Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli
I don't post much lately, but I just can't hold my tongue.
This rule change is just plain stupid. Why spend even one second on a rule that addresses only 1% of teams when there are MUCH bigger items to address. Whoever spent any time on this item at FIRST HQ simply wasted their time.
|
Paul, you're without a doubt one of my heroes in FIRST, but as a teacher I'll object to this statement. While I'm not 100% sure I'd implement it this way, it does allow students to participate in a process they couldn't participate in before. In my line of work we call that a "student-centered" decision. Suppose 217 were told it would never be allowed to compete on Einstein again? I bet we'd hear an awful lot from from <1% in those circumstances
.
In the long run I'm not sure that this decision does anything but allow access to a student experience. While I'd prefer "cleaner" implementation - perhaps that separate classification that Al and Sean support, it's hard for me to argue with the face value concept here.