Re: Please read R17
 

Exactly! If your heart is in the right place, and your goal = FIRST goal then you would not need all these rules and regulations.

Its like asking, how many times can a man beat his wife before she has the right to divorce him? If you love your wife you would never even think about beating her, and if you dont love her you should not be married in the first place.

FIRST competitions are a microcosm of real world engineering projects. Real projects have good and bad aspects, problems that must be dealt with, and lots of things that dont make any sense from your side of the fence. Ditto FIRST.

You literally cannot serve two masters. You cannot say "this year Im going to do the best I can to inspire these students to be engineers" and with the same breath then say "and this year Im going to do everything I can to win the championship".

They are opposite goals, opposite directions. You run toward one only by turning your back on the other.

The game is arbitrary and completely meaningless. The rules are arbitrary.

The student's are real!

Re: Please read R17
 

"This year i'm going to inspire these students to be engineers, by showing them how to do everything we can to win the championship. By showing them how to play the game put before us, the engineering challenge given us, I will inspire them."


The mechanism given us to inspire the students IS the competition. I'm always shocked when people rant that being competitive and striving to win is against the goals of FIRST.

By striving to achieve more, we grow and learn together. We learn to be competitive, in struggling to achieve more we are forced to evolve and learn more. The students see this, and they understand; to be competitive, I need to be better. To be better, I need to work hard and learn more.

The desire to compete drives them to work.
This desire, inspires.

I've been there.
-JV

An athlete who is inspired to be more competitive works harder at being an athlete. A FIRST student who is inspired to be more competitive works harder at learning.

Re: Please read R17
 

I am in John and Paul's camp on this one.

In my mind, you get 90% of the impact of FIRST on individual participants from just this one thing: Students & Mentors Building a robot and competing with it.

I believe that this can be accomplished with 10% of the effort that FIRST requires.

So what are we buying with the remaining 90% of the money and effort that we spend on FIRST?

In MY mind at least, it is silly to argue that what we buy is 10% more impact on the individuals that are already on a FIRST team -- it is a bad deal isn't it? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend that 90% by funding & supporting 9 more teams?

TO ME, the balance of the effort we spend only makes sense if we are talking about cultural change. I really DO think that much of what FIRST does that cost money and effort IS necessary to make the cultural impact we a working toward.

So... ...I think it is incumbant on folks that guide FIRST to measure everything we do (beyond the minimum that gets us that 90% impact on the participants) based on the impact to the larger community not on the impact on the members of the teams.

That is why I think that the focus on fairness to rookie teams, or teams without Engineering support, or teams with non-prime zipcodes.

The NCAA isn't fair, yet teams keep playing.

We are talking about changing the world... ...if changing the world requires rules that unfairly hamper or help my team, what of it?

I think it is a tradeoff we all should be okay.

Joe J.

Re: Please read R17
 

I have to completely disagree with you John.

Many HS sporting programs are all about winning competitions. And many HS athletes sit on the bench the entire season and NEVER get to touch the ball, unless their team is way ahead and their actions on the field dont matter anymore.

If I sit down and map out a plan for a HS team to win the championship this year, and then I map out a plan to show every student on the team what its like to be an engineer, I come up with two very different paths.

If your plan to inspire the students involves having a winning team then what happens if you dont win?

I know this discussion happens every year. In my opinion the thing that makes FIRST worth the time and effort is this: Professional people are opening their doors, and finding the time out of their busy lives to show HS students what their lives will be like if they decide to follow the same career path they have chosen. Engineers dont always create the best products, or the best systems. We dont have to. Engineering is a way of thinking, its a way of life, its a way of putting up the next few spans that takes humanity from where it is to where it can be.

For engineers, if you put a man on the moon, or you land a rover on Mars, or you create a new product that makes everyone in your company a millionaire you are not 'done'. Likewise if you have failures and setbacks, if your Mars lander crashes in the last 100 feet of its decent, if your company folds up and you have to start over, you have not lost.

Engineers solve problems. Engineers make the world a better place. You dont have to come up with the perfect - winning solution or the best answer every single time to be a successful engineer. We always strive for the best, knowing we can never really get there.

Its a journey, its a path, its a way of life.

Re: Please read R17
 

Who said anything about needing to win to inspire?
My plan to inspire students involves having a team that tries it's hardest to win. Work as hard as you can to be competitive. I don't need to win, I just need to show these kids what it is like to strive to win.

If I went into the season saying "we're not looking to win, we're just here to have fun." Then why should they care? If I tell them "we're going to try as hard as we can to win, and we're going to have fun doing it." Then they're gonna be psyched. The goal is to ship the best possible product you can.

We always told our kids "Try as hard as you can to win, but if you don't... start working for next year." One of the most annoying phrases I repeated to our kids was "The cool thing about working hard, is you can always work harder."

It is also about TRYING to create the best product you can. If you're not trying to produce the best product you can... what exactly are you doing? Why would I hire, or want to work with an engineer who doesn't try his best?

We're given our problem every year in early January. We solve it to the best of our abilities together as mentors and students. We compare solutions on the playing field. If you're not trying to win, what sort of solution do you have to the problem? Who built a tetra capper this season?

