Practice bot morality

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Taylor

What if those were one and the same?

I was hoping someone would catch my reference.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

If there wasn't an emphasis on winning why do we keep score? Make no mistake, this is a competition and a competition has winners and losers. If your robot doesn't move no amount of good feelings is gonna make that anything other than a complete failure at the goals of this competition. FRC is an engineering challenge to further the goals of FIRST. It is not supplemental education, it is not a learning experience, it is a competition in which industry partners with students to inspire them and show them that engineering is cool. This isn't about teaching. This is about making kids realize that Andy Baker is cooler than whoever won Survivor (or whatever it is kids these days watch).


A grotesque misunderstanding of the benefit of a practice bot.

(emphasis mine)

I dunno, Andrew... you would have to convince a lot of teachers (who are lead mentors on their teams) that it isn't about teaching.

Jane

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

I dunno, Andrew... you would have to convince a lot of teachers (who are lead mentors on their teams) that it isn't about teaching.

Jane

I have to agree with Andrew on this one. While teaching and learning frequently occurs on FRC teams, FIRST's goal isn't to teach science and technology. The goal is to increase awareness of STEM fields and make them appealing to students as a career choice. Learning and teaching are no doubt a very frequent and beneficial side effects, but students who participate in FIRST still have (need) four years of college in which to learn about STEM topics and prepare for a career in a STEM field.

I.E. if a hypothetical high school senior spent one afternoon watching the elimination matches at a regional, and that inspired them to go to college and be an engineer without actually gaining a shred of knowledge from the event, I think FIRST would mark that in the "win" column.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

you would have to convince a lot of teachers (who are lead mentors on their teams) that it isn't about teaching.

Jane

As a teacher who might be considered a lead mentor on his team (at least lead door unlocker and pizza orderer), I also believe teaching is a by product of FRC. My larger goal is to create relationships between students and industry professionals, give the students a glimpse of life beyond the high school walls, and help them find applications for the things they're learning in the traditional classroom.
There is no doubt teaching happens, but it's not about that.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

I have to agree with Andrew on this one. While teaching and learning frequently occurs on FRC teams, FIRST's goal isn't to teach science and technology. The goal is to increase awareness of STEM fields and make them appealing to students as a career choice. Learning and teaching are no doubt a very frequent and beneficial side effects, but students who participate in FIRST still have (need) four years of college in which to learn about STEM topics and prepare for a career in a STEM field.

I.E. if a hypothetical high school senior spent one afternoon watching the elimination matches at a regional, and that inspired them to go to college and be an engineer without actually gaining a shred of knowledge from the event, I think FIRST would mark that in the "win" column.

Your post, and the way you posted, provides insight and a broader scope with regard to STEM and future career choices. It would make a great elevator speech.

There is a lot of opportunity for learning to take place on an FRC team. There is a lot of opportunity for inspiration to take place on an FRC team. There is a lot of opportunity for growth to take place on an FRC team. That's what makes the partnership of the mentors and the students so powerful. It's also why the value of 'team' is so important. Especially at the FRC competitions.

Right now, in this thread, there is an opportunity to learn from each other. That is more than just a beneficial side effect. For many, it is a hope. Otherwise, it is a waste of time.

Edit: I see little red flags pop up when I start reading statements about what FRC is and what it isn't. If I want to help someone understand what FRC - is or isn't - I often use the FIRST website as a reference and cite it. Kind of like the game manual.

Jane

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by thefro526

For what it's worth, there was a team at one of the Canadian Regionals in 2010 that admitted to working on their robot after bag day (Built a 469 copy is memory serves me correctly) and they were still allowed to compete. As far as I know, there was not, and is not a mechanism in place to address instances like this - by the letter of the rule, an offending team should not be allowed to compete with that machine, but it's hard to turn a team down at an event.

I love the things I hear about the district system, and the EWCP podcast with Jim Zondag was fantastic. One question about the system. During the unbagging window (which was meant to repleace the Thursday time at a traditional regional) is there a limit to how much you can change on the robot? In other words can a team bag a minimal robot, continue to work on a practice bot, and then swap the two during the unbagging window?

At a regional you are limited to 30 lbs of custom parts, which is a number I wouldn't mind seeing reduced. At the same time I wish we would all go to a district like system. Just curious how it works on the other side of the fence.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

(emphasis mine)

I dunno, Andrew... you would have to convince a lot of teachers (who are lead mentors on their teams) that it isn't about teaching.

Jane

I dunno, Jane... FIRST doesn't contain the word Education or Teaching anywhere. In all the speeches I've heard there is a lot of talk about STEM professionals as rock stars but not a lot about how we should be teaching students.

Is it a nice side perk? Oh yes. I do this for the "Aha!" moment when students get a concept. But you'd have to basically get Dean and Woodie to tell me that FIRST is about teaching before I'd believe you about this.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I dunno, Jane... FIRST doesn't contain the word Education or Teaching anywhere. In all the speeches I've heard there is a lot of talk about STEM professionals as rock stars but not a lot about how we should be teaching students.

Is it a nice side perk? Oh yes. I do this for the "Aha!" moment when students get a concept. But you'd have to basically get Dean and Woodie to tell me that FIRST is about teaching before I'd believe you.

Well... You could argue that mentoring (which is included in FIRST's mission statement) has a strong element of teaching. But I'd agree that teaching learning is a side perk. If it doesn't happen, but mentoring does, mission accomplished.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by EricH

Well... You could argue that mentoring (which is included in FIRST's mission statement) has a strong element of teaching. But I'd agree that teaching learning is a side perk. If it doesn't happen, but mentoring does, mission accomplished.

