What would you do to improve the FIRST experience?

[Jcarbon]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

We need the robot equivalent of pickup games.

I totally agree with this. Last year, my team started developing this very thing - we call it WAPUR, for Washtenaw (county) Pickup Robotics. The goal was to design a game that could be played as a pickup - the field fits in the back of a trunk and is quickly set up, and the robots are smaller than FRC. For our build season, we used rules inspired by OCCRA - no precision machining and limited mentor help. Last year, we used it as a fun fall training exercise, but this year we're looking to expand to more teams in our area. We'd be happy to give the game information or answer questions to anyone who's interested.

[cadandcookies]

Going back a bit to the FTC/VRC thing:

FTC needs to start treating its teams better. Specifically this past season where they essentially had thousands of teams beta test a control system during their actual season, after barely even being warned that they would have to drop hundreds of dollars on a new control system (which has a number of major design flaws that could have been caught with FRC-style beta testing). There is so much right with FTC (custom robots? no weight limit? no cost limit? open season? Yes please!), but having used the VRC control system it is just so much easier to work with (of course, this comes with the trade off of having weak motors and weak on-board processing). I don't really have any claims about the tournament side of things, but that's because the partner in Minnesota is absolutely fantastic and does some things that are against the grain (like provide feedback to teams).

In general, I'll agree with an earlier poster that more emphasis needs to be put on the FTC program. It's the more sustainable program that can fit better into existing educational models. FRC is great, but FTC is probably the most flexible robotics program in existence right now, including non-FIRST competitions. That flexibility can be leveraged into growing "right" both inside and outside the US.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

... VRC ... weak motors and weak on-board processing ...

Nah. They are neither weak, nor strong. They simply are what they are; and are part of a fairly well-integrated suite of parts.

Let's not disparage or diefy other programs. Let's suggest ways to improve FIRST programs.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by gblake

Nah. They are neither weak, nor strong. They simply are what they are; and are part of a fairly well-integrated suite of parts.

Let's not disparage or diefy other programs. Let's suggest ways to improve FIRST programs.

If what you took from that is that I'm disparaging VEX and deifying FTC, I don't really know what to say, because the first half of that sentence is literally saying that the VEX control system is just so much easier to work with than the current FTC control system (which I previously stated has major issues). Frankly the next FTC control system should take some hints from the VEX control system and the current FRC control system, both on the physical and virtual sides.

More to the point, the VEX motors ARE weak compared to most of the allowed FTC motors and the Cortex IS weaker in processing power compared to the phones used for FTC. This isn't disparaging VEX, it's stating a simple fact. The VEX components work well in the VEX system, which is exactly what they're designed to do. In the context of comparing them to FTC, they have some clear limiting factors that allow them to be so simple.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the engineering aspects of the FTC control system (though I spent an entire season as a CSA and FTA dealing with its massive issues), but the main point here is that future FTC control system rollouts need to be handled with the same care given to the FRC system rollout-- that includes beta and alpha testing with actual teams, and better communication about future changes. The way this last system rolled out rubbed a lot of people (myself included) the wrong way.

[Chief Hedgehog]

I am not certain how FIRST as a world-wide organization can do better. It is the premier Robotics organization for high school/prep students. The formula is working wonders. There are concerns moving forward with a dual champs in the near future - but I believe that FIRST has a greater plan in the works (dual champs evolving into super-regionals with districts and regionals feeding into these super-regionals) with a return of a singular championship in the coming years.

My concern is within Minnesota. Not the Regional vs. Districts model (lets not go there...), but how outstate Minnesota is relatively untapped in terms of FTC. Many of the schools that 4607 reaches out to comes back with 'we already offer robotics'. It should not be surprising - for those that know Minnesota recognize that BEST and VRC have already made great inroads into Central and Western Minnesota.

This does not mean that I have any issues with BEST or VRC (I am in the process of creating two courses that revolve around VRC/VexEDR), but if FRC and MNFIRST want to continue their growth in the state, we need to make certain that the administrations of outstate schools understand the difference between BEST, VRC, and FIRST. However, most of the administrators see that they have robotics programs and just rubber-stamp 'STEM initiative' on them.

