Is FIRST about Robot?

[gblake]

Ed,

Earlier today, I had a devil of a time with my Internet connection but I was able make some progress. I spent the time my connection was up, going over my recent posts to look for any place where I might have written the ideas you describe. There seem to be some "disconnects".

I still plan to write a reply that covers my take on the fundamental, philosophical topic, if you will; but first let's try to reconnect the disconnects.

Originally Posted by Ed Law

You said in the other thread that "The on-the-field performance of teams/robots is not the central focus of the FRC program described on FIRST's website, nor is it the thread tying together the many descriptions offered by FRC's founders and current leaders." Let's examine that more closely.
This is a link to a quote from Dean Kamen and is on the FIRST website. http://www.firstinspires.org/sites/d...an-quote_1.png

He said FIRST is more than robots. I think most people agree. He never said FIRST is not about robots. The program is FIRST Robotics Competition, not FIRST Robotics Science Fair and Exhibition.

Mission
The mission of FIRST is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting Mentor-based programs that build science, engineering, and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

Methodology
Engage kids in kindergarten through high school in exciting, Mentor-based, research and robotics programs that help them become science and technology leaders, as well as well-rounded contributors to society.

I highlighted what I think are key words. As the lead engineering mentor of my previous team, what was I supposed to do? Do you not want me to teach my kids all the engineering skills they need to make their robot more successful on the field? Should I only teach them but tell them not to implement it because FIRST is not all about robots? Should I not teach them how to make their robot work as they have dreamed it would? Should they not have a robot they would get excited about because it performed well on the field? I am confused.

No sweat - I can unconfuse you about how I feel about that part of things. Within the last week, in this post 346, I wrote this "... 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."

Originally Posted by Ed Law

Blake, why does on the field success and off the field success have to be exclusive. ...

Again, within the last week, in the same post 346, I tried to explain my point of view with these sentences,
"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[sic] 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."

So I agree with you, good robots and the other parts of being an FRC team aren't exclusive.

Where I suspect we might disagree is the subject of whether build a best-possible robot is the primary mission of an FRC team, and/or on whether FRC teams need to build a best-possible robot in order to accomplish their primary mission.

Originally Posted by Ed Law

Blake, I hope you will stop advocating that one is more important than the other. I think they are both important. I wanted my students to have the total FIRST experience and not just the robot. It does not have to be exclusive. It just takes more work. Doing one and saying the other is not important is an excuse and a disservice to the students you are trying to inspire.

Everywhere I searched (so far) for any place I might have accidentally written that an FRC team's annual robot isn't important, I came up empty. I'm glad that I didn't accidentally write that in any of the places I looked so far. Can you point to any place (so that I can fix it)?

With that in mind, I think we agree that being a well-rounded and good FRC team easily includes, and certainly doesn't exclude building good robots.

Where you and I (and others who would encourage both of us) probably diverge is on whether "best-possible robot" is the enemy of "good-enough robot".

Along those lines, I have written things like this comment about what I would suggest is a good way to evaluate the success of a FIRST team. "... introducing students to enough positive STEM experiences to open their eyes to the possibility that they might enjoy a STEM career. To do that you don't even need to have competitions. You might choose to use competitions, but they aren't required." (in the PS of this post 214).

Also, in this post 5, I wrote this *opinion* about how I would look at things, if I were FIRST HQ, "I think that the the on-the-field performance exhibited by the teams that are already doing well (in that part of FIRST), is good enough. I don't mean to say that better performance would be harmful; but if I'm right, I do mean that across the globe, for the teams that aren't struggling, improving the on-the-field part of FRC should not be pulling time, attention, and other resources away from the other parts of FRC.".

Another way to say it would be that I (and Mathking, and JWeston, and Jon Stratis, and ...) believe that FIRST intends for the teams' robots to be a means, not an end.

Does the above close up those disconnects?

I don't think I'm writing anything now or before that is substantially different from what Mathking, JWeston, Kressley, Stratis, and others have written here and elsewhere. I suppose write I it more often than them - and thereby make myself a lightning rod - but I don't think that I'm out of synch with them or the many others who share the "means, an not an end" viewpoint.

Blake