View Single Post
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-02-2013, 17:31
Squillo Squillo is offline
Registered User
AKA: Cynthia Hannah-White
FRC #2465 (Kauaibots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Kauai, Hawaii
Posts: 150
Squillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant futureSquillo has a brilliant future
Re: Is Bag and Tag Necessary?

I have been thinking about this since the OP. I think that a MUCH longer build season would serve the purpose and mission of FIRST best of all, while also eliminating a lot of the "unfairness" AND making things more sane and reasonable for all participants.

What if they announced the game in May (or September)? But, unlike VEX, did not have any official competitions until the 6-week competition period, as now?

Here are some of the advantages I see:
- Teams could have time to really carefully analyze and design their robots; do more math, physics and design work. Instead of having to rush that into an insanely short time span.

- Teams could probably attract many more students, including some who are not already 'nerds' but might want to TRY or EXPLORE STEM (we actually have a lot of those students, and we pride ourselves on introducing them to engineering and programming, and inspiring some to continue in those fields), but simply aren't willing to devote their 'entire life' to it for a 6 or 12 week period. Students who also want to play sports, do plays, have a social life, work on their studies or art or whatever. They - and the rest of us - could 'do robotics' just 2 or 3 days a week, and still make a meaningful contribution.

- Ditto for mentors who just don't have the concentrated time available but would still like to help 1 or 2 days/week, or who might have a vacation or funeral or something else scheduled, or arise, during a shorter build season. Or teachers who might happen to have a shorter build season come during finals, or when there are other school obligations.

- There would be time to actually TEACH the newer students things, and then have them practice their skills and build the robot. We find that often, because of the time crunch, the more experienced students and mentors end up doing things, with the newer students just watching, except for the occasional "drill this hole" or "cut this slot". Wiring, especially, tends to be done under a huge rush, so it's not possible for very many students to actually get a substantial amount of hands-on training.

- Same for the analysis/design process. It has to be done in a week or two, so the students who can only come a day or two every week don't get to participate much.

- We would not get as STRESSED, SICK, and otherwise fried. We could pace ourselves and do a MUCH better job educating and motivating the students, build better robots, and have a higher level of competition (without quite so many 'dead on the field' or uncompleted robots, don't you think?).

- It would even out the "unfairness" for teams who compete in week 1 vs week 6. STOP BUILD could be right before the first competition, WITHOUT any 'withholding' or any work at all on the robot after stop build. It could be a HARD 'stop build'. The only advantage later competitors would have would be having watched some matches.

- It would also even out the "unfairness" for teams who have to ship their robot to compete, vs. driving to competitions (as compared to having no 'stop build' at all, as was proposed). EVERYONE would stop at the same time, whether you are in Australia (Hi, 3132!!) or just down the road from your competition venue. Ditto for teams that have to have all sorts of materials shipped in.

- It would allow teams much more flexibility in how they structure their program, how they allocate their time (design for 6 months and build in 3? Design for a month, build for 4, then test and practice for 4? the variations are endless...). It would be more like the real world. I can't think of a situation where a machine this complex has to be designed, built, programmed, tested, and shipped in 6 weeks.

- It would help small teams, who don't have the manpower to have separate sub-teams just for building the field elements, preparing the Chairman's Award submission, building, wiring and programming. Of course, there will always be some inherent inequalities, but this would give the rookies, teams with limited resources, etc. at least a chance.

- It would keep kids engaged in and excited about STEM all year round.

WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE???? Seriously, why hasn't this been considered?

C.
Reply With Quote