|
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz
Matt,
I think you are missing my point, (as well as some of the other folks here.) You are attacking a practice robot as giving teams an unfair advantage because they allow the team to "learn more". I am applauding the ability for students (and mentors) to learn more. Throughout history, learning has been suppressed, delegated to a select few, or dismissed in the name of some ideal. When one team learns, other teams benefit, through this forum, team interaction, and assistance and mentoring at competitions. If you think we are competitive because we are a "have" team, or build a practice robot, or as suggested above, skirt or bypass the rules and the meaning of GP you are doing a great disservice to the engineers who mentor, the students who work on the robot, pit, or other activity, and the teachers who keep us focused on a learning tool that exceeds many programs in schools today. We don't measure our success by the number of wins we achieve, but by the number of students who find themselves, decide to attend an educational institution beyond high school and become productive citizens and future mentors, parents, teachers. Weigh this in the balance of your mind...On one side the number of boys who made Eagle Scout while I was a leader (23) + the number of students who passed through Wildstang (during the time I have been a team member) and went on to college (200+) against National Wins (1). Does it seem a little lopsided? In that 200+, two perfect ACT scores, numerous above 30 scores, MIT, Purdue, Bradley, U of I students, countless engineering graduates and I am proud of every one of them. Now I know a practice robot didn't make those statistics but if one practice robot got one student to go to school and graduate it was worth every penny, every hour of time, every drop of sweat, every tear.
If you want to know how to build a more competitive robot, ask. GP demands we tell you, help you, guide you, teach you.
|