[gblake]

My one-liner - "I support tightening the current stop-build restrictions because I don't want to see the total FRC program slide too far down the slippery slope of over-emphasizing the competition part of an otherwise well-rounded spectrum of activities."

Something that I think fits into the topic(s) of some recent posts ...

IMO, there is a tangible difference between inspiring someone to consider becoming a Scientist, Technologist, Engineer, or Mathematician (or whatever), and attempting to actually transform an inspired person into one of those.

Like most/all of us, I love seeing students become better at STEM skills, but I also try to stay aware of the difference between creating the inspiration, and subsequently taking on responsibility for replacing the formal training available from other sources.

Sure, you feed the STEM hunger of eager/inspired students, and you feed them as much as you and they can handle - because it's fun.

But, while there is no doubt a lot of overlap between inspiration and subsequent training, the two things aren't interchangeable.

When planning club/team activities, whenever we reached the point of having to choose/recommend how we are going to spend our chunks of scarce time, I try to think hard about whether I/we should invest those hours and energy into making an OK robot better, or into introducing new people to STEM opportunities.

Those two things certainly aren't 100% mutually-exclusive, but they aren't 100% identical either; and the clock is a merciless taskmaster.

Blake