Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
Since I was the one referenced in this statement, though anonymously, I feel I should elaborate. I would also appreciate not having my intelligence compared to a 5th grader, let's keep this civil.
Inspiration and learning are not directly related. FIRST doesn't have to, nor should it aim to, educate students. It may provide an arena for students to apply the material they picked up in physics, computer science, or trig, but FIRST is not responsible for teaching it. FIRST is aiming to inspire students to venture into science and engineering. FIRST wants students to take related-coursework, go to college, and study a related major.
Yes, learning is related to science and technology, but it is NOT equivalent to the inspiration "of young people to be science and technology leaders." FIRST aims to give rise to, bring about, or cause these young people to become leaders in science and technology. FIRST's aim is not to teach them the material.
FIRST clearly states that their programs are "mentor-based" and for teams to turn away mentorship in favor of a "learning experience" clearly violates the spirit and mission of FIRST.
That's is not to say that student coaches violate the spirit of FIRST, but teams should carefully consider the reasons they're doing it (though there are plenty of very valid reasons).
I'm also not saying that learning isn't an important and very relevant issue in FIRST. But it is NOT the primary issue. I don't agree with teams that prioritize learning above inspiration, but that's not to say there's only one way to run a team.
I was on a team that has student coaches, and was a student coach myself for two years. I obviously see the potential and real value in putting students in that position. But I also see the value in mentors in that position, and I definitely learned a lot from the mentor coaches on other teams that I worked with and against. |
To start off, I would like to note that the fifth grade vocabulary comment was meant to gauge the simplicity of the Idea I was trying to state, and not an insult to your own intelligence. After reading it, I realize that it did sound sarcastic and rude, but that was not my intent. I apologize.
Now onto bigger and better things.
You are absolutely correct. I can't believe that I had never thought of it in this light, and truly feel humbled by your post. It clearly states your argument in such a way that (Forgive the reference) a Fifth grader could understand. I can't believe that it took this long for me to see. FIRST is only the entity that holds the competition. It's soul purpose is to showcase students what engineers can do. The student learning part isn't necessary.
While I can now see your argument, I can also see the reasons by which I had been unable to comprehend your point. I had been assuming that FIRST robotics referred to the organization that brought the teams together,
and as the Ideals of each team that participates. In all actuality, though, it only refers to the organization, and not technically to the team Ideals.
On my team, It was clearly the main purpose of the program to teach students about engineering, and being a productive person. We learned about CAD, machining, tools, electronics, programming, and too much more to list. While doing so, we also learned leadership, strategy, confidence, and how to communicate.
This was all taught to me by my team, and not FIRST. Without FIRST, I could not have had the experience that I did, but the teaching, and learning part were all done by the teams. Whether it was my own team in our work room, or another team on the playing field, FIRST had nothing to do with it. I just assumed because of how much I learned that It was taught to me by FIRST, and that by proxy, the FIRST experience was centered around learning. When really, that learning that I did wasn't required by FIRST.
This brings up a whole plethora of questions to be answered in my head... and I won't any further off topic in this thread, but may start another.