[FIRST EMAIL] Stop Build Day Survey

[indieFan]

Originally Posted by D.Allred

Interesting point. FIRST's goal is to inspire students and grow to reach as many students as possible. It emphasizes Gracious Professionalism and Co-opertition. Engineering and competition are just a means to that end.

The change to a district event structure actually emphasizes competition more than dropping bag day. (More matches... same money ... better use of resources is the theme presented.) Are districts overemphasizing competition?

I can see the argument going both ways.

No: The districts can be seen as allowing for the iterative process because you test your robot, then make changes. All engineering requires an iterative process.

Yes: For the reasons you mention above, plus the goal of getting to DCMP.

Personally, not only would I like to keep SBD, but I would like to get rid of the unbag times before the districts. Unbag times defeat the purpose of SBD. (Unbag times between events makes sense to fix things.)

I've been on teams that went to regionals, champs, and districts. Districts are the same length of time as regionals (3 days), so why is there a different structure to the unbagging rules? It makes no sense to me.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by indieFan

Personally, not only would I like to keep SBD, but I would like to get rid of the unbag times before the districts. Unbag times defeat the purpose of SBD. (Unbag times between events makes sense to fix things.)

I've been on teams that went to regionals, champs, and districts. Districts are the same length of time as regionals (3 days), so why is there a different structure to the unbagging rules? It makes no sense to me.

Regionals and District Events are not the same lengths of time. Using your team's event schedule, PNW Glacier Peak had load-in on Friday (11 March 2016) at 5PM. Opening Ceremonies were the next day at 10:30AM, and Awards were scheduled for the following day at 4PM. Also in 2016, Robodox went to the LA Regional, which loaded in 6PM Wednesday (9 March 2016). Opening Ceremonies weren't until Friday at 8:30AM, and closing ceremonies were scheduled for Saturday 4:30PM. District unbag time is replacing the Thursday you see between load-in and Opening Ceremonies on the LA Regional schedule.

Originally Posted by Mr V

Yes FRC is supposed to at least resemble the real world of engineering and in the real world deadlines are common and in some cases there are penalties that can be financial in nature to the company and if the company has to pay up because that deadline was missed the person or persons who failed to meet that internal deadline are likely to come under the scrutiny of their boss.

This sounds essentially like what can happen if you miss a deadline for FRC, wherein deadline = event. SBD is an artificial deadline before that happens, and it isn't a hard one at that. It's just harder for some than others. Changing this would require not just banning the WH allowance but banning practice bots and other development, which, in addition to not having a clear meaning is the clearest example of holding back student inspiration and development that I can think of. My kids have learned and grown incredibly with practice bots over the years, not to mention the difference between unbag time and regional pit time.

[gblake]

My one-liner - "I support tightening the current stop-build restrictions because I don't want to see the total FRC program slide too far down the slippery slope of over-emphasizing the competition part of an otherwise well-rounded spectrum of activities."

Something that I think fits into the topic(s) of some recent posts ...

IMO, there is a tangible difference between inspiring someone to consider becoming a Scientist, Technologist, Engineer, or Mathematician (or whatever), and attempting to actually transform an inspired person into one of those.

Like most/all of us, I love seeing students become better at STEM skills, but I also try to stay aware of the difference between creating the inspiration, and subsequently taking on responsibility for replacing the formal training available from other sources.

Sure, you feed the STEM hunger of eager/inspired students, and you feed them as much as you and they can handle - because it's fun.

But, while there is no doubt a lot of overlap between inspiration and subsequent training, the two things aren't interchangeable.

When planning club/team activities, whenever we reached the point of having to choose/recommend how we are going to spend our chunks of scarce time, I try to think hard about whether I/we should invest those hours and energy into making an OK robot better, or into introducing new people to STEM opportunities.

Those two things certainly aren't 100% mutually-exclusive, but they aren't 100% identical either; and the clock is a merciless taskmaster.

Blake

[D.Allred]

Originally Posted by indieFan

I can see the argument going both ways.

No: The districts can be seen as allowing for the iterative process because you test your robot, then make changes. All engineering requires an iterative process.

Yes: For the reasons you mention above, plus the goal of getting to DCMP.

Personally, not only would I like to keep SBD, but I would like to get rid of the unbag times before the districts. Unbag times defeat the purpose of SBD. (Unbag times between events makes sense to fix things.)

I've been on teams that went to regionals, champs, and districts. Districts are the same length of time as regionals (3 days), so why is there a different structure to the unbagging rules? It makes no sense to me.

Thanks for the clarification. I have a better understanding of your perspective.

I'd rather extend that unbagging rule to regional teams than deny districts that option. We'll agree to disagree on that point.

It's a good debate to have. However, the survey didn't address this middle ground that already exists within the district system.

David