We also need at least one more regional that can stand on its own legs - not propped up by the MPLS regionals.

The addition of the MSHSL State Tournament has definitely opened many doors to our local schools - and more are becoming aware of the advantages of FIRST and FRC. However, FIRST lacks in curriculum - and VEX EDR has a strong presence in this area. In fact, the local Tech College based in St Cloud hosts the MN State VEX Robotics Championships, and many in my own community and school mistake this for my own team's work and affiliation with FRC.

My concern is the follow through from High Tech Kids in Minnesota. We have a strong FLL following, but it seems that without great communication and common goals between HTK and MNFIRST, we are struggling to tie up loose ends. Even last summer, when we were trying to secure a space for a fall training event, the people at St Cloud State University were trying to include VEX teams - and even expressed the want to include VEX in the MSHSL State Tournament. Most of the common public see robot program = robot program and do not distinguish between FIRST, VEX, and BEST.

This is what I hope to change in Central and Western MN in the coming years - a true understanding and appreciation for VRC and FRC and the differences they hold.

I will state this - and I know that many in our CD community are strong proponents/supporters of VEX and VRC - but when I try to talk about FIRST in local circles, VRC folks do try to discredit FRC with the cost issues, organization in Minnesota, and 'VEX has a State Tournament', etc. It is within these circles, with potential sponsors listening in, it makes it difficult to state that FRC has the backing of the MSHSL and is the only Robotics program with this authority behind it without coming across as arrogant or off-putting. I do not want to create a dust up (in the presence of these sponsors) as we should be working towards the same goals. Instead of stripping sponsors from the other organization, we should be working to create opportunities for both. It can be very disheartening at times - especially knowing that these sponsors already work with teams that we value so much.

[sanddrag]

Here are my comments as a 15th-year FIRSTer:

• Revitalize the ability to be highly competitive with lower costs involved (get rid of the practice bot & practice field advantage due to bagging, among other things)
• Bring back the benefit to and emphasis on designing and manufacturing your own solutions, rather than buying a bunch of COTS stuff to put together.
• Reduce annual costs all around
• Incorporate elements that the general public will understand and care about (medieval castle whatnow?)
• Reduce the luck factors in the competition
• Reduce or cap the number of hours spent per year, and especially per week. In some sense, we have all really been duped into entering a competition of who can spend more hours than the next guy on this project.
• Reduce the focus on growing FIRST nationally as an organization, and increase the focus on each team growing themselves an organization
• Increase focus on student skill and knowledge attainment
• Track FIRST alumni
• Provide resources to help integrate FIRST with education, and with schools. Create more tie-ins with education. Organizations such as SkillsUSA have, why hasn't FIRST?
• Provide feedback on the Chairman's Award to teams who request it
• Get the story straight as to what the Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration Awards are and are not, and how they relate or do not relate to one another, and how they are judged.
• Eliminate about 1/4 of the volunteers. Sorry, I know that sounds harsh. The rainbows and butterflys story is that we love all of our volunteers (heck, I used to be one, for years). But the reality is, you look at (offseason) events that don't have as many, and they run very well, because the people they do have know what they're doing, and there's no extra people to hassle you about anything. Most of my most unpleasant times in FIRST have been those in which I've been hassled by a volunteer. I will say it has gotten a lot better in recent times though.

[indieFan]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

• Bring back the benefit to and emphasis on designing and manufacturing your own solutions, rather than buying a bunch of COTS stuff to put together.
• Eliminate about 1/4 of the volunteers. But the reality is, you look at (offseason) events that don't have as many, and they run very well, because the people they do have know what they're doing, and there's no extra people to hassle you about anything.

I was spoiled while I was with the teams in LA having a machine shop at the high school, as well as the college, that were used to manufacture our own gearboxes and other stuff. With my rookie team this year, we had metal cutting hacksaws that the mentors purchased, a drill press, a band saw that couldn't cut wood straight, a miter saw, and some hand drills that the mentors brought in. Designing solutions using COTS materials turns out to be just as good a challenge, albeit a different one. All of the same engineering goes into the design regardless if it's a custom built or COTS designed system.

