FIRST world problems

[GeeTwo]

Sometimes, a team is so successful at some aspect of its operations that it runs into "problems" that most teams would love to have. Even more than with most problems, "FIRST world problems" are best viewed as an opportunity. What "FIRST world problems" have you turned to an advantage, and how?

Here's our story: Team 3946 did a bit of a PR blitz prior to Bayou 2014 (Aerial Assist). As a result, several teachers had the webcast of Bayou on during class on Friday. During the fall of 2014, we brought our t-shirt and mini-football launching air cannon onto the running track during several football games; we flew the robotics banner (which is intentionally aligned with the other school teams' colors and names; even our Navy JROTC has "Tiger Navy" on their PT uniforms). In late 2014, we realized that we had more people interested in joining robotics than our facilities could possibly handle (80 vs 40-50). We decided to hold "tryouts" to whittle the numbers down to about 50. We set up tryouts that looked like aptitude tests in programming, numerical drawing, cutting pieces, writing directions, and a number of other tasks. We graded students both on aptitude/ability and on attitude. We selected members based on attitude and asigned them to departments based on aptitude (with expressed preferences considered). OH WHAT A DIFFERENCE! The 2015 team was about the same size as the 2014 team, but the attitude was incredibly different. I originally approached "tryouts" as a way to prevent overcrowding, but one week after tryouts were over, I hope we never have to go back to a "take everyone" condition again.

[bigbeezy]

How did this work for the 2nd year? Or has this only been a 1 time thing so far?

I'm very interested in this. We had a very similar experience after the 2014 season. 2013 we won our first regional and 2014 we had another very successful year. We also began more heavily recruiting our 2nd high school. The combo of all that lead us to having over 90 kids in fall 2014, 60 of which were new. By the end of the year we were down to about 45-50 total. 90 kids in the fall was brutal on us mentors and the veteran students. So last year we started 3 FTC teams at our schools to help manage the load. These students would only do FTC in the fall and would not join FRC until the summer (now). We had 35 new kids take part in FTC, we brought 10 former FLL kids and 7 younger siblings to FRC this past year. We look to have about 15-20 FTC members joining FRC this coming season, 6-7 of the FLL kids and 6 siblings are remaining with the team, the rest have dropped. This puts our FRC team about about 60-65. I'm looking for a more sustainable way to get the dedicated and motivated kids on the team and exposed to FIRST.

I'm interested in how you made/administered the aptitude tests? Who were the graders, adults or students? How did students with zero background in programming or manufacturing handle the tests? What are some things that you would change for the next year?

[sanddrag]

Here's some food for thought: Does your FRC program need the students, or do the students need your FRC program?

Sometimes the prime candidate to benefit from the FRC experience is not the one who already knows everything and in some cases, may be the one who knows nothing coming in, but is willing to learn.

[bigbeezy]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Here's some food for thought: Does your FRC program need the students, or do the students need your FRC program?

Sometimes the prime candidate to benefit from the FRC experience is not the one who already knows everything and in some cases, may be the one who knows nothing coming in, but is willing to learn.

Correct, which is why I've never wanted to have an application or look at grades or existing skills (lord knows I had none when I was a student). Interested tho in how other teams assemble their teams.

[DonRotolo]

PM me to hear the story of the kid with 2 left hands (and no thumbs), whose father is a tax accountant. He had never used a screwdriver before. He ended up our mechanical chief, and graduated with a BSME from Lehigh 8 years after he joined the team.

[GeeTwo]

We absolutely did tryouts again this year, with a few minor changes, not all of them were improvements.

The fall 2014 tryouts (for the 2015 season) were about four weeks long, I believe the four weeks leading up to Thanksgiving. I did the arduino-based programming one - I built the hardware, set the problem (modifying the sweep program to do various fancier things), and gave the test to about half of the applicants; the other half were given by a varsity programmer. Some tests were all-mentor given, others all-student given; we worked with the skills we had on hand. Because we started late (knew we would only have December before build season), many of the tests began with a mini-training session or seminar. The tests were offered "station" style - they were all going on at the same time, and each station could support a limited number of people taking the test at a time. The tryouts went on long enough that a gung-ho applicant could finish in a bit more than half the sessions; most of the students who did not complete the tests either gave up or attended fewer than half the sessions (or both). As I at least hinted at in the OP, our scoring rubric included both attitude and performance metrics. Attitude was much more important as far as making it onto the team; performance was only a discriminator when it came to initial team/role assignments (which WERE initial - several changes were made).

