to win a competition, I certainly don't think our team has in any way been a failure. In terms of the number and quality of our students and the experiences they had I am quite confident we have done as good a job as many teams with more on the field success. Just as I am sure there are teams with less on the field success who have done at least as good job inspiring their students.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

My friends and I can play football with a water bottle.
We can play ultimate frisbee with a paper plate.
We can play basketball with wads of paper and a trash can.

Our team has played robots with humans, with spools of wire, with chess pieces on a board, with dry erase markers, with LEGOs.

Yes, the robots are central to FRC. It would be markedly different without them, just as a Steelers-Packers game would be different if they used a Gatorade bottle instead of a football.

Yes, elegantly designed and eloquently explained and brilliantly strategized robots make our collective mouths drop.

But it's not about the robot.

TSIMFD, not RAMFD.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

FIRST is absolutely about the robot.

Without the Robot there is no competition

Without Competition there are no teams

Without Teams there are no students and Mentors working together

Without Students and Mentors Working together there is little learning

Without learning we aren't helping kids become the thinkers and doers that we need.

Without thinkers and doers our human race is in deep trouble.

Transitive property suggests without the Robot the human race is in deep trouble. FIRST is about the Robot.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Our Robot Overlords will find great humor in the irony of this statement in the future when they take over....

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

Just in case that wasn't written entirely tongue-in-cheek (I did look for winky emoticons) ...

Is that chain of statements equivalent (equivalent enough) to saying that without the Pinewood Derby there are no Cub Scout packs; and consequently no Cub Scouts working with Pack Leaders (mentors); and etc.?

Blake
PS: As always, I welcome our Robot Overlords :], and look forward to serving in their administration.

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

I would say it is not an equivalent statement. Many packs don't do pinewood derbys. If you dropped pinewood derbys completely you wouldn't significantly change the program. Where as if you dropped robots out of First or changed from a competition to an exhibition, you would have a very different program. Not to say First isn't about more than the robot.

Oh, forgot my smiley :]

Re: Is FIRST about Robot?
 

I think I handled this with my football-bottle analogy.

Edit: smiley. :o