Quote:
Originally Posted by ehochstein
VEX seems like a bad value proposition to me. I'd much rather my students learn about design and the manufacturing of your design than "let's buy a specific set of parts and be limited by that". My students build a completely customized robot using a combination of 3D printed, CNC'd and manually milled parts after being designed from the ground-up in CAD. VEX is cool but students in more customizable programs learn a lot more and in turn become more inspired.
|
"... bad value proposition"
Nah.
Certainly not without an agreed enumeration of expenses and results that can be assessed to determine both value, and barriers to entry.
The skills, tools and techniques you named can all be taught, used, and improved in VRC (and any of almost all other STEM programs that build things).
"... students in more customizable programs learn a lot more"
Nah
Students in all programs can learn what they are taught. If a student I am helping doesn't learn something they want to learn, I blame myself, not the program that happened to bring us together.
"... and in turn become more inspired."
A) Nah
B) We determine this how?
Do we weigh the students at the beginning and end of a season, to determine how much inspiration they absorbed? Do we measure their lung capacity, because "inspiration" can refer to breathing? Do we normalize the results by the number of students reached, or by the dollars the students can afford to invest in the program/team/robot costs?
This is a sore subject for me. FTC, VRC, FRC, and ... are all tools that all need to be used well. It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
Lets go back to the original topic.
Blake