You don't have to come up with the perfect-winning solution, or best answer every single time; but you'd better be trying every single time. Or else... why bother striving at all?

Compete hard, have fun, come back next year and get better.

The "journey, path, and way of life" involve doing your very best using the skills we're given. Or else, what kind of life are you living?
Aim High.
-JV

Re: Please read R17
 

I agree with this, for the students. The game is there to be played, and played competitively - for the students

but not for the mentors. The mentors must have their heads in a different place.

Lets take a quiz:

1. When the mentors get together what do they talk about? The robot or the students? Do you discuss whether the robot design is everything you want it to be, how its progressing.... or do you discuss how well each student on the team is interacting, engaging, getting exposed to new aspects of engineering? Do you talk about ways the team can build better robots, or do you talk about ways to split up the team to reach more students, or start new teams at new schools?

2. When you assign students to subteams, do you put them where they already have the most experience and can make the most contribution, or do you put them on a subteam they have not been on before, knowing they will fumble for a while but will learn new things in the process?

3. When you have extra funds, do you buy new equipment that will make the team more competitive (and thereby more inspirational) or do you open the team to more students, plan to attend more regionals so the team has more appeal to new students.

4. When you are making robot design tradeoff decisions, do you choose complex designs that are more competitive, but that will require engineers and machinists to design and fabricate, or do you choose less demanding designs that the students can grasp, design and fabricate on their own?

5. When you have free time to talk with students, at regionals for example, one on one, what do you talk about? the robot? the contest? or the student, their experience with the program, their plans for the future?

Each persons answers to these questions will tell you where their head is (and you cant have your head in two places at the same time - if your answer is 'both', then which do you do first?).

The game is there, and its there to be played. For students the game itself is a big part of the appeal of FIRST. Ask a student what they did in FIRST and they will start talking about the robot and the game.

Ask a mentor what they did in FIRST, the robot should only be a footnote.

Re: Please read R17
 

Ken and John - great discussion you sound like there is more common ground with what you are both saying than you may think.
Students before robots - agreed
The journey is never the same for anyone, how you get there is half the fun -as long as you do get there (both of you have obviously gotten there - too bad your enthusiasm isn't being shared this year with students on a team - I noticed neither is associated with a team, can we adopt you??)
We have slipped into a very philosophical debate here - although linked to R17, I can't help but feel this thread is slipping away.
R17 - the reason this thread was started has brought up many good points, like Paul C has pointed out, keep your opinions somewhere safe and make sure that you bring them back out when the opportunity arises this spring and summer.
Until then, everyone try and abide by the rule - as difficult as it may be.

Re: Please read R17
 

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KenWittlief again."

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

I split this from the <R17> thread, in an attempt to bring that thread back on track.

Sorry for the distraction.

-JV

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

One of the things I try to teach the kids is that this is a competition, and the goal of a competition is to win. However, it is what you do to achieve that goal that defines the person, and not achieving the goal itself.


If I inspired 1 student, got 1 student to start questioning how things work, then I consider it a successful season. Even if our robot never competes. Because, in the long run, I will have helped the next generation.

The robot (and the competition) is nothing more than a vehicle to assist in inspiring the students. Anyone who tells you different, in my opinion, is being shortsighted.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

I love this debate, every time it comes up!

I will add my $0.02 here because I think that I view this situation a little differently than some.

I am not in FIRST to inspire the 20 some odd students on my team.

To me, if that were the extent of the goal, it would be an extremely inefficient use of all our time. My goal in FIRST is to inspire all of the students on all of the teams. The way to do that is to "contribute to the excellence of the event". We do that by competing, as a team, to the best of our abilities. The students that I have known in FIRST over my 8 years of involvement have been far more inspired by the competition and some of the jaw dropping creations of "elite" teams than by anything that we made ourselves. I will continue to drive 703 - Team Phoenix to be one of the "elite" teams because I want us to have that same impact on the thousands of students. I want all of you to do the same. That is how we will convince young people that engineering is "cool".

Matt B.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

I doubt that a single correct response will ever come of this - but I do believe that each team can do things differently, say things differently, accomplish their goals differently - and STILL collectively drive cultural change as a by product of the FIRST experience.

Rather than argue that what others teams does is wrong or that you disagree with them, why not just let them do it their way and walk away knowing that if their way works for them AND helps accomplish the goal of FIRST - more power to them. It's not hurting your effort towards meeting a common goal, is it?

See, I believe each team has a completely different set of constraints to deal with, and what/how we do things is meant to address those. They are not meant to address yours - yours are different.

Our kids are different, they come from different backgrounds, different cultures, different sets of circumstances and therefore everyone is probably starting at a different point in the process of changing the culture.

So, when I look back and ask have we changed the culture of the students/community towards recognition of science and technology - I think we have, both within the school and within the larger community.
Then, I look at the bigger picture and ask - collectively has this also been accomplished regionally, combining the efforts of all of the participating schools in the region - and I can say yes it has (even though each team did things differently)

And, this process is repeated at the national and even global levels.

Ultimately, it is the collective whole that will determine the outcome. Getting caught up in the details of why it has to be done or thought of a certain way really has little bearing other than causing hard feelings. That is why the arguements over collaboration and competition are a distraction that takes people's attention away from the real goal of FIRST.

