Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri
For the record, I read your positive claim as being an unvoiced assumption that this was somehow a financial constraint. I haven't yet seen any evidence of this anywhere.
|
You give me money and a motivated parent who knows students that want to form a STEM club or team, and I'll give you back a club or team. Money makes stuff happen.
I wasn't trying to say that the library was advertising a boys-only program because the library was short on funds, I was saying that a good-sized dose of money would make the subject of that particular boys-only program essentially irrelevant.
With enough money you can equip a team, and hire a full-time coach/teacher/mentor. With far, far less money than the cost of a full-time coach, you can still get the job done. With a $2500 budget, one motivated parent, and one motivated student; I'll bet on success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri
That aside, I think you bring up a very good point with "don't squabble over STEM programs like they are a scarce resource that only some illuminati from the secret-handshake cabal can supply". I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but I think there's something about STEM programs that we as a community don't acknowledge very often: to the average consumer--the target of culture change--STEM opportunities are still a scarce commodity, and they are supplied by special people. I think we sometimes forget from the inside how difficult this is for many other organizations/individuals. We all know many, maybe countless teams that have folded, or that continue to show up with boxes of parts or kids that didn't know they needed Core Value and Project components. The folks who run successful teams are celebrated as impressive individuals. And I'm not even talking about Paul Copioli or John Larock; think about the team down the street from you that survived a teachers' strike or a elementary school XC cutback, or a change in leadership, or the loss of a JC Penney grant.
|
Some folks in the world of educational/inspirational STEM programs have a tendency to over-complicate those programs. It's natural. But... When speaking to novices, I try to steer them toward the simpler programs, and to point out to them how low the barriers to entry are.
For example:
Start with either an VIQ/FLL team, or a VRC/FTC team. For all of those except the FTC team, I know the basic kitbot can be built and programmed in one day. I assume an FTC bot can be built quickly too, but I don't have recent direct experience.
After getting that done, a team can spend any remaining time in the calendar year learning/teaching everything the team will need in order to observe/learn/network/etc. (and OBTW compete) in a tournament in year one, and to continue growing in year two (It's not about the robot!).
And for the love of Pete, unless they are in an area that already has a strong tech-savvy adult/mentor infrastructure, plus a strong economic infrastructure; don't drop a JC Penny grant on a virgin community, and expect them form a low-risk FRC team. Kudos to anyone who has put down roots and thrived as an FRC team after a cash kickstart, without first having a FTC/VEX and/or FLL/VIQ foundation in place.
Before anyone writes it, I agree that I am oversimplifying, but I'll contend that I'm only oversimplifying a little. Encouragement, mentoring, and other forms of help are important to any new team at any level; but are they essential? I have personal experiences that tell me they are not, if you choose the program wisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri
Providing a STEM program is fun for many of us; it's motivating; it's worth the sacrifices we make and the attention we give it; it may even be intuitive. But it's not easy. It's important to acknowledge that not all consumers make good suppliers, and it's important to acknowledge that it takes more to be a supplier than money and even interest. Maybe you do the rest naturally for robotics, or maybe you're that kind of person in everything you do (kudos). But as we try to permeate the culture with new programs, remember that it's not just about STEM resources, it's about people. We need to win over people who are willing to take responsibility, give it initiative, commit to the time and effort, do their homework, accept support where it's hopefully available, navigate bureaucracy, and on and on. Next time you think spreading STEM is just about dumping LEGO parts on LEGO enthusiasts, remember all the projects we haven't finished that are still sitting in our garages or on our hard drives.
|
Connecting this back to the topic... We agree more than we disagree, but our responses to the hypothetical cash-infused library situation might differ.
If I had $2500 to offer the petitioners, I would tell them that they absolutely don't need any help from their local library (other than perhaps the use of a meeting room once per week); and if I had $2500 to offer the library, I would tell them that they absolutely can (and should) form an open-admission robotics club to complement any special-purpose clubs their community might need.
Yes - My attitude comes with a built-in assumption that if anyone spent just a little time looking, they could find at least one motivated, responsible adult, and at least one motivated student; and that if those two know how to use a web browser, they will have an embarrassment of help at their fingertips.
If these imaginary club(s) are successful, some time in the not to distant future, after they have put down some community roots, the club(s) might want to try a year of FRC competition.
Blake