Ken Patton's comments

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 5/13/99 7:11 PM MST



Ken et al,

I am placing this up here because someone keeps
shortening the threads.

I appreciate your thoughts on sustainability...I see
sustainability or the lack of it...as the single largest
detrement to FIRST...and I believe lengthening the cycle
time for a 'season' solves all the problems...so
here goes some fresh input.


Let's look at what a typical team that fully participates
in FIRST does through the course of a typical year.These are
actually the things FIRST is asking us to do.

1) Sept through December
Organize classes, meetings and curriculum to support
full involvement in FIRST

2) Jan Through March.
Design and build a competetive robot in 6 weeks
and then spend the next 6 weeks making spare parts
(Cause if you don't make spare parts your not as competetive
as the other kids and they won't want you on their team.)

3) January through January
Produce a competetive chairman's award...and for those
of you who have never tried it...it is a year long effort.
And it far out weighs the effort and resources required to
build a robot.

4)September through March
Produce an a 30 second animation.Again this takes equally
as many hours to do as it takes to construct a competetive robot.
( And is currently the second most popular aspect of the whole
program for our Team)

5) March through May
Attend multiple regionals. This is how FIRST generates
funds.

6) Sept through December
Start and maintain Lego league teams mentored by
Participating FIRST students on your teams...organized and
produced by SOMEBODY.

7)March through July
Start and maintain local post season 'Gymnasium events or
nearly full blown regional events currently termed Community
Events.....(Far and away the most joy we get from this program)

8) January through January
Produce and develop effective PR campaigns for FIRST
at the local, community, and national level.

The wonderful folks in Plymouth have been doing all
these things for the past 5 years...I am humbled to
even be a part of it,,,but be assured these things listed
above are being done by these committed folks...and being
done well...

So Ken,

I am asking only that we change the lens through which we view
this thing called FIRST...and then only slightly in an effort to
accomodate these 8 action items...


If we can agree on some basic premises we can go forward.
But we will need to answer some questions for ourselves
before we can do this...I do not pretend to answer these
questions for any of you...I only ask that you reflect on them.


1) Which of the above 8 action items is most important in advancing
the mission statement of FIRST.
(Now this could be argued for years...cause building
robots with engineers is fine, but it goes nowhere
without good PR.......and making animations is for many
far more accesible and rewarding than making Robots)

2) What is the mission statement of FIRST anyway...
I hear it said different from alot of different people.


3) IF you had to decide...which is most useful in advancing
your percieved aims of FIRST....building the ROBOT or
PLAYING with the robot....If it was life or death, one
or the other...which in your own heart would it be??
Only one choice....and it's in your own heart you have to answer.
I know we all like both...but we're searching for truth here, we
need answers to formulate a direction to move in.

Now with those thoughts swimming in your heads...add a few of these.

1)Many teams build robots without professional engineering help per se..and Dean
says that's OK, and they are very competetive.Many of you had them
as alliance partners.

2)Some teams field Robots built entirely by engineers and
Dean says that's OK too, and these teams are also very
competetive. Many of you had them as alliance partners too.

2)Many teams only build the robot and it's obvious that
they can sustain that effort yearly...cause 1 out of 7 ain't
bad (Meatloaf revisited)


The finnish...

First grows on the backs of those teams who work hard to
do all aspects of what is asked...and it is that level
of participation that is not sustainable...How many
Chairman's Award teams are still intact and functioning
at full efficiency? I'll let you research that for homework.

I ask the question...are we doing what we say we are doing..
are we fighting the good fight if we scale back in order
to just stay in the game? Or do we have the obligation to
do it the best we can each and every time...The folks in Plymouth
like folks everywhere,like knowing they have given something their
best shot...and doing all those 7 things every year
year after year...IS NOT SUSTAINABLE...building a robot every year
is, fine I agree, it's not a problem and under the plan
I advance you can still build a robot every year if you want to....

but the plan I propose, frees teams up a bit to do the
other 6 things necessary to make FIRST what we all want it to
be...