Just my thoughts - I hope this discussion can be a way to bring teams together rather than having the differences push them apart

Mike

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Mike,
I agree with you WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

This is exactly the crux of the matter. Running a FIRST team successfully is a difficult thing, and every team is different (many variables involved). If any team finds a way that works well for them that is great.

However, (as you state) they must respect that there are other ways to run a team as well, and that all of these contribute to the global culture change. Success comes on many levels, and in varying degrees. Success on a given team, in a given situation. Success of the program, in the world.

I take serious issue when I am told "my head is in the wrong place" for focusing on the competitive aspects, and how to use these to inspire our youth. I was merely trying to defend and justify my methods. I will not stand idly by while someone publicly declares my way of doing things is wrong.

I suppose, as Paul so bluntly pointed out, this entire debate is academic for me. I am not currently on a team. (Unfortunately I was forced to make a difficult decision concerning this, and the result of that decision has me on the path I'm on.) However, my arguments and words are not for those who detract my methods, but for those who may be listening to those detractors.

I feel the competition IS important.
I wanted to shout as loud as I could that it is okay to want to be competitive. It is okay to go out and strive for gold. It is okay to look at the super-robots with wonder, and awe, and aspire to be that good. Maybe if someone else had spoken out, I wouldn't have felt the need to.

Live and let live.
I won't bother you, if you'll stop telling me that trying to win doesn't matter.
Your method isn't wrong, but forcing your method on me... IS.

-JV

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Just thought I'd chip in my 2 cents as I was inspired by my mentors.

I started my FIRST career as a member of team 229 back in 2001. When I first joined the team I thought the program was a great program for me because it would allow me to see what engineers actually do. Well the first couple of years i wasn't inspired, and then in 2004 after a 'year of learning', our team won a regional. That moment in time, was one of the most inspiring moments in my FIRST career so far.

Why was it so inspiring?

Well we aimed to win, and we did win. But that was not the major reason. The major reason it was so inspiring for me and some of my friends on the team was that we had accomplished our goals that FIRST gave us. We had not only won that year, but we were inspired by our mentors. We were inspired because a robot that we had jointly made with our college mentors had won our very first regional. How can someone not be inspired by what they make winning?

Then in 2005, the high school students were inspired by us finishing in the finals at both of our regionals. I had been inspired by my mentors to become an engineer, because I was able to work with them on the whole robot. Everything from designing it to building it, the high school students were their.

So I would have to say that students are inspired no matter how they place, however winning can add to the inspiration you give to the high school students.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

From what I saw here, nobody said that Competition wasn't important, or tried to force their opinion on anybody else ... they simply stated that competition wasn't the MOST IMPORTANT thing about FIRST, and it is not. FIRST, For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. The name itself says nothing about beating the snot out of another team during a competition, It does, however say something about inspiring People. Competition is a very small part of FIRST, 80% of it is about learning from professionals how to best fulfill the role of an engineer, so that students are hopefully inspired,and continue their lives as an engineer.

You don't have to try to win, all you have to do is try to do your best.



P.S "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KenWittlief again."

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

*******************Advanced Warning**********************
************************************************** ****
** I work myself up into a lather on this one. Read it at your own risk. **
************************************************** ****
*******************Advanced Warning**********************

I raise my voice in opposition.

While I respect a lot of folks who have other views on this subject, I could not disagree more.

The GOALS of FIRST have nothing to do with a robot competition. The MEANS that FIRST uses is competition.

If it was not for the magic of teams trying to compete, and yes, to win, FIRST would be like 100 other programs that are trying their best and having some impact but not the impact FIRST is having and certainly not the impact FIRST aspires to.

I will say it again, I believe 90% of the impact of FIRST (on the individuals) can be had with just Kids and Mentors designing and building a robot and competing in a game, which, we can accomplish for 10% of the money, effort and energy we are doing today with FRC (less if you talk about using VEX kits).

Why are we killing ourselves doing 10 times the work and only getting 10% more individual impact? I think it is because we aspire to impacting more than our individual kids on our individual teams.

Let's do a thought experiment: Let's image we are going to start introducing kids to basketball the way our culture introduces kids to engineering.

And so it would go. NOBODY would aspire to grow up to be a basketball player.

But that is NOT how we introduce basketball to kids. Instead:

1. We show them the NBA.
2. We make heroes of Michael and Koby and Shack and Yao.
3. And then kids start to imagine that they could one day be like these guys and then...
4. ...they go into a room with no windows and learn how to not to move their feet unless they are bouncing a ball...

I cannot speak for others but I can tell you that I got involved in FIRST precisely because it was NOT the Brainiac Olympiad or the Future Communities of Tomorrow or the Science Fair Superbowl on Steriods.

No it wasn't anything like those. FIRST had aspirations! It was going to make kids want to go out and spend a lot of time doing hard (and often boring) stuff so that ...what?

So that they could BE IN THE GAME! It was about showing them the beauty and the grace that IS science and engineering. Of course, the kids were not going to be able to modify involute geartooth profiles or solve differential equations or implement observer based optimal control theory any more than they were going to slam 10inch ball through a hoop 10ft in the air... ...but FIRST was gong to give them the vision of what it was like...

and that vision would get them through the hard, boring stuff needed to obtain the goal.