As for the volunteers, which ones would you eliminate?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

[*]Track FIRST alumni

This is happening. It's a slow process and it is a lot more difficult than everyone realizes. It's not as simple as collecting survey responses as it turns out and if you think about the number of teams that don't have all of their students registered in STIMS, it is an even larger issue for teams to track student/mentor involvement. How many FRC teams have internal political battles because "that person isn't really on the team"?

After I asked my question to Frank about this exact subject on the AMA he did in the fall I was put in touch with Michelle Long at FIRST. Michelle is awesome and this is a problem that she is actively working on along with many others.

So, yes, it is an issue, yes FIRST is aware of it, and yes they are doing something about it and you can expect to see them continue to improve in this area.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by marshall

This is happening. It's a slow process and it is a lot more difficult than everyone realizes.

It's even difficult in a small District area. It's an area for growth for us in IndianaFIRST too.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Carolyn_Grace

It's even difficult in a small District area. It's an area for growth for us in IndianaFIRST too.

Yeah, I wish FIRST had a policy to allow their employees to post on CD but they don't... However, if they did, I think Michelle would say something like this:

Make sure you all stop by the Alumni booth at the exhibit hall in St Louis to see the work they are doing with Nvidia, BAE, SpaceX, and other companies to encourage FIRST alumni to stay involved and to help them get awesome jobs with awesome companies.

I'm sure she would also tell you to encourage graduating alumni to stay involved through the local state/regional/district organizations and that teams can help by getting all of their students registered online in STIMS.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Reduce the focus on growing FIRST nationally as an organization, and increase the focus on each team growing themselves an organization

I think this was a big part of why 597 was awarded their CCA. The message I got was that CA is all about "sustained meaningful impact on your community" It's not about starting 150 FLL teams or working in other countries; it's about STEM in your community.

I admit, it took me a LONG time to understand this message. I can be a lot dense at times.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I think this was a big part of why 597 was awarded their CCA. The message I got was that CA is all about "sustained meaningful impact on your community" It's not about starting 150 FLL teams or working in other countries; it's about STEM in your community.

I admit, it took me a LONG time to understand this message. I can be a lot dense at times.

There needs to be balance.
The longer the reach of generosity generally the more sparse the realistic supply line is for that generosity.

I was asked recently if my goal to provide resources to my region was in some way 'selfish' to which I responded: this is where I am and this is the good I can afford to do. The further I am away - the smaller the help I can provide because of logistics.

In a global community sense I think it is vital we recognize our impact on the larger community, but when we ignore our own backyard for everyone else's we eventually pay a price. A situation to which I can literally relate because I have been known to ignore home maintenance literally in my backyard in exchange to help other people. Sooner or later - you have to take care of yourself to continue to help others.

[qscgy]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

The message I got was that CA is all about "sustained meaningful impact on your community" It's not about starting 150 FLL teams or working in other countries; it's about STEM in your community.

I've always been wondering about this. Does Chairman's have to be for STEM, or can it be from other impacts of the team as an organization?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by qscgy

I've always been wondering about this. Does Chairman's have to be for STEM, or can it be from other impacts of the team as an organization?

I'd refer you to the award description in the manual

[pfreivald]

Hmmm, for starters....

• Reduce the costs involved in creating a competitive robot (reduce entrance fees as much as possible; make real field elements cheaper/easier to produce AND STORE; I hate to say this but probably remove stop build day)
• Create guidelines to deal with mentor and student burnout (not sure how that would work--sanddrag's idea about capping the number of hours per year and/or week, perhaps)
• Maximize games per entrance fee dollar, and keep teams with drastically different games per entrance fee dollar from competing against each other (because let's face it, that's fundamentally unfair--which is why either everyone should be on the district model, or no one should be)
• Shift focus to team sustainability and improvement rather than program growth
• Rubrics for all awards should be created, made public six months in advance, and strictly adhered to when judging (with the exception of the Judge's Award). Teams should receive scored rubrics for each award.
• Make the Chairman's Award presentation and essays blindly judged--no team numbers, no team T-shirts, no identifiers on anything until after the winner has been chosen