In fall 2015, we made two major changes, and a number of minor changes. None of the tests were identical, as we knew we would have re-applications, and we required our 2015 team members who did not make the "varsity" (those we brought to Bayou on Thursday and Friday and/or CMP) to try out again.

Major change 1: We reduced the number of tests, and shrank the duration to two weeks (Two Mondays and Two Thursdays, 10 hours total.) Definite improvement. We had a few students complete the tests in two sessions, and a great many in three.

Major change 2: Much earlier - we ended in September. This was too much of a good thing. We had fewer applicants (as we had brought the air cannon to fewer games before tryouts started). On the other hand, we had more time for both "classroom" and "hands-on" training between tryouts and the beginning of build season. This year we'll probably split the difference and do something like the first two weeks in October.

Minor change 1: We added a "teamwork" challenge that encouraged the applicants to network with each other to build a combination electric/pneumatic circuit designed by one of our lead mentors. We'll probably do something similar this year.

Minor change 2: We added a "Kobyashi Maru" test. Those of you who are Trekkers and/or Trekkies will know that this means a test that CANNOT BE COMPLETED, intended as a test of character. I'm not sure exactly what balance between "too willing to accept defeat" and "Don Quixote" the testers were looking for, but I didn't disagree with them on any specific cases.

And, to sanddrag:
We absolutely recognize that there are times that the member needs the team more than the team needs the member. In both years of "tryouts", as well as all three previous years, the coach and/or mentors agreed to accept one or more "project" students, for whom at least one coach or mentor agreed to take on some extra responsibility. I can think of at least two "spectacular successes" with this (team members brought on as "projects" who proved to be brilliant thinkers and/or real leaders), and a few "serious failures" (ultimately quit or kicked off the team) over our five years. Our bottom line on this is that we do not accept "project" students unless at least one mentor/coach accepts the student as his/her project.

Finally, addressing BigBeezy's response to sanddrag as I was assembling the above:
Attitude - willingness to learn, tenacity, and general demeanor are far more important than any native (or pre-learned) ability as far as our selection process. Students without the proper attitude are far less likely to respond to (or even recognize) the inspiration an FRC team has to offer.

The bottom line is that I'd rather inspire someone with tenacity but little or no recognizable technical skill to the importance of STEM over someone with considerable technical skills but no ambition. Perhaps I'm deluding myself, but I like to think that I'm following (Dean's?) reasoning of "Who does the world need to lead us into the future?" over "What does the team need" or "What does the student need?".

[Taggerun]

So does this help?? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bwvlbJ0h35A
Yes I am a huge Weird Al fan!!
Thanks,
Taggerun

[gblake]

0.o! Bravo

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

... The bottom line is that I'd rather inspire someone with tenacity but little or no recognizable technical skill to the importance of STEM over someone with considerable technical skills but no ambition. ...

I don't think you even need the last part of this sentence I quoted, if you are focused on inspiring fence-sitting students, or students who haven't given STEM a try yet, to pursue STEM careers.

Focusing on attitude, instead of focusing on finding the students who have already had the most success pursuing STEM topics, sounds like a very good approach for a FIRST team to use. It might not be the best recruiting strategy for a NASCAR team, but it sounds very much in line with FIRST's goal(s).

Some folks might argue that it's an approach that is at odds with pursuing one or two forms of robot-excellence, and/or that it's an approach that doesn't maximize your organization's chances of appearing on the Einstein field. If you do encounter that mindset, I hope you agree with them, and then let them know why that is interesting, but not so important.

Blake

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Taggerun

So does this help?? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bwvlbJ0h35A
Yes I am a huge Weird Al fan!!
Thanks,
Taggerun

I consider myself a fan, though not a huge fan. While I do enjoy a great number of his songs, IMO, The Ballad of Jed Clampett set to the tune of Money for Nothing (especially when raised by the video) was his best bit of genius. This song was in the back of my mind last year when I started this thread.

Originally Posted by gblake

I don't think you even need the last part of this sentence I quoted, if you are focused on inspiring fence-sitting students, or students who haven't given STEM a try yet, to pursue STEM careers.

While tenacity and ambition aren't exactly the same thing, there seems to be a definite correlation. This was my point - I'd rather have ambitious students than talented students for inspiration purposes.