In short, competition was the means to the end of cultural change.

That is the FIRST that I signed up for. The one that I think has a chance of being worth all the time and money and energy we all put into it.

Joe J.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Sorry in advance if some of this does not fit the thread topic. I am a terrible writer but felt a need to throw my thoughts into the ring.

That was just to perfect an explanation for me not to repost it in hopes everyone would read it again.

Now a quick question...

As a student, would you be inspired if you saw that your mentors did not care about how well your robot worked or how well you placed in competition?

I personally, along with many of my friends, would not and could not be inspired by someone who does not share our enthusiasm toward building the most competitive and awe inspiring robot possible. This is precisely how people such as John, Chris, Joe, Paul, Andy, Raul, Ken... have reached me. They share our enthusiasm toward the design and build of the robot, along with how well it competes. They all want to build teh most competitive robot.

If your team has the facilities, and the engineering brain power to create a robot to rival 111, 65, 71, 217... why wouldn't you? Should you take the time to include students in the design process? OF course, involvement is key. But to stand back and let a student design and build a mechanism or drive train that will blow up in their face is a terrible idea. You may say that is inspiration, I say it is an easy way to discourage a student. It's important to find that median point where the student design, the mentor steps in and helps to point out the flaws, and then the student re-designs. That is how you inspire a student to succeed and move forward into an engineering profession.

JT



"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JVN again." and again... and again... etc.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Joe Johnson again."

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

The competition is What catches someone's eye... It is NOT what inspires them to be an engineer. I would like you to name a dozen of these "100 other orginizations" that don't do as well as FIRST, and if you can, I would bet money that you couldn't name 25.
Do you have ANY IDEA how many people are impacted by working with engineers and seeing how they do things? A HELL-OF-A-LOT MORE than those who are impacted by the competition itself... I, for one would much rather build a robot and not compete that compete and not build a robot. It all goes back to the saying "It's not all about winning", which was said by a far better man than myself...
Once again... Competition is the ATTENTION GRABBER, not the body of FIRST.

It is about having fun during 6 weeks of build with your friends and mentors, it's not about getting the gold.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

After some deal of contemplation...My take...

----------------------WARNING------------------------------
Long rambling post. Do not read (or attempt to) if under the influence of alcohol, sedative drugs, or MAOI's. You will pass out.
----------------------WARNING--------------------------------------




1. An inspired person has nothing more than the want/dream of something they feel is meaningful.

2. Wants and dreams are incited by rewards, or expected rewards, alone. Without a benefit of some sort, humans do not progress in any fashion. Rocks and raw mammoth.

3. Competition is a very effective, perhaps the most effective way of reaching young, busy, wandering teens. Without an aim, we are easily distracted. The goal of bettering a peer is inherent in our phsycology, and thusly is something that keeps us occupied.

4. FIRST gives us the chance to better our peers, in an engineering atmosphere that encourages us to become engineers. Very effective. Competition keeps us motivated.

-First realization: FIRST is effective as a career influencing activity because it is very real-world, and includes something to keep its members motivated. Competition.

5. People, when engaged in competition are more fruitful when they occasionally triumph. People that win consistently become used to it, and as a result become complacent. But more hurt, sometimes are the teams that are the underdogs, and consistently lose. Sometimes, they become discouraged and lose interest. Big no-no for FIRST, which is trying to inspire all people, not just the winners.

6. Teams are the cable that holds FIRST competition static. When one cable pulls tighter than others, cables break, and/or the structure shifts, a bad thing.

-Realization #2: People are engaged in something when they compete, but after huge, seemiongly unrecoverable losses, they can lose interest and move on.


So, it's reasonable to say that competition is vital to FIRST, and to keep it strong, all teams must compete to their greatest ability. However, to keep losing teams involved and engaged, its the responsibility of the best teams to "Bring The Bottom Up!" by offering immense support, friendship, and a big one, alliance selctions. By bringing outwardly, less capable teams into the fray, you level the field, and encourage them. If everyone in FIRST could hold to this, to an extent, we would have a tighter bond, with more effective results.

So, good teams keep playing really strong, but remember the underdog! Competition is what keeps FIRST alive, but in order to have effective competition, we all must be active players. If we aren't, Joe's example comes into play: The better teams are the better players, and everyone else become discouraged and goes home.

I apologize for the rambling. Take it is as you will, nuke it from space, etc.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Cody, Why can't we be impacted by both? Why can't we be impacted my the time we spend designing and building the robot as much as we are impacted my hearing thousands of people cheer for our robot in the finals or walking up to receive an award for the robot we have built?

To compete without building a robot... would you please explain this to me?

Competition is, as was said by many people greater than both of us, a means for FIRST to convey it's message. Tell a first year team member that you are going to build a robot that isn't going to compete, let me know how long it takes for him to walk out of the room or off of the team. That is not inspiration at work.

Your partially right, it isn't about getting the gold... it's about building the best robot that you believe you can.

^^^^^^^ That is what it is all about.

JT

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Yes a lot of people are impacted by working with engineers. Also remember that John, Jay's and myself were/are high school students who were inspired by people/teams in FIRST.

So now onto my point.