I am not asking for less....I am asking for more and I am running out of ways
to say it....I am asking for people to consider all aspects of FIRST
and to realize that the efforts put into making the Robots
should pay off better....we all deserve more inspirational
and definetly educational bang for the buck...and simply
extending the season, the cycle time for the product redevelopment
will help make this possible...and so much more..Kids like playing
with the robot along with their engineering mentors..sure engineers
do techno magic...but they are also wonderful companions who are
caring, trusting, funny and good role models for kids in search
of their place in the world...I'm asking you to spend less time in your
development facilities and more quality time out with the kids playing
with the robots you worked so hard to build...otherwise
your running on a treadmill and not getting where you really want
to be, and that's in the hearts and minds of the kids...

The kids....it's really who this program is about..it's
not about machines really...it's about kids and people.
All these kids are not going to grow up to be engineers,
but we can be darn sure that we will help them all grow
up to be good, decent people by showing them good decent
behaviors to model...and you do not necessarily need
to build a robot every 12 months to do that..And yes it is
VERY IMPORTANT that these kids associate these fine values
with us techy types...it's a good thing.

So...I will defend your right to disagree with me...to the death.
But I so want you to fully understand what you are
disagreeing with...

Thanks Ken...and you must know how grateful I am
to simply be able to share ideas with the high caliber
of the men and women, students and engineers, parents and
teachers of FIRST....because by simply even being a part
of it, you all make very impressive statements about who you are
and what you are about....we are all a community of
people who a willing and able to 'walk it like we talk it'

Good night

[archiver]

Posted by Mike Kulibaba, Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 5/14/99 11:00 PM MST


In Reply to: Ken Patton's comments posted by michael bastoni on 5/13/99 7:11 PM MST:




: 3) January through January
: Produce a competetive chairman's award...and for those
: of you who have never tried it...it is a year long effort.
: And it far out weighs the effort and resources required to
: build a robot.


Mr. B

I agree that this is the most important part of FIRST. The Chairman's award symbolizies everything that FIRST is about. It's not about winning the national Championship(although that would be nice!) it's about the partnership, teamwork, and community involvement. I saw Plymouth North's Chairman's award from 1998, which is the year they won it, and it totally blew my mind, I was impressed beyond belief at the work you all put it in. I would be the happiest person if my team ever put in a submission as good as your team did. And building a robot in 6 weeks is a cake-walk compared to how much energy and time is needed to make a competitive Chairman's Award. It is a year round process and many teams don't understand the effort that it takes. I hope someday my team would get nominated for the most prestigious award FIRST has to offer. And then I will consider my team to be up in the same top eschalon of teams like Delphi, X-Cats, Plymouth North, etc.

Mike Kulibaba Team 88 TJ²

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 5/15/99 7:25 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Ken Patton's comments posted by Mike Kulibaba on 5/14/99 11:00 PM MST:



:
From all of the students and members
of Team #23,

Thank You,

Michael

for your kind words....and regarding nominations...

team 88 has our unqualified endorsement...

and please give our best to your wonderful
Physics teacher, Mrs. Calif....

Mr.b

[archiver]

Posted by Greg Mills, Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 5/17/99 6:46 AM MST


In Reply to: Ken Patton's comments posted by michael bastoni on 5/13/99 7:11 PM MST:



:

I have to agree that sustainability or the lack there of is the single largest problem facing long time FIRST programs. If we spent anywhere the time you guys do it wouldn't work here. We try to keep it as close to a 'six-week project' as possible. We only have a few after hour classes in the fall and those are centered on teamwork and leadership. We only introduce students to engineering and make no attempt to educate them. Our Chairmans Award submission is typically started about the second week of the robot build time (we have never won but have been finalists for four straight years). The animation project is 100% student driven which keeps us isolated from that task. We put our robot in the box on the shipping day and quit for awhile (we were Number one seed in the two regionals that we attended and were drafted in the first round at Nationals). The fund-raising is handled by the students and their parents. We try to limit our repeat members of the team and keep the team size to about thirty. This insures fresh bodies every year.

Is our team successful? I think that we are very effective in inspiration and that is our only goal. We inspire the students by spending time with them for six weeks and letting them see what and how we do. For us the 'build time' is far more important and inspirational than the 'competition'. It is almost a let-down when the build time is over. The competitions serve as a way to end things and give something to work for but they are not the heart of the program. We have almost a new team of students each year and they all get to experience the program in the same way and that includes brainstorming a new challenge and seeing our ideas put into a working robot. If the game stays the same then we have lost what our program is built on.

