The NWEA test sounds like extra fluff to add to the cost of FRC, IMO. The test simply misses the point: FRC isn't about increasing science literacy. Thus, I have to agree with the professor about your paper.
FRC
is about increasing science
interest with respect to other careers that do not involve large-scale problem solving. When have official FIRST mediums said otherwise?
IMO, the real measurable 'thing' isn't all that glamorous: we'll know FRC works when the 'professional' unemployment rate for technically-skill jobs isn't at a labor shortfall rate (about 3% unemployment) in a good economy. Currently it averages 4.4% (
Table 625, 'Professional and related occupations').
Let me caveat further this with an opinion: this stat doesn't mean that the other jobs are less necessary -- it simply means that people in the U.S. are not following the trend of U.S. jobs to the 'more technical' industries and programs like FIRST are necessary. It means that people are not setting themselves up (via education) to succeed in whatever future industries/problems/situations arise. Many adults are returning to school, which is great. Yet the fact that an increasing % of young students are not moving into educational programs geared for these industries will simply cause more problems in the future.