You say that the competition is the attention grabber. I say that the competition is what makes FIRST so great. As Jay said:
The very basis of FIRST is built upon inspiration. Were would we find the inspiration first off to build the robot if we didn't have other robots to compete against. We all know that teams such as Beatty, Wildstand, Huskies, RAGE, Thunderchickens, Cheesypoofs, and many others will turn out robots that are awe inspiring. These are the teams we strive to beat. Our (Mentors and Students alike) desire to be as good as possible. With this desire to be able to beat out these known teams comes the need be competitive.

Can you be competitive and inspire high school students as well. YES! By all means inspiration and competitiveness go hand in hand. If you design a robot that can do absolutely nothing then how inspiring is that to you? Most likely it is realtively inspiring to you, especially if you are a rookie team, because you atleast built a robot.

Now if you build a robot that is completely different than any one else and takes it to the next level, how inspiring is that to someone. For me if you build a robot that I did not picture throughout the season then i am really inspired, and i was inspired by teams such as Wildstand '02, Beatty '01, Hotbot '04, Techno-ticks '03. These teams inspired me and my team mates to build a better robot. They also inspired us because they showed us how some of the simplest, and some of the more complex designs can both win.

Now I personally can still be inspired by teams who do not do well. However it is a lot harder to be inspired by a team who doesn't do well, than by one who does great. i.e. Last year at FLR was the first year that our team really cheered for ourselves. Why? Because our robot that we had built and that could possible win the regional, was very competitive. However if you look at some of the previous years our team really had no spirit, why because we didn't have the competitive edge that we did last year.

So basically once again I am just re-itterating that a competitive robot leads to inspiring more than just your team. No matter what students should be inspiried, but that inspiration should never just come from thier team, it should come from every team in FIRST because they should all strive to be the best in FIRST.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

**********here's to picking apart someone's post because you don't agree with them:ahh: ******

I never said that you couldn't, I only said that MOST of the inspiration for an aspiring engineer comes from the satisfaction of building a working mechanism, not having people cheer for him/her.

If you had the robots pre-made... NASCAR drivers compete without building their cars.

Who has said that? Also, If he's in the room in the first place, he had better be more interested in the mechanical design than competing...

You can build the best robot possible without competing. Who was Dave competing with when he did the MARS robots?

A person that only tries his hardest because he is getting something, is a VERY SHALLOW person indeed.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

I'm going to try and add a little to this debate by telling a short story.

5 years ago, Steve Rourke (Engineering Director at the GM plant where I work and founder of NiagaraFIRST.org) came to me and asked if I'd be interested in helping out a high school robotics team that he was starting out. I was interested, so I went to the first meeting and was really intrigued by the videos he showed.

I was attracted by the high tech robots playing an exciting game. That's what first got me hooked. We had some fun that first year and built (in my mind) the best box stacker in FIRST. I had fun, the kids had fun. Everyone learned a lot and a lot of our students were inspired to pursue futures in science and technology.

The point is that I probably wouldn't have joined if FIRST was just a robotics club. I am a very competitive person, the game is what got me hooked.

I believe there are a lot of other people out there like me.

Now, I'm in my fifth year. I'm still inspiring kids to become "future technology heroes" and getting better at it every year. I think I am making a real difference with these kids, and it's all because I got hooked watching a robot competition.

That's what makes FIRST special!

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

EXACTLY! It got you hooked! If FIRST made the robots for the teams and there was no engineering involved, would you still have joined, or still be part of FIRST right now?

P.S. I fully realize that Derek's post was not meant to support my own point of view, I am simply pointing out than in a post that is on "the other side of the fence" A point that I have been saying is agreed with.


while competition got him hooked; it's the engineering that made him stay.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Cody, nobody is saying anything about engineering not being inspiring, I am interested to see where you got this idea.

Also, FIRST gives you a kitbot, you can evolve off of that. It is well designed and a great base for teams with limited engineering and machining capabilities. But there is still alot of engineering involved in adapting the kit frame or gearbok into a competitive robot.

JT

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

I will be watching this thread, but I am not going to make any more posts, as it has become blatently obvious that very few people are TRYING to understand what I'm writing. The over-all trend of this is becoming an argument, and not a discussion at all. If it is not apparent in the thread, it is wholely apparent in my inbox.


No hard feelings :D, Just trying to sink my teeth in a good debate.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Tossing my $.02 in, as a student on a young team.

If you have no game to compete in, why build the robot at all? It becomes a science fair, a show-and-tell. The inspiration comes BOTH during the build season and the competitions, but none of it would be possible if teams didn't have a REASON to build their robot.

At kick-off, we all see the game for this year. We all think, "I want to play it; how can we make our robot do well at that?" Maybe we don't consciously think that, but isn't that the underlying concept embedded in the minds of every student on every team? We want to do well, and many times we measure how well we have done by the standards set by others - the essence of competition. The competition IS the "hook," as Cody said. The competition gives us something we want, something we want to work for. Doing well, making a robot that functions well (whether that's compared to your own expectations or to what other teams do) is the motivation for all the hard work and all the effort put in during the build season. And that's where a good bit of the learning takes place for students. We learn specifics for whatever projects we're working on, but more importantly we learn concepts that we'll carry for our entire lives. We learn from mistakes, successes, utter failures...but why do these come about? Because we're striving for something, we're striving to accomplish a goal set because there is a competition. The game lets us set the goals for which we strive. From these goals and our desire to reach them comes the end for which FIRST was founded: inspiration. The game provides the structure we need to reach that stage.

