When faced with a question like this, I suspect that many of us will tend to envison a set of rules and conditions to deterministically select the "best" students to make the trip. There is, after all, great value in making decisions using an evidence-based approach.
I just worry that in our empiristic haste, we might overlook the possibility that sometimes, the "best" person isn't the one who needs it the most. We've all met students who
have issues (for any of a multitude of reasons), and I can distinctly picture a subset of them who would benefit from the competition experience as a source of inspiration, as a diversion from life's miseries, or as an opportunity to build confidence and skill.
This is a competition, so presumably there's an advantage to selecting the most competent, most experienced and most successful. But as an educational endeavour, it's necessary to realize that you can't systematically grant every advantage to the same people all the time.
Consider what policies will do the most good in the long run. Promoting service and good grades are certainly admirable, but that doesn't mean it's always the right way to go about things.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
About academic requirements, students grades should NEVER suffer due to involvement in FRC.
|
I'm not picking on you specifically, but I do feel compelled to suggest that there are students who are not planning to attend an engineering school, and for whom the grades cannot be the top priority. Consider the ones with significant psychological issues (e.g. behaviour, social skills, etc.). If they need a place where they can get a chance to learn interpersonal skills (like a team), it might just help them to become well-adjusted adults, as opposed to pathologically antisocial engineers (who got good grades).
"Never" is a strong sentiment: we should use it with caution.