[Katy]

I'm going to skip most of what DeepWater said because I agree with him and there is no sense in me just re-saying everything he did. Lets just pick up some other scraps.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Who said 397 would design a box on wheels? Trust me, I had a mentor on 2337 have to explain the KISS (Keep it simple Schreiber) principle to me earlier today. The answer to that is I will push our students to do more than that.

I was never saying you would or should design a box or anything that is the same functionality as a basic box. I said that if you put all the resources in and achieved something no more functional than a box that you wasted your time and resources. The implication was that the additional resources and skill you believe you have could be used to design something that did more than a box did. Otherwise all you have done is created a more expensive and complicated version of something which already worked just fine. That is commonly known as bad engineering.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Your argument about how every kid deserves FIRST makes sense, honestly it does, but there is one problem. Every student deserves an education too. Does that mean that teachers have to start testing so that even the worst students can pass? In a class room if I get 28% on a test and you get 90% what do you want the teacher to do, adjust my score so that is a 90% too? Because, you know, every student deserves to graduate. And you know what, while we are at it, everyone deserves a Mercedes Benz, and paid vacation, and a million dollar home right? You know why people can buy those things? You know why teams pay Michael Jordan millions of dollars to throw a ball in a hoop? Because he worked his butt off.

Aside from the fact that a good many of the people who buy million dollar homes do it with either money they don't have (borrowed from a bank) or inherited from their parents...I'll stick with the spirit of your post and debate you from there.

No, nobody is saying you have to pass all the kids, I'm just saying they should all get to take the exam. What high school a student attends has NOTHING, and I mean absolutely NOTHING to do with the student's natural talent, determination, work ethic, or any other estimation of merit. The high school you attend is a reflection of many factors: primarily your parents income because of the relation of housing prices to school district quality. In the case of private schools it still normally based on your parent's income because your parents must pay for the school. Even if the student gets a scholarship there is still the question of the parent's dedication to providing transportation to the school every day for at least the first two years until the student is of legal age to drive, then either continuing to drive or finding the financial means to provide the student with the car. In short: since the merit of the student has a minimal impact on what high school the student will attend it seems pretty reasonable to minimize the advantages of attending one high school over another. FRC is a high school activity. Thus, it is reasonable to minimize the advantages of showing up on one team over another. Let them fight it out for the trophy on their own merits, to do anything else is an insult to their potential.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I fail to see why everyone being like rookies is a good thing. Eric I noticed you are a teacher, I will assume you have a decade of experience teaching (could be more or less either way). If I were to apply the same idea to your pay as you are applying to the veteran teams you would be paid the same as a new teacher, is that fair?

I find that a pretty absurd comparison. A team may be decades old but under normal circumstances no student will have more than three years experience going into a season with a team. Is it proper for a student to inherit glory simply because he goes to the right school? To reap the rewards of all the students who poured everything into the robots for years before him? Of course not, that would be absurd. Students attend high schools based on their parent's merits: not their own. That would be, in your metaphor, to determine the pay grades of new teachers based on the salaries their parents received. If this was a college league that might be different: the merit of the student plays a much stronger influence on what college he attends. Students do not attend different high schools based on their merit in this country. Propping up existing teams in a high school league, saying that they should continue to be strong just because they were strong, I view as a pretty huge social injustice. The kids need to earn it: each and every year.

And if you look at your own words, I think you will find yourself agreeing with me

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

217 can build a stellar robot every year, you know why? Because they have dedicated students and mentors. I would be willing to bet you that if you told 217 that they could only spend $800 on a robot this year they would STILL put out a stunning machine. How do I know that? I know the team, I know that their quality doesn't come from money, it comes from their passion for FIRST, their desire to win.

So, I fail to see why you would object to the "everybody is rookies" setup. If anything your statement there seems like it would cause you to applaud this move! Now the "good teams" (you chose 217, I'll take your word that they don't beat puppies for fun ) will be able to rise above those who simply once had a member, ages ago, who happened to find a particularly impressive solution to the "driving on carpet" problem or have a fat checkbook. This system should reward exactly teams with the qualities you mentioned.

So why do you object to it?