I think the inspiration springs from striving to reach a goal. The game lets us set those goals. Without the game, would there be goals? I don't know; there might be. But they wouldn't be as high, and the higher you aim, the more exciting it is. Excitement inspires.

HOWEVER...this is only the way FIRST has inspired me. If the mentors on a team were only concerned with what I was getting out of the experience, I'd still be inspired...in a completely different way. To me, FIRST seems like it's set up so that it's nearly impossible to be involved for much time and not be inspired in some way. Working with mentors will inspire any student interested in engineering; at least it should. I think, though, that the amount of effort, energy, and desire you put into the season as a whole will affect the amount of inspiration you come away with. Having your mentors focus entirely on making sure you get a feel for real-world engineering and making sure you learn as much as possible will inspire you, but will the students put as much effort into it? That's questionable in my mind. I think the mentors should concentrate on showing the students how to be competitive, and on passing on to them the attitude of gracious professionalism even when you lose.

FIRST comes in levels. The individual level, where students lives are changed one-on-one. The team level, where most of the focus seems to go and where a good part of the measurable inspiration comes from. The program level, where teams are inspired by each other and motivated to continue to strive. The Real World level, the end goal for FIRST, where people only slightly involved are touched and inspired by the accomplishments of the entire 1000+ teams. All the levels mean something, and all of them inspire in different ways.

Just like there's no one way to run a team, there's no one way to inspire every single team or student. There doesn't have to be. I know I (and many of my teammates) thrive on the competitive aspect of it, but that should never be the only approach. There should never be one approach to any problem, whether it's shifting the global attitude or taking weight off the robot.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Its somewhat unfortunate that this thread was split off from its original content. In the other thread people, specifically mentors, were getting upset with some of the rule clarifications that FIRST put out in the last few weeks

upset to the point that FIRST was going to 'get an earfull' at the end of the season.

My intention of quoting Dean Karmen's remarks from a few years back was to put things into perspective. Dean was speaking to mentors when he said "when you start to feel like you are involved in a robot building contest then you are in serious trouble!"

I know that I think and see things differently from most people. Maybe I have a weird view of life or engineering or FIRST?

When I was a kid my dad was a technician at Sylvania. He brought home stuff for me to tinker with. I learned to solder wires when I was about 6 or 7, made my own tube amps when I was a teenager, tinkered with transistors and re-invented the tape recorder to figure out how they worked.

When I had to pick a HS I was going to be a technician like my dad, because that was all I knew. The only engineer I had ever met was a guy from work that my dad went fishing with a few times. He had a Chris Craft cabin cruiser, a diesel Mercedes Benz, and a brand new '69 mustang Mach 1. Thats all I knew about him. I dont think I ever actually talked to him.

Fortunately my guidance counselor in 8th grade steered me towards engineering, told me I had the grades in math and science and the aptitude to go to Hutch Tech, the magnet school in Buffalo.

All through HS and all through college I never met, or talked to any engineers! Not until I had graduated and started going on job interviews. I guess you could say the 2nd engineer I knew was me! I look back on that now and it blows my mind!

Most people in our society think engineers are people like Edison, super intelligent beings who think deep thoughts and flashes of inspiration come to them out of the blue. Thats not what engineers do. Thats not who we are.

There is a method and a process - a design cycle we go through that anyone can learn, to take a need, to take a problem, and to create a new solution.

For me, inspiration comes from two things: seeing what someone else has accomplished, and then seeing HOW it is done. For example, go to DKs home, Westwind, for the kickoff meeting and you cannot help but be inspired by his personal accomplishments. Its an awesome experience, a beautiful mansion on the top of a mountain in NH, FILLED with engineers and teachers and corporate leaders from all over the country. The question comes up immediately: HOW did he do this? How did he accomplish all these things.

For me, that is where inspiration comes from. When someone takes the time and energy to show you how its done. It opens a thousand doors, it enables you to choose a destination, to plan a path, to aim for a goal.

I'm not a competitive person. I have a Hobie Cat that I sail every weekend in the summer and Ive never raced it. I have a racing bike and I ride it for fun and exercise. But I am an ambitious person, always doing new things, I have a full time job + my own business. I love the lifestyle of being an engineer, of taking on new problems and creating unique solutions.

The most frustrating thing to me is wanting to do something and not knowing how. Thats why I continue to be involved with FIRST as much as I possibly can. I know what its like to be 14 or 16 and for your future to be nothing but a foggy mystery. I know engineering. I can explain it. I can show students where the path is, and where it leads.

Thats why I'm here.

Thats the only reason I'm here.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Cody, I think I do understand what you're saying, so let me try and address it.


