Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe G.
... would FRC's educational and inspirational value would be unchanged ...
|
Joe,
A thought that might push the tension you are describing into the background (not make it irrelevant, but move it into background) is this:
If I understood them correctly, FRC's founder(s) told us that FRC was created to attract students to STEM fields.
The methods FRC's founders chose to use have many fun and valuable side-effects that shouldn't be absent-mindedly discarded or unnecessarily crippled; but those side-effects aren't the reason FRC was created, and shouldn't be elevated to parity with FRC's core purpose.
If RI3D opens the eyes of initially tentative, or unaware, students to the fact that fun STEM activities and careers are well within their grasp, then I think it's on-target. If RI3D demystifies building something as interesting and tangible as an FRC robot, then I think it's on-target.
This makes sense if you start from the premise that FRC was created to attract and inspire new students, and not to give already interested students a blue banner, or an associate's degree in engineering.
Blake
PS: The FIRST mission statement tries to pitch a very big tent. It alone isn't the basis for what I wrote above.