Is FIRST about Robot?

[mathking]

We were talking about this thread this morning, and I really do think that there is no difference in how effectively FRC provides that micro-level inspiration compared to the other programs. It is true that if you only have a few kids then it might not be the most cost effective way to provide that inspiration, but I don't think it is in any way less effective.

Blake, I think you were on target in a description of what a well implemented FRC team can/should be.

[itsjustjon]

Is FIRST about the robot? No, its about Inspiration and Recognition in Science and Technology, as the self-defining name states.

Are FIRST's robotics competitions (FLL, FTC, FRC) about the robot? Yes, since they are all competitions involving robots that represent a team in which the performance of the robot affects the team directly.

Can a robotics competition feature non-robotics elements? Sure, and these ones definitely do. The whole litany of awards which emphasize attaining a goal either in conjunction with or superior to robot design and performance is exactly how FIRST adds said elements to their competitions.

What should your FIRST team focus on more? Whatever the heck it thinks it should focus on. My personal recommendation is tread the line in-between to reap the benefits and experiences of both robot-focused and non-robotics-focused competition.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by 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.
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."

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.

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

Hi Blake,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not going back to look at what you posted before to find if there are inconsistencies. You already stated what you believe in and I believe you. But if I catch you saying that in the future, I will PM you.
It is my belief also that the robot is the hook. It is the means and not the end so there is no disagreement there. I think your assessment in our difference is correct. Whatever I do, I always put in my all. I don't stop and say it is good enough. I don't teach my students to do just good enough. We set goals and we do our best to achieve them.
I was taught that there are four types of tasks: important and urgent, important and not urgent, not important and urgent, and not important and not urgent. This is how I prioritize. Outreach and robot performance are both important. It is not necessary to say if one is more important than the other. They both need to be done. So if there is a situation when I have to pick one over the other because of limited time, I need to see which one is more urgent. If it is before bag day or a competition, getting the robot ready is more urgent, outreach is not as urgent as we have the rest of the year to do. During the off season, outreach is more urgent especially when there are only a short window of opportunities. Working on off-season robot project to improve our capabilities and competitiveness on the field is not urgent. Actually we almost never do those things. As you can see, it is a very simple decision.
This is how I prioritize things. I am not going to tell anybody how they should prioritize their time. I hope you will do the same. Oftentimes when there is a thread where people discuss how to make the competitions more competitive overall, how to bring the bottom up etc., you gave people the impression that you are telling them their head is in the wrong place, that off the field performance is more important than on the field performance. Maybe that is not your intent but your tone said otherwise.
Thank you again for your reply. We should definitely chat further.

Ed

[chromefox4]

Personally i think FIRST is about the robot, well kind of its about seeing how other people think of a problem and how they solved said problem, I know I'm probably not the only one who jumped out of their seat when 330 dunked the ball during one of their Einstein matches, I would have never even thought of that but they did and that's what FIRST is about, building a robot that is good and breaks the meta a little bit.

[weberr]

FIRST is not about the robot. Period.

Yesterday, my daughter who just graduated in the spring and started college this fall is taking Pre-Calc at college. The instructor is simply awful. To be successful, she goes to the Math Lab for tutoring.

Before I go on, you need some back ground. I m the coach of team 3641, The Flying Toasters. Both of my daughters did not like robotics, but were really into horses, or Equestrian. We have horses at home on the farm. I respect that they like working with horses, and support them with their choice. I honestly have to say, I wish that they were into robots, but again, I respect them and have always supported their decision. And they supported me in my decision to coach robotics.

Now back to yesterday. My daughter was in the Math lab for tutoring when she saw a young man come in with a chicken emblem and 217 on his shirt. Without hesitation, instinctively, she yelled out "Thunder Chickens!" The whole room went silent. The young man was dumbfounded by the recognition, but quickly struck up a conversation with my daughter. In seconds, most of the people in the room were asking about robotics, FIRST, and was really curious.

My daughter was there for tutoring as she had a test that night. Her first test of college. She was nervous, felt ill prepared, and was working herself to being sick. Following her conversation with the young man from 217, she was so excited and geeked, that it carried her through her test that night as she couldn't wait to tell about the experience.

This is what FIRST is about. Human connections. Inspiration. A feeling of belonging. A brotherhood & sister hood. Being excepted.

A robot is just a robot, it is like a drill, like a wire crimper, like a computer. Just a tool. Humans are what we are all about; it is what Dean is about, it is what Woodie is about, it is what GP is about, it is what Chairman's is about, it is what Mentors are about.

Lets look at this another way. Our team is only 6 years old. Our first two years were ugly. We, as a team, did not start getting better and achieving until we befriended other teams, made connections, networking, and sought out working with other teams. When we go to a competition, we go there looking for our friends (other teams & their members). and then we play with robots.

If I had limited time and needed to make a choice between finishing the robot or inspiring a person, what would I do? Simple. Inspire the person first, stay up through the night finishing the robot. Sleep and FIRST are not synonyms. LOL.

FIRST: We build people. Robots are only the vehicle, the connection.
If it was all bout the robot or the game, we'd call it football.

[weberr]

" I know I'm probably not the only one who jumped out of their seat when 330 dunked the ball during one of their Einstein matches"

The coolest part of FIRST is that we celebrate others successes. We know how much blood, sweat, and gears, it takes to develop the robot that when we see others do well, we are happy for them. Likewise, when we a team win an award, such as the chairmans, we know how rewarding it is for the time and resources committed in outreaches and helping/inspiring others.

