Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aignam
To make an argument for arugment's sake:
What if, in doing this, you discourage the geeks, who are already sick of being 'second best' or never getting recognition or having to see the athletes always spotlighted? Would that be fair to them?
|
If that's the way someone thinks, then they have bigger issues than trying to build a robot in 6 weeks. A few things:
- Where do you see this big dichotomy between smart kids and kids who are good at sports? Is there some gaping chasm between people who enjoy sports and people who build robots and never the twain shall meet?
- FIRST also teached students to be well-rounded. Just because a person is smart does not mean they should spend all of their time indoors in front of a computer. Colleges don't want students who just sit and program all day long, or who solve differential equations in their spare time. They want students who have a wide range of interests and who can bring something new to their school. In addition to showcasing robots, FIRST makes students hang out with other students and (gasp) have a good time with other people. It forces you to make connections, to work in groups, and to present your ideas to large numbers of people. If you're going to say that FIRST is only about letting the smart kids do "geeky" things, then you need to evaluate the intent of the FIRST charter. Having a game that includes a physical aspect and maybe brings more diverse people in could be better than you think
- There is a reason sports are popular, they are fun to watch and fun to play. Maybe it would be a good idea to hold off on saying this game bites until you see it played for real.