This is definitely true for many individuals. But as Joe and Matt B. said earlier, FIRST isn't just about trying to affect those who are on teams. If we wanted to teach kids about engineering skills in an exciting way, we could save a lot of money by switching to Vex. We need to remember the biggest goal we're trying to achieve. We're trying to change culture. To do so, FIRST has to do more than impact the 30,000+ kids in the program. We need to impact 300 million North Americans. (And other parts of the world to) The best to do this is through the competition. People are attracted to competition. Just look at the Winter Olympics. Millions of people tuned in to watch people skating in circle, or gliding down hills. Is this something that people normally watch? No. Would it be entertaining if it wasn't a race? No. Would we watch if we weren't told that these were the best athletes in the world? No. Do people watch this and become inspired? Heck, Yeah.

That's what we're trying to do with FIRST. Not only inspire the young people who are doing, but inspire our society who is watching. We need to make it exciting for them so it will catch their eyes. What will accomplish that? An intense competition, with high quality robots. This is why the competition is essential. Not because it may inspire the students in the program, but because it's our best avenue to affect a much needed culture change.

I dream of the day, when kids who never been on a FIRST team say, "dang, I wish I could be like Dr. Joe, he's so cool. Look at his awesome swerve drive. I want to do that." When that day comes, we'll know that we've reached our goal.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

I have a feeling my first post may have dragged this off topic. Sorry about that.

JT

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Many of us engineering mentors are in "serious trouble". We're bad. We engineer things and help create robots that do incredible things. We take students along with us on a ride of invention, creation, frustration, caffine-intakation, fabrication, and inspiration.

This thing we are in is called the "FIRST Robotics Competition". We are here to compete. We participate by means of building a robot. This IS a robot building contest.

What happens within this robot competition is the magical stuff. Students open their eyes. Adults regain their engineering passion. Heroes are made. Friendships are born and fostered throughout many years.

People who go through a season of FIRST have a "bond". They each invented a robot within a crazy short time frame... and then they competed with it. They all participated in this "robot building contest", and a bunch of inspiration shot up as a result.

Is there really an argument here?

Andy B.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

When mentors get trophy-eyed there can be many pitfalls. Over the last several years I have personally seen:

- a student in tears at a regional because they made a mistake during a match, and they dont want to drive the robot anymore because they 'let the team down'

- a mentor YELLING at a driver, on the field, after a losing a match "I TOLD YOU TO DO ONE THING AND YOU DID SOMETHING ELSE...."

- mentors get angry and quit the team 1 week before the ship deadline because they didnt like the way the robot build was progressing

- students quit the team in the middle of the build season out of anger and emotions they cant deal with

- sponsors dropping a team because mentors would not let the students be actively involved in the design and build process

yes, there is definately a down side when mentors forget why we are really doing this. Serious trouble!

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Yes, I think we can all agree that bad people suck.

We can also all agree that the goals of FIRST are not well served by people acting like jerks.

But, because you can cite examples of people going too far does not, in my mind, argue that we can't and shouldn't try to compete as hard as we can (of course within the limits of fairness and without adopting a Winning is All attitude).

Joe J.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

I guess we are half way between an understanding here.

The game is there to be played, and to be played well. Nobody is stating otherwise.

Maybe this is more an issue of human nature. I dont think the problem is that some people are being jerks, and the rest of us are ok. You literally cant go to two places at the same time. The mentors who became jerks probably were great people who got their eyes fixed on the wrong goal. Its human nature to think "well that wont happen to me"" and then at some point you find yourself so angry at a Ref/Judge/teacher/mentor/student... that you cant see straight because they screwed up your teams chance to win.

Even more subtle than that, when you decide to do something, when you set a goal for yourself, all kinds of backburner things start simmering in your mind. Your personal energy and creativity are engaged towards that goal.

Thats the main point Ive been trying to make. I gave the little tongue in cheek quiz. I listed red flags in my last post, I jokingly proposed that maybe we need to recite a creed before each meeting (the mentors). Im not calling anyone out here to give an accounting for their actions and motives. Im only waving a red flag here: there are dangers and pitfalls and cliffs you can fall off - nobody is immune.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Instead of directly participating in this thread, and join in a discussion I see as one of the most important discussions of all time, in both the forum and the FIRST community, I would like to make the following observations.

There are several debates that kept coming back every year: amount of mentor participation, engineer build vs. student build, too many or too little competitiveness, the goal of FIRST, and more recently, collaboration between teams, and sharing design and parts.

These recurring debates had and always will be the instruments in which everyone reevaluate and rediscover the precise meaning of FIRST in their hearts. The meaning of FIRST itself will continue to evolve and diversify as FIRST participants (returning and incoming) move forward in directions they think are most suitable for their team. The program itself will continue to grow and change as the world around and the people within continue to grow and change.

You think you got the right answer? Think again. You think you got the right way to run a FIRST team? Try showing up to a competition and talk to all the teams in the pit area. In my 6 years of participation since 1999, growing from a FIRST student to a FIRST event organizer, to this day I continue to discover new meanings of being a part of FIRST. And to this day, I am still amazed at how different and creative everyone is in their way of life in FIRST.

So, while you debate and argue heatedly all these important issues, bare in mind that the diversity is a strength of this program, not weakness. And most importantly, don’t ever doubt, not even for a second, that the intentions of those you argue with of being in this program is anything less than good. Because I can assure you, everyone in FIRST is in it for the right reason.

Understand that, and you will understand a lot more.