This will be my 7th year as head coach. My kids are graduated. What drives me to put in the 1500 hours a year is simply the people. When a season is over, when the next kick-off starts, the last robot fades into memory. BUT, the people I get to meet, work with year after year, the teams I get ot know, and the lasting relationships. that is why I stay with FIRST. I can always build robots in my workshop at home. But it's more fun doing it with others!

[mathking]

Well said Weberr. I tell people all the time that of all the subjects I have taught, sports I have coached and activities I have participated in, FRC is the most transformative for kids. A large part of the that is changing their level of technical skill and confidence. But the biggest single driver of that transformation is the relationships kids develop with their peers and mentors. The feeling of belonging and shared purpose is powerful. The robot is an absolutely essential means to that end, but it is still just the means.

A coaching friend of mine says this: "If you having your athletes work hard, learning and doing their best is not your primary motivation as a coach then you will spend a lot of your career unhappy." He says that in the context of doing well versus winning. It means that if you derive your satisfaction from winning, you are setting yourself up to be unhappy. Sometimes you perform really well, and still lose. Sometimes you don't perform well and you still win. Which won should make you happier? When we lose a match in which we played well, I know that my most important task is to build on what we did well. The kids need to see that even if I am unhappy that we lost I am more happy that they did well. Because I want them to be resilient and to be focused on doing their best.

It is way to easy to be consumed by the loss. Who among us hasn't seen at least one team lose a close match in FRC where they played really well and they walk away angry? Most of the time when I see this I see a mentor who is just as obviously (at least to me) upset at and focused on the loss.

If you as a mentor derive your satisfaction from winning, your students/athletes are going to realize that and internalize it. The same way they will if you derive your satisfaction from performing well, from the kids learning and having a positive experience, they will internalize that as well. Please remember this.

We strive to build the best robot we can. Some years we do a better job than others. On the average, the quality of our robots is improving. We are always trying to improve our technical skills and add new skills. We make eliminations most of the time, but we have never won a regional or an off-season event. We have been close, so tantalizingly close. But we have not won. While I really do want to win a competition, I certainly don't think our team has in any way been a failure. In terms of the number and quality of our students and the experiences they had I am quite confident we have done as good a job as many teams with more on the field success. Just as I am sure there are teams with less on the field success who have done at least as good job inspiring their students.

[Taylor]

My friends and I can play football with a water bottle.
We can play ultimate frisbee with a paper plate.
We can play basketball with wads of paper and a trash can.

Our team has played robots with humans, with spools of wire, with chess pieces on a board, with dry erase markers, with LEGOs.

Yes, the robots are central to FRC. It would be markedly different without them, just as a Steelers-Packers game would be different if they used a Gatorade bottle instead of a football.

Yes, elegantly designed and eloquently explained and brilliantly strategized robots make our collective mouths drop.

But it's not about the robot.

TSIMFD, not RAMFD.

[Justin Montois]

FIRST is absolutely about the robot.

Without the Robot there is no competition

Without Competition there are no teams

Without Teams there are no students and Mentors working together

Without Students and Mentors Working together there is little learning

Without learning we aren't helping kids become the thinkers and doers that we need.

Without thinkers and doers our human race is in deep trouble.

Transitive property suggests without the Robot the human race is in deep trouble. FIRST is about the Robot.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

...snip...

Transitive property suggests without the Robot the human race is in deep trouble. FIRST is about the Robot.

Our Robot Overlords will find great humor in the irony of this statement in the future when they take over....

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

FIRST is absolutely about the robot.

Without the Robot there is no competition

Without Competition there are no teams

Without Teams there are no students and Mentors working together

Without Students and Mentors Working together there is little learning

Without learning we aren't helping kids become the thinkers and doers that we need.

Without thinkers and doers our human race is in deep trouble.

Transitive property suggests without the Robot the human race is in deep trouble. FIRST is about the Robot.

Just in case that wasn't written entirely tongue-in-cheek (I did look for winky emoticons) ...

Is that chain of statements equivalent (equivalent enough) to saying that without the Pinewood Derby there are no Cub Scout packs; and consequently no Cub Scouts working with Pack Leaders (mentors); and etc.?

Blake
PS: As always, I welcome our Robot Overlords , and look forward to serving in their administration.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by gblake

Is that chain of statements equivalent (equivalent enough) to saying that without the Pinewood Derby there are no Cub Scout packs; and consequently no Scouts working with Pack Leaders (mentors); and etc.?

I would say it is not an equivalent statement. Many packs don't do pinewood derbys. If you dropped pinewood derbys completely you wouldn't significantly change the program. Where as if you dropped robots out of First or changed from a competition to an exhibition, you would have a very different program. Not to say First isn't about more than the robot.

Oh, forgot my smiley

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

FIRST is absolutely about the robot.

Without the Robot there is no competition

Without Competition there are no teams

Without Teams there are no students and Mentors working together

Without Students and Mentors Working together there is little learning

Without learning we aren't helping kids become the thinkers and doers that we need.

Without thinkers and doers our human race is in deep trouble.

Transitive property suggests without the Robot the human race is in deep trouble. FIRST is about the Robot.

I think I handled this with my football-bottle analogy.

Edit: smiley.