Oh. I like this better. May I steal?

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I dunno, Jane... FIRST doesn't contain the word Education or Teaching anywhere. In all the speeches I've heard there is a lot of talk about STEM professionals as rock stars but not a lot about how we should be teaching students.

Is it a nice side perk? Oh yes. I do this for the "Aha!" moment when students get a concept. But you'd have to basically get Dean and Woodie to tell me that FIRST is about teaching before I'd believe you.

One last post on this.

You don't have to believe me. I'm aware of the confusion regarding teaching and inspiration and the opportunities that the robot competitions provide in promoting STEM awareness and in celebrating possibilities. There is confusion within the FRC community as to what FRC is about. I learn about the confusion on a regular basis by talking with mentors, teachers, parents, and students. The discussion of the use of a practice bot is an excellent example of what people think about FRC and what it is, in their opinions and their practices.

I've also heard that FIRST is dope. For some, it is. If they understand what that means and how it applies to the program.

Jane

[gren737]

Originally Posted by Ka'elaPruitt

FIRST wants this whole experience to be a friendly and fair competition, as well as a learning period..

Sorry, no. FIRST is not fair. Never has been, never was meant to be, Dean has come out and said it blantantly. It is not fair. Neither is life.

Getting on my soapbox here for a minute about "elite" vs. non elite and what that means to winning, because I have a pretty good personal example.

I was a member of Team 40 and 190 basically from 1995-2006 (off and on, but you get the point) Well established teams, full machine shops, good sized budgets etc. On 40 we had access to a full shop as well as numerous CNC machines that the kids can program and run because intelitek makes educational CNC equipment. I was used to designing and building 100% custom machined robots and ordering pretty much whatever I wanted. I don't think I need to post about the success of either of those 2 teams.

2009 - I get a new job, I now live in Tennessee and start team 2775 with Greg Needel. We have about $3000 to build the robot, nothing fancier than a band saw and drill press and a small closet out of which we can work in and all brand new kids many of whom had never used a screwdriver before (not exaggerating here).

We were finalists (3rd overall pick) in 2009 to 16&71 and Rookie All-Stars in St. Louis and picked by 1717 at Champs and finalists on Galileo to the eventual champs.
In 2010 we won St. Louis (first overall pick) and also made elim's at Champs and won a few awards on the way.

How did we do it? It wasn't with money or fancy machining because we didn't have either of those things. It was with organization, knowing HOW to build a robot in 6 weeks, building a very cheap practice robot, keeping everything as dirt simple as possible (for money and manufacturing reasons) and practice practice practice. We won and did well because our drive team had tons of practice. We had a very small budget, it was worth it to direct 1/3 of it towards a practice robot and lower the overall amount we could spend on the competition bot.
And you have to be organized. You have to come to each meeting with a plan, and materials. It takes as much time to organize a build season as it does to build a robot...that is the most important piece that alot of teams are missing. You think being elite means being a well oiled machine, well yeah, it does, but that doesn't happen by accident. It's being the well oiled machine that makes you a better team, not the other way around.

So please stop complaining that it's not fair. It's not, but you can still be very successful if you make the right choices with the resources you have. The robots we built in 2009 and 2010 can be built by ANY team, it's more about decision making than what you do or don't have.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

I love the things I hear about the district system, and the EWCP podcast with Jim Zondag was fantastic. One question about the system. During the unbagging window (which was meant to repleace the Thursday time at a traditional regional) is there a limit to how much you can change on the robot? In other words can a team bag a minimal robot, continue to work on a practice bot, and then swap the two during the unbagging window?

At a regional you are limited to 30 lbs of custom parts, which is a number I wouldn't mind seeing reduced. At the same time I wish we would all go to a district like system. Just curious how it works on the other side of the fence.

As far as I know, there is no limit to the amount of work that can be done other than the amount of time your robot can be out of the bag. We walked into Philadelphia last year with 20lbs or so of upgrade parts and rebuild our arm, claw and minibot deployment in about 8 hours - so a substantial rebuild is possible in a relatively short amount of time.

That being said, it took us a good portion of Friday to work out all of the kinks of the new system, so it may have hurt us a bit. A team rebuilding their robot during an unbag window could run into the same issues if proper time isn't left for integration. So yes, you could swap parts from a practice robot to a competition bot in a pinch, but the real question to ask yourself is how smoothly will the system integration go? Two robots, even 'identical' ones will have their own quirks and require their own tuning to reach maximum efficiency. (Manufacturing Tolerances, Differences in weight, Differences between new and used parts, etc contribute to the differences between two 'identical' machines)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Oh. I like this better. May I steal?

Steal away!

[Mike Martus]

WoW! This thread has gone from the Morality of building two robots to stealing and many, many issues in between.

My bottom line. End the 6 weeks and all or most of this goes away.

We can debate this to death ( has been on old threads dating back 15 years of CD), and there are always great opinions and rational for both sides of this subject. No one is wrong or right as there are good and bad.... this is the fun part.

I thought I would join this Great thread and be part of the ongoing dialog of one of the GREATEST debates in CD history.

[nickdog8891]

I Disagree with the idea of a practice bot. I have no issue if you use a previous robot, but to build a new robot, a replica of your newly built FIRST bot, just to practice with seems to violate the idea of the 6 week build.