Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
Right because we should be teaching our students that not doing your absolute best is acceptable.
|
In some contexts, this is absolutely true and it is a lesson we need to teach our students (and sometimes ourselves).
"Perfection at any cost" is not a good universal plan. Unfortunately, in the real world we function under real constraints and real opportunity-cost.
Everything is a cost-benefit analysis. There is a cost to staying in the pits during opening ceremonies. There is also a benefit. The question is not one of wonky heuristic high-order principles like whether or not you "need" to improve your robot, it is purely a utility calculus based on the facts of the situation.
I think you do your students a disservice if you neglect this. Hell, it's not only the students - mentor burnout is a real problem in FRC, and one of the big driving factors is that people feel the need to put absolutely everything into it with no mind for the costs. You should
always mind the costs.
Moreover, however you feel on the matter, I don't think it's fair or productive to dismiss the speakers FRC provides at competition as "talking heads promoting technical illiteracy." That's not at all the vibe I get from most of the speakers I've heard. Additionally, it seems clear to me that not everyone is good at math, and not everyone can be good at math. We gain nothing as a society by ostracizing the people who do not have mathematical talent - we should certainly strive to increase mathematical literacy, but it is a fiction to imagine that everyone can flourish in a technical field. FIRST is about inspiration and recognition. One does not have to be an engineer to be inspired by and to recognize the value of engineering, and I do not believe that the purpose of FIRST is to turn everyone into an engineer. The joke you mention, to my ears, is not glorifying those who lack ability, it's appreciating those who have it. That is what we should strive for, and it is a perfectly fine message.