Drivers Aim High Rules Test Request!

[RbtGal1351]

Hello,

I presume that a lot of teams out there have written tests or quizzes for their drivers on the game rules (Aim High). If your team has, would you please post it (and the answers) here, so that other teams would not also have to write their own, since there's not much point to that.

1351 is holding driver tryouts (including a test or quiz) on Thursday. So far, I have only been able to find 2 tests. (This one , and this HP one ).

Thanks for your help
~Stephanie Schmit

PS--Yeah, so 1351 driver applicants... don't scroll down.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by RbtGal1351

Hello,

I presume that a lot of teams out there have written tests or quizzes for their drivers on the game rules (Aim High). If your team has, would you please post it (and the answers) here, so that other teams would not also have to write their own, since there's not much point to that.

There a few huge points in favor of writing your own test:

Leadership would have to read the rules! How can leadership expect the drivers to read what they choose not to?

Leadership (by reading rules) would learn where to find them in the event they need to prove a point. The drivers have to tend to the robot. Shouldn't leadership be leading rules discussions?

Leadership would get much better understanding of the rules if they made the test themselves. How does leadership know the test they use is any good?

And finally, leadership should lead, not borrow.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

And finally, leadership should lead, not borrow.

As a PLTW teacher and robotics coach, and leader, I would have to say that a good 95% of what I do is borrowed (or just plain stolen). The curriculum I teach is straight off a CD (with some minor changes); the things we do in
robotics largely are tweaks of existing activities. When my predecessors did so much to share what they have done, why should we as leaders reinvent the wheel? That's what white papers are for - people are proud of their work, are sharing it from the kindness of their hearts, and want others to benefit from their efforts.
As far as the knowledge - leadership thing goes, if I administer a test, I had darn well better know everything about everything that goes on that test. If there's any dissent as to the correct answers or phrasing of questions, I need to be an expert on the material to answer their concerns. Also, I won't administer a borrowed test sight unseen - I'm going to read it, understand it, probably take it myself, change the wording of some questions, delete some, and add some.
One more thing the sharing of tests does is it allows teams to look at the strategies and thought processes of others, to see what other teams view as important or critical. This could be a key tool when it comes to strategizing the game and gameplay.
Perhaps the greatest part of leadership is recognizing your own weaknesses, knowing where to go for help, and surrounding yourself with proficient experts. That's why we coaches have engineering mentors, and I believe that's why CD exists.

[X-Istence]

Have them drive the bot full stick in an 8 around two chairs and you are set. If they can do that, that is.

EVERYONE on the team should know the rules. There is otherwise time wasted with idea's that are illegal under the rules. That is how we found out that it was perfectly legal to use the Vex 7.2 V batteries for the backup battery instead of the dinky AA's strung together. (more milliAmps). Someone had read the entire thing, and remembered something like it when the idea was thrown out to the entire, and then we double checked to make sure. ($@#$@#$@#$@# camera uses a lot of power).

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by boiler

As a PLTW teacher and robotics coach, and leader, I would have to say that a good 95% of what I do is borrowed (or just plain stolen). The curriculum I teach is straight off a CD (with some minor changes); the things we do in
robotics largely are tweaks of existing activities. When my predecessors did so much to share what they have done, why should we as leaders reinvent the wheel? That's what white papers are for - people are proud of their work, are sharing it from the kindness of their hearts, and want others to benefit from their efforts.
As far as the knowledge - leadership thing goes, if I administer a test, I had darn well better know everything about everything that goes on that test. If there's any dissent as to the correct answers or phrasing of questions, I need to be an expert on the material to answer their concerns. Also, I won't administer a borrowed test sight unseen - I'm going to read it, understand it, probably take it myself, change the wording of some questions, delete some, and add some.
One more thing the sharing of tests does is it allows teams to look at the strategies and thought processes of others, to see what other teams view as important or critical. This could be a key tool when it comes to strategizing the game and gameplay.
Perhaps the greatest part of leadership is recognizing your own weaknesses, knowing where to go for help, and surrounding yourself with proficient experts. That's why we coaches have engineering mentors, and I believe that's why CD exists.

Good points all. If I were a teacher, my MO would work that way too. But I see things from my perspective, which is that of Army Research Engineer. The products from our "skunk works" are unique. Sure, we like to sneak a peek at what our allies and the opposition are up to, but copycats come in second/last in our business, and second just won't do. We tend to value innovation.

As engineering mentor, I want my kids to learn how to think for themselves. To take what they have learned in passing and turn it unto something new. There is no amount of borrowed material they could pour through that could add up to the plain old common sense they've acquired so far - if only they would use it instead of relying on all those experts to do their thinking for them. But that's just my opinion.

As a referee and robot inspector, I can hardly believe the kinds of violations I see on the robots and on the field. I can tell you that based on my observations, the ones who commit the most egregious acts are the same one I see in the pits who have to borrow this and that and everything in between. The other side of the coin are the ones who KNOW the rules and who pass inspection with flying colors. They are also the ones with unique solutions to the game. It is obvious that except from the likes of Newton and Archimedes, they borrowed nothing from no one.

I can understand how new teams have to ask for help from veterans; this stuff ain't easy. But we all get the same rule book. IMO, letting others read it and borrowing their interpretations not only prevents an understanding, it stifles innovation. I don't know how many teams come to us and say they didn't know that we could do things we've done. Had we taken their test - researched or not - we wouldn't have known it either.