Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amanda M
And I think having a practice robot allows students to further learn about engineering, and I think anything that teaches more to students should be in the best interest of FIRST.
|
A major counter argument in favor to allowing a practice robot is summed up well by Amanda's post above. The argument is something like this:
1. The more students are working with robots, the more excited they get about science and technology.
2. Allowing a practice robot to be built gives a good number of students more time to work more with robots.
3. Hence, a practice robot is good for students, and hence good for FIRST.
The flaw I see with the practice robot is:
1. All students should be allowed to get the same amount of design, building and testing time with their robots for a given robotics season.
2. Many teams do not have the resources to build two robots.
3. Hence, teams should not be allowed to build two robots.
Wouldn't the compromise be:
1. The more students are working with robots, the more excited they get about science and technology.
2. All students should be allowed to get the same amount of design, building and testing time with their robots for a given robotics season.
3. The design, building, and testing time should be longer.
What if the 6 weeks were actually 8 and no practice robot was allowed? What is the 6 was actually 16? This would eliminate the advantage of the practice robot, while still allowing students more time to build and get inspired by FIRST.
This has been hashed out before.. but perhaps this is a different context to the argument about having additional time.
Reply away. Thanks for the good discussion so far!
Matt