[Rachel Lim]

I should probably be studying, not writing ridiculously long posts, but I was reviewing APUSH notes and thought there were some interesting parallels (and maybe this is also an excuse not to do homework...)


Humans are emotional beings. I think we can all agree on that, even if you think enjoyment is not a purely emotional experience. If you disagree, consider this:

If we were truly logical, we would not need to be inspired to do something, we'd already be in it if we wanted to.
If we were truly logical, we would not need a competition, because by the time you compete you've already built your robot.
If we were truly logical, we wouldn't care if there were multiple championships or if many teams were excluded from a single one.

Obviously that doesn't work or apply to the majority of members in FIRST, or we wouldn't be here. What then, is the draw of the competition?

1. The desire to be the best.
2. The desire to see who is the best.
3. The desire to see how you compare to other teams.

The desire to be the best.
It seems selfish, and it is in some ways, but it's also true. There is a reason communism doesn't work. We want what's best for everyone, but we also need something to keep pushing us on. FIRST has both, and that's one of the reasons it has been so successful. Without the desire or the need to be the top, innovation stops.

War, as destructive as it is, has led to some of the most amazing technological discoveries because countries find the need to do better than their enemies. Peace leads to a sharing of those technologies and (arguably) a better life for all. The coopertition aspect of FIRST tries to draw into the best of both.

I draw the line between the good and bad aspects of competition in this way: if I try to do my best, and try to win in that way, I'm doing it right; if I try to pull others down, and try to win in that way, I'm doing it wrongly.

The desire to see who is the best.
The above points don't just apply to those who know they are at or near the top--watching the top teams compete, saying "someday, I want to be able to do that" is what pushes me to keep learning. In many ways, this point fits in with the previous one. Only by seeing what the best do can we understand what we can improve on.

The desire to see how you compare to other teams.
Once again this draws from the first point, but I think there's a difference. No one wants to be at the bottom, or be told they aren't good enough. It's why the idea of "cutting out" some of the teams that would otherwise qualify, or separating the two tiers of champs, is upsetting. In some ways, I think the "everyone is a winner" attitude is in our culture. I've certainly heard it in school, in other classes, and to some extent at robotics. I understand why it's around, and I completely disagree with it.

Everyone cannot be a winner.
Everyone cannot be at the top.
Everyone can try to be a winner and to be at the top.

It's not an easy lesson to learn on a team or in life. Last year, when we didn't make it to champs, it was a hard realization for everyone. But I think it made this year mean more. And if we hadn't made it this year, it would have meant pushing even harder next year. I use the same rule in school--if it's easy, I look for something harder, then when I struggle, I try to learn from those who are doing well. I think that there is an important distinction to make here, though: not winning does not mean failure or a lack of inspiration. Success comes from being inspired, and being inspired means a continued push to do better.

This leads to another issue: the teams and students who aren't at this point yet. Because arguably, pushing to be the best means you're already inspired to stay. This is why I think the DCMP / super DCMP / super regional method is the best in the end. DCMPs (or their equivalents) can collectively reach more teams than two champs, and will still have enough inspiration in them to reach the teams that need the additional push. And it allows for a single champs, for the teams, students, and mentors who use the competition to keep pushing on. But back on topic:

Why do we care?
Because I started off this post by saying that humans are emotional beings. And being emotional, we care about how we compare to other teams, how well we do, and are pushed by outside forces to do better.

And...?
We want to win. We don't want to fail.

The desire to be the top, and the fear of being the bottom, has shaped history. If I tried, I could probably link the rise and fall of the various political parties, social movements/rebellions, historical figures, and even groups/countries to those two concepts. If there's one thing to learn from history (other than the fact that it takes way more index cards than math), it's that motivations don't change much. Crowning a winner creates a sense of accomplishment for the winning alliance, and a goal for everyone else. Yet excluding teams from champs defines them as "not good enough."

Both are emotional responses, both could be classified as "selfish," and both are human nature. But since it's FIRST's goal to inspire students, not send them on long philosophical discussions, I should tie this all together. To inspire students, we need to acknowledge both the need for a sense of accomplishment and the need to be able to aim for the top exist. FIRST seems to be focusing too much on the first, and CD too much on the second. We're not purely logical, so even if one of those goals seems more so, it won't be completely effective alone.

Give students a sense of accomplishment, then keep pushing them to do better. The former hooks students in, the latter keeps them (and their mentors) going. DCMPs for the first, a single champs for the second.