In my almost 5 month vacation from Chief Delphi, I find it very appropriate** that the day I install Windows 7 and come to CD that this is the first thread I open.
I have quoted one my former mentors time and time again and I'll quote him time and time again because no matter how much you love FIRST you can not deny the logic of his argument. (Note, this quote extends to life, not only FIRST.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natchez
Give me more tools; I’ll use the ones that are most useful for the job.
|
he went on to write
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natchez
Our job is to build future engineers because our country needs them. It just so happens that FIRST is the best tool in our toolbox right now but there is a lot of room left. If BattleBots IQ becomes a useful tool to do our job, then we should use it. BattleBots IQ might be the very thing that we need to convince some schools to give us their students so we can build them into America’s future scientists & engineers.
Currently, the best tools in my toolbox are FIRST & BEST (Boosting Engineering, Science, & Technology) for the high schools, LEGO League & Botball for the middle schools, and LEGO Spectrum system kits for the elementary schools. Although I consider FIRST the best high school spring competition and the best tool in the ole toolbox, I can definitely see using a BattleBots IQ tool for schools that can’t afford FIRST.
Considering the enormous amounts of bright and intelligent students that we are not harvesting because they just happen to live in rural Mississippi or any other poor part of the country and cannot afford FIRST, we must find or make tools that will harvest these students. If BattleBots IQ is that tool, then we must use it. By far, the best tool that we've had in the past few years has been the NASA sponsorships (all of the Mississippi schools have been started by NASA sponsorships ... and have done great things in their communities).
With all that said, my vote is that they can coexist as long as both sides stick to gracious professionalism. Can FIRST crush BattleBots IQ like a cheap aluminum coke can with a few choice remarks by a few influential people? YEP! Can BattleBots IQ put on a "FIRST costs too much" campaign and bring it to its knees? YEP! I just hope neither goes that route.
Take care,
Lucien
Something to ponder: You're in the finals at Nationals and the 1/4" bolts that hold your wheels onto your base are loose and all you brought to the stage was a pair of pliers and a screw driver, do you tighten the bolt with the less-than-perfect-tool-for-the-job pair of pliers or do you just let your wheels fall off because the perfect tool for the job, your trusty ole 7/16" open ended wrench, was back in the pits?
|
As I see this topic go in this direction, please keep the ideas of this post in mind.
At the end of the day, FIRST wants us to spread science and technology. Correct? By FIRST's own goals, if Tetrix works better or Vex works better in different areas, gets different students, then in the end, does it really matter?
The end result is the same: more students inspired, more students involved, and hopefully more futures changed.
Pavan Davé
**For those who don't remember, I am not a fan or avid supporter of FIRST rather their idea of inspiring and getting recognition for science and technology sings to me. My upbringing in robotics was diverse and being brought up outside a "glorified FIRST" bubble I have always spoken my mind, called it as I have seen it.
And yes Dave, get some Tylenol, I'm back!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
And that is the one blemish that sits on this whole discussion. The creation and implementation of the TSA/IFI program is a wonderful accomplishment. It is one of which both TSA and IFI should be proud. However, "VEX beats Tetrix and others..." is one of the most off-putting introductions to this story that I could imagine. To present it in a chest-thumping "Look - we beat Tetrix!" yell of bravado is both unnecessary and short-sighted.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: If between them FIRST, IFI, BotBall, BEST, and PLTW are collectively dedicating even a single neuron firing to the contemplation of how to beat the "other guys," then collectively they are all fools.
Let's look at some reality. TSA will reach 150,000 students this year[1], the FIRST Robotics Competition will reach an estimated 41,000 students[2], Project Lead The Way manages to contact 500,000 students[3], BotBall touches approximately 5,000[4], and the VEX competitions add about 6,000 more[5]. That is a grand total of about 700,000 students involved in these programs today.
As of 2007, there are an estimated 16,400,000 high school students in the U.S.[6]. So collectively, these guys are affecting a grand, whopping, huge 4.2 percent of the U.S. high school student population. That is right – 4.2 percent. Over 95% of the current high school students in the United States are not engaged by any of them.
Given a potential market that is 25 times larger than the entire population currently served by these programs – and remembering that it has taken nearly 20 years for them to grow just to this point – the ONLY focus that anyone should have is how to reach that larger market.
The publicly-stated goal of each of these organizations is to provide inspiration and education on STEM topics to those that have not yet "seen the light." You don’t do that by trying to convince those already converted that your particular phrasing of the message is better. You do it by reaching out to those that have never heard the message in the first place. A little less time spent on turf wars, and a little more time spent on reaching the 95% of students who are oblivious to your existence, might be wise.
-dave
[1] source: Technology Student Association web site: http://www.tsaweb.org/
[2] source: 2008 FIRST Annual Report, adjusted for 10% annual growth
[3] source: Project Lead The Way impact statement, http://beta.pltw.org/
[4] source: BotBall funding proposal, 2008 application
[5] source: discussions with VEX program representatives at 2009 national championships
[6] source: 2007 Databook, National Center for Educational Statistics
.--. |