[FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward

[Karthik]

FIRST's analysis of the survey numbers and this thread are great examples of the old theory of "people are just going to see what they want to see in the numbers."

When I looked at the numbers, I immediately grouped the data into buckets.

Strongly oppose (ratings 1-3): 48%
Neutral (ratings 4-7): 29%
Strongly favour (ratings 8-10): 23%

Of course, my parsing of the data is probably skewed by my own biases. Your mileage may vary.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Karthik

FIRST's analysis of the survey numbers and this thread are great examples of the old theory of "people are just going to see what they want to see in the numbers."

When I looked at the numbers, I immediately grouped the data into buckets.

Strongly oppose (ratings 1-3): 48%
Neutral (ratings 4-7): 29%
Strongly favour (ratings 8-10): 23%

Of course, my parsing of the data is probably skewed by my own biases. Your mileage may vary.

Seems to me this is the most reasonable analysis (could argue 7 is favour, but could go either way). Removing neutral voters makes no sense. They have an opinion. Neutral is a totally valid opinion.

I don't think you can look at this data and reasonably say "most of FRC is opposed to two Championships," especially when the nonvoters likely don't care/are neutral.

[Drakxii]

Originally Posted by Basel A

Seems to me this is the most reasonable analysis (could argue 7 is favour, but could go either way). Removing neutral voters makes no sense. They have an opinion. Neutral is a totally valid opinion.

I don't think you can look at this data and reasonably say "most of FRC is opposed to two Championships," especially when the nonvoters likely don't care/are neutral.

Please don't assume what non-voters feel. You don't know what they would have voted or why they didn't.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Basel A

Seems to me this is the most reasonable analysis (could argue 7 is favour, but could go either way). Removing neutral voters makes no sense. They have an opinion. Neutral is a totally valid opinion.

I don't think you can look at this data and reasonably say "most of FRC is opposed to two Championships," especially when the nonvoters likely don't care/are neutral.

Karthik has reconciled the unevenly weighted scale by simply clumping the most opposed, and most favoured 3 choices together and leaving the rest as neutral. Counting 7 as favour would make his Favour and Oppose buckets different sizes again.

And his result? I don't know how you can see a 48/29/23 split and suggest anything other than that "most" people are opposed.

The whole thing just really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Some around here know I did not participate in FRC this year due to some issues last year ultimately resulting in my leaving the team I was with. The details surrounding that are unimportant.

I've always been a pretty vocal person when I think things aren't how they ought to be, and many of the responses I've seen from FIRST management come off as being more about saving face and keeping up appearances than they are about correcting mistakes and being the best organization we can be. That's never sat right with me, and ultimately, I decided to sit back and take a year off, and see how I feel about returning to mentoring a team in 2016.

Everything about the championsplit, and this survey, and Frank's blog about it is screaming to me that FIRST is an organization that has lost touch with its goals. I'd *love* to see the distribution of the students-only 4.3 average. The whole point of this is to inspire them. If they are similarly distributed to what we can glean from the overall numbers, only slightly more heavily biased to the low-end? That's terrifying and should be a serious wake-up call to HQ.

This shouldn't be about spin-doctoring statistics to try and appease the masses with "See? We're not *really* doing something you all hate". If an announcement has decades-long mentors suggesting that they are willing to leave the program in favour of building their own within hours of said announcement? THERE'S SOMETHING REALLY WRONG.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Basel A

I don't think you can look at this data and reasonably say "most of FRC is opposed to two Championships," especially when the nonvoters likely don't care/are neutral.

Given the low turnout for elections in the US, that argument would lead to us to the conclusion that we haven't actually elected anyone. The fact is that elections and decisions are determined by those who care enough to respond. If we want a democratic process, allowing indifference to have weight becomes an overwhelming defeating burden.