Quote:
Originally Posted by billylo
Nothing is perfect. The key question I ask myself is: does R3iD/Buildbitzs help inspire students to like STEM from a big picture perspective?
My thought process is as follows:
1. For new teams, the benefit is clear. They can enjoy the fun of being in the competition sooner and contribute to their alliance partners more and learn more in the process.
2. For teams with a few years of experience, their job will be harder than last year because competition level will be raised and they will need to think more to "stand out from the crowd" and come up with a more capable/effective design. But I have no doubts that these teams will adapt and find a new way to do just that. Case in point: the games are getting harder every year, but teams manage to overcome new challenges.
3. For veterans teams, I see this is as a good thing. Competitions will be more fun with stronger participation level overall. Their job will be harder too as they will no longer be able to dominate a match easily. More strategic thinking, need to be more versatile and better scouting, driving and in game adjustments. All fun things for veteran teams to enjoy.
|
billylo, Well stated!!!
I had intended to start this exact thread the day after kickoff and was adamantly opposed to Ri3D. However, after having read this entire thread I'm only mildly opposed to it. Some reasons:
You cannot "unsee" something--especially a design that piques your interest and especially one that you know that you can replicate. Yes, not all of the designs can be replicated by all teams, but one of the purposes of the Ri3D teams is to show you what you can do with their products and they tell you pretty much how to do it. This does stifle the creative process and anyone who says it doesn't, I think is kidding themselves. There is a plethora of threads on CD attesting to gains made by students going from the design process through final construction. A major part of that is prototyping, and the consequent iterations which evolve the final product. Short-cutting that by showing a great solution (or five) deprives teams of that learning opportunity. Yes, "they don't have to look if they don't want to see it". There will invariably be at least one or two team members who might look even with the admonition not to. Once they see it, do they remain silent as ideas are being proffered during strategy sessions? Remember, we're not talking about "borrowing" an idea from 1114, 359, 16, 2056 et.al. on drive systems or shooters or lifting mechanisms from previous years--we're talking about complete robot solutions to THIS year's problem. And finally, to those who say that you can't prototype your potential designs in 6 weeks--hogwash! Hundreds of Youtubes prove otherwise.
Having said all that, I do think we should have Ri3D! Here's why, it does enable rookies who would/could not field a working robot (more than a chassis) to be competitive and have a great first year experience. I remember being on a bus coming from Dean Kamen's home during the pre-kickoff party in 2000. A woman from the Midwest was sitting with me and said that she was the only mentor on their rookie team and she was a home economics teacher. I wished then that there was something available for rookie teams like them which would help level the playing field--now there is.
I agree with
billylo in that competition will increase almost exponentially now. Most teams should be able to field at least a semi-competitive robot and separating the elite from the good and the good from the rookies will just be harder--as it should be. You will now HAVE to build a better mouse trap if you want to be a winner.
I think the compromise would be to hold off on unveiling the Ri3D for one week. That gives teams a legitimate amount of time to discuss strategies/designs without being influenced by obviously elite level teams. It still affords rookies (and anyone else) plenty of time to proceed with whatever level of assistance they wish to gain from viewing the builds.