P.S. At the risk of going off topic, I came across a section in a books I am reading that I found somewhat relevant to the passion and arguments in this discussion. How much you will get from it,though, that's entirely up to you.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

I've been reading this thread with great interest. I don't think the positions are as far apart as some people think they are.

As someone pointed out, it is the "FIRST Robotics Competition". Which means it is a competition sponsored by FIRST - "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology". The competition serves as a tool or medium to do the inspiring.

I'd like to look at this in a little different way. I'm a relative newby to FRC, although I have a long association through FLL. Another part of my life is being on the board of our local youth soccer association. In soccer, the point of being on the team is to play soccer - similar to the point that being on a FRC team is to play robotics. It's often pointed out that sports are also about gaining/keeping physically fit, learning about teamwork, learning about commitment, learning about yourself. FRC does that as well (except that the exercise is more mental than physical).

How much does the game itself, and the competition, mean? In youth soccer, there are two levels - commonly called recreational and competitive. In the rec divisions, the focus is on learning the skills and rules needed to play the game. Does that mean there is no competition - not at all! Ask any youth soccer referee, and she'll tell you that the World Cup is fought multiple times every weekend - the team, coaches and spectators have the same intensity. But that doesn't mean the learning aspect is removed. Also, Boards do things behind the scenes to make sure the competitiveness doesn't overwhelm the learning. Teams are balanced in abilities, and matchups between teams are arranged to have equal ability teams playing each other. Why? Because it keeps the kids interest in the game. If a team regularly loses 10-2 every weekend, the kids lose heart and quit. If a team regularly wins 7-0, the kids get complacent and don't advance in their skills.

A parallel can be drawn regarding the FRC. The game has to remain accessible to rookies, while being challenging enough for the veterans. There has to be interest in doing well - results on the field - to keep the kids inspired toward science and technology. Game results, trophies and awards, are recognition given for jobs well done. (We have to remember to continue to recognize all positive efforts though, not just the winning efforts.)

The competition is not the important thing, but it is the vehicle to get to the important thing. We are changing student's lives, sometimes in ways we don't ever comprehend.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Gary makes a good point, feedback is important. It would be good for students to have a better way to gauge their accomplishments during the build season - a way for their robots to be rated or judged, for their efforts to be acknowledged.

Driving in to work this morning it occurred to be, maybe the way to answer these recurring questions and issues is to add feedback to FIRST. Is there presently a method by which all students are polled or asked to supply their opinions of the program, how things went this year? (It would be simple to ask: what aspects inspired you the most?)

I think the kind of feedback you would get from a 100% coverage 'student exit interview' would be very useful to fine tune the FIRST program to meet it primary goal.

We can speculate from our personal experiences one by one as mentors and students on CD for months and get nowhere. A ten minute end of season report from each student (and mentor) would be much more usefull and productive.

After all, we are engineers: we know the power of feedback!

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

Oh, that's just great. Now this is turning into a PID thread.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

I only have two words about V-Neun and inspiring High School students through competition: Shaved Heads
Looking at Jay's and Tim's posts.... clearly it worked well.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

So tell me, is FIRST about competition? The above quote is cut-and-paste directly from the FIRST website. Competition is so central to what we do, that "competition" or "competitive" appears in the first sentence 3 times.

The spirit of the competition is what inspires many of us to be involved with FIRST. We all enjoy seeing a well-designed and built robot being effectively operated by skilled drivers. Not all of the teams will have the resources to compete at the level of the top teams in FIRST and they shouldn't (and usually don't) measure their success in terms of beating those teams on the field. Yet, many of these "have not" teams improve their capabilities by learning from and emulating the successful designs and strategies of top teams. That is an example of competition inspiring teams to do better - a worthy goal indeed.

I think FIRST will lose out if the playing field were leveled by continuing to place severe and somewhat arbitrary restrictions on when the teams can improve robot capabilities. If the "leveled playing field" results in kit robots with little sophistication as the norm, the FRC will become less attractive. Engineering professionals, spectators and ultimately the students will be less inspired to participate and the FIRST program will decline.

I'm not advocating "open season" on robot development, but the "powers that be" need to be sensitive to the fact that some additional time needs to be allotted for things like software development to utilize the exciting technologies that FIRST offers (the camera, the sensors, etc.). The current 6-week build season just doesn't provide the software team enough time to exercise their code on a functional robot. So, software is usually "done" during competitions and (if the team has the resources) with practice robots during FIX-IT WINDOWS.

In future seasons, FIRST should make allowances for the complexity of the technologies available to teams and expand the time available for development and test. FIRST should also make allowances for the availability of the professional engineering mentors - we often set high standards and are driven to succeed. But we have our day jobs - six plus weeks of intense, dedicated effort followed by restricted windows of opportunity probably doesn't work well for most of us. Some flexibility in the scheduling and use of post-ship time can make a big difference to many of us. The resulting improved "product" on the field will serve to further inspire the whole of FIRST to be at its best.

Re: FIRST Philosophy 101
 

You are right. However, THAT is exactly the challenge that faces EVERY team.

I work in a company that does a lot of R&D. It seems we never have enough time or money and there is always too many hands in the pot (adding feature creep). Its the nature of the beast, and a real world lesson for these kids.

To the entrepreneur (or FIRST team), its just another challenge.