Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankJ
You don't want people to fail. You don't won't airplanes to fail. You do want to teach how to take appropriate risks. Taking risks will lead to occasional failures. Successful people learn to accept failure and continue on. Successful people learn from their failures. Sometimes the only thing they learn is that what they was trying was a really bad idea. Prototypes that don't work aren't necessarily failures.
|
The question here is whether it's good for students in a FIRST environment to have an entire season as a "prototype failure". I would be floored if you found an FRC mentor arugeing students that should be barred from iterative development. Rather, "failure" in this context means the opposite of iteration.
Look at the OP example: The "value in success" example is 71. They succeeded because they failed and iterated upon it. The "value in failure" question comes only when when students are [at risk of] carrying a single failure for an entire season (or longer), e.g. poor strategy resulting in limited opportunities to fail/learn/be inspired in follow-on experiences. We want our students to be successful people and learn from failures, but how do they become successful enough to
recognize and handle failure properly? Do they make every mistake to its fullest, or to what extent should mentors facilitate learning from others' previous mistakes (share their experience and knowledge).