Quote:
Originally posted by Miss Tree
Is that what you’re looking for M?
|
To an extent, yes. It's always interesting to learn what people outside the program think of things.
I'm really wondering, though, to what extent people involved in the program understand the scope of what they're capable of. I don't know if they do, or if they can know this.
Is it just about robots? Competition? Can we do something more?
By precluding kids who don't show obvious, typified interest in these machines from participating, would we be maintaining the sanctity of the vision, or would be stunting its growth?
In that vein, is there a place on these teams for gearheads? . . .the kids who are already inspired by science and technology. Are they in the way? Do they facilitate spreading
the message?
Why aren't the kids who sit alongside the sidelines and observe as valued? Why are they looked upon as leeches, in it for a trip? What definition do we use to determine their worth to the team, or the program? Do we deem the program a failure in their case? Maybe those students inspire the gearheads to look beyond science and engineering - to art, or history, or economics. Is that counterproductive? Has FIRST failed if a student learns so much about themselves that they realize engineering *isn't* their path? ....like I have.
More to chew on, I guess. Sorry for the stream of consciousness.