Each FIRST program is run differently and what works for one may not work for all. I don't want a longer season because it is the down time that allows us to get ready and 'do it again next year.' We could not sustain an effort like you describe. I think a smaller ongoing program is better than a large effort that dies because it gets out of control. We all have to make decisions about what is right for us and our programs.

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 5/17/99 3:01 PM MST


In Reply to: Ken Patton's comments posted by michael bastoni on 5/13/99 7:11 PM MST:




Mike-

I'm glad you saw my comments - they were getting near the bottom of the page, and they might be archive status by now... Sorry I've been slow the last few weeks.

We were talking about keeping the game the same vs. changing it every year. I'm for changing it, you are for keeping it the same for 2-4-8 or so years. We are in agreement that the biggest challenge we have as FIRST supporters is the sustainability of a large number of teams in the competition.

You listed the following key elements for FIRST teams:
1)organize classes/meetings/curriculum in Sept-Dec
2)brainstorm/design/build robots in Jan-Mar
3)produce Chairman's Award entry year round
4)produce 30 sec animation in Sept-Mar
5)attend FIRST competitions Mar-Apr
6)start/mentor Lego League teams Sept-Dec
7)start/maintain off-season robot events May-July
8)develop/produce local/state/national PR events year round

You then asked me what is most important in advancing the mission statement of FIRST. I would answer #5, attending the competitions. If we did not attend the competitions, there would be nothing to talk about, no PR needed, no cool TV shows to get the attention of kids who now watch pro wrestling (not that theres anything wrong with that...), no Chairman's Award. I know, the competitions are not the 'end' we are looking for; thats #1, the improved math/science/technology curriculums that these enlightened students will be demanding. But you won't have enlightened students without the events that get their attention. Oh, and by the way, you won't have an event without #2, building the robots. I think everything else grows out of #2 and #5, so they are the most important.

You also asked me what the mission statement of FIRST is. I listen to Dean on this one: 'The goal of FIRST is that, after kids see this stuff, particularly kids that might have never met an engineer, walk out of this saying, and if you interview the thousands of kids here you'll see its working, that they walk out of here saying 'I could do that. This is fun. Now I know why you have to learn algebra. Because you can't figure out power without multiplying volts times amps. You can't figure out torque without multiplying a force times a distance. You can't figure out whether the arm on that robot is going to get there or not unless you know how to figure out the sine of thirty degrees, and do some trigonometry. And wow, these engineers can do powerful things, because
they have an education. And they also look like they're having a lot of fun doing it. And there's only a few hundred jobs every year made in the NFL, and right now we're 560,000 people short for open technical jobs in the United States. And by the year 2000 it will be a couple of million.'' [for full text of the interview this came from, see the HB website]

You asked me which is more useful, building or playing with the robot. I think it's building it. First of all, you can't play with it if you don't build it. Second, and most important in my opinion, the true demonstration of what engineers/scientists/technicians do with their minds/tools is: the strategy definition when you don't know the true requirements, the brainstorming when you don't know the answer, the designing from a clean sheet of paper, the machining, and the building/modifying/rebuilding as you learn what you did wrong. Something from nothing. This is, I think, the phase of the program where students who didn't know about technical professionals find out what technical professionals really can do. This is where they can look out 5-10 years and say 'what if I were an engineer...' And simply playing with the robot, even though it builds close relationships and is fun, is not a good substitute for it. And simply rehashing an old design won't do it, because the answers are pretty much known by anyone who watches the video.

I still don't see how the proposal to keep the game the same helps us. You make the argument that not building a robot every year will free us up to do the six other things *necessary* to make FIRST what we want it to be. As you now know, I think the *necessary* thing is the one you want to eliminate. The others are all support functions (important ones, absolutely) for the main events.

As to the sustainability of superhuman efforts like those of your team: I agree, they are not sustainable over the long term. Maybe the team members have to take it upon themselves if they want to do that, rather than have it be *expected* of all teams. After all, we agree that the most important thing is sustainability. It probably depends on where the community is at in terms of awareness of technical professionals, economics, school curriculum, etc.

Ken