Collegiate FIRST competition

[Alex_Miller]

They usually fund student groups and "admin units" admin units are typically things like the student union, the recreation center and if there's a campus health service plus some other things. Depending on the university you can get a decent amount of funding from student fees if it can be justified. send me a PM if you want more info.

[Barry Bonzack]

One of my management professors taught me this: At all times you are holding a bucket in each hand, one full of water, and one full of gasoline. Management is knowing when to throw which bucket.

Excellent times to throw the bucket of water: When angers flare up
Excellent times to throw the bucket of gasoline: When one has an idea that has even the smallest chance of great success, especially when the risk is small.

It sounds like there are many people that are behind this that have a spark of an idea that perhaps can someday take-off. If the idea flops, I see no loss of value to the rest of FIRST.

My bucket of water includes statements like "when I was in college, I felt just as much of a part of an FRC team as I did in high school." and "I consider it more important to become a mentor to high school students on an FRC team."

My bucket of gasoline says "Heck yes! Your ideas are solid, and the game looks awesome. This potentially could gain the support of many FIRST alum that have no interest in mentoring, and can potentially pull more sponsorship and support from areas not already reached by FLL/FTC/FRC."


Here is my Huge bucket of gasoline, turn your spark into raging wildfire, Go Collegiate FIRST go!

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Alex_Miller_2175

They usually fund student groups and "admin units" admin units are typically things like the student union, the recreation center and if there's a campus health service plus some other things. Depending on the university you can get a decent amount of funding from student fees if it can be justified. send me a PM if you want more info.

I'm somewhat familiar with student service fees. There are also student activities fees. It would likely vary school to school and also in how the program is developed in connection with the individual universities/educational institutions.

Jane

[Barry Bonzack]

Collegiate FIRST competition

Mods, can we have this thread merged with the identical discussion in the link above?

[RyanJK]

Hi everyone!

I truly believe that a college level FIRST program will work. From the funding aspect, Alex Miller made a good point by bringing up a universities student activity fee. Most schools collect a fee from all students to fund student programs, and the amount of money these funds hold is usually quite immense. I now attend the Illinois Institute of Technology and am a member of the Illinois Tech Robotics group. We receive most of our funds from IIT's student activity fund. That being said, we also get a lot of money from local businesses and companies. I believe that a group of students would be able to take part in this college level FIRST competition because we at Illinois Tech Robotics do so many different things with the money we receive (we enter 3 robots in the JSDC competition, run educational workshops open to the community, host the IL FRC and FTC kickoffs, host the IL FTC championship, open our workshop up to local teams, are building a robotic exoskeleton, building a swarm of Roombas that communicate with each other, helping design the college FIRST pilot, and working on prototype robots for the pilot), I think it would be possible to take part in the college pilot with little money from your school, or money solely from sponsors. Also, look at FRC. There are multiple teams (the team I was in was one of them) that run without a dime from their school and get all their money from sponsors. If an FRC team could do it, I think a team at the college level could do so as well.

As for someone being able to have the time to commit to this, I can't really comment. I don't know everyone's schedule, course load, etc. But I can say that at IIT, we have a robotics club with 30+ members who do feel they have the time for something like this. And I think that you will see the same at any college you look at.

[Alex_Miller]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

I'm somewhat familiar with student service fees. There are also student activities fees. It would likely vary school to school and also in how the program is developed in connection with the individual universities/educational institutions.

Jane

Generally speaking student activity fees are the same thing. If it is a public university then there are rules they must follow that have been decided by the court system (even the supreme court). Private schools do not have follow the same rules necessarily.

[Mike Schreiber]

Why? What is the purpose in this program?

Chris was right, the goal of FIRST is to change the culture so that engineers and scientists are idolized the way that athletes are. So is FIRST's target audience college students who are ALREADY in engineering or science?

If Kettering University students who are interested in FIRST were to participate in collegiate FIRST we would be crippling a few FRC teams in Flint. There's only so much man power we can provide. This program will hurt FRC if it gains interest.

I'm also curious how this program gained support, I attended the session on it in Atlanta and spoke with a large number of people and I was under the impression there was not much interest. As a college student, I wanted to say that I will not be participating in this program.

[davidthefat]

In all honesty, I thought college students were supposed to do very experimental, at the cutting edge of technology research, not playing games with robots. Well I make it sound silly, but honestly it sounds really childish compared to the research papers that college students publish with their complex engineering vocabulary and stuff.

I am eager to go to college to do the very serious research and experimental stuff. FIRST really made be get over the "video game programmer" stage, I really want to work at JPL and do really hardcore research when I am in college. I also want to pursue the doctorate degree in comp sci too.

May be its just me, but the research part of science really appeals to me.


Yea, but what do i know? Im just a Junior in highschool with big dreams.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Alex_Miller_2175

Generally speaking student activity fees are the same thing. If it is a public university then there are rules they must follow that have been decided by the court system (even the supreme court). Private schools do not have follow the same rules necessarily.

This would be an area to be looked into/researched vewwy vewwy carefully. Not one to make assumptions with when planning to implement a new program at an educational institution.

If at all possible, for those who are trying to pigeonhole the potential of this pilot program into FRC as we know it - try using some big picture thinking with lots of possibilities. Try thinking beyond the engineering majors and into the liberal arts side of things. Try thinking beyond limitation and into potential. It doesn't cost a thing to think - especially the kind of thinking that makes your brain hurt. This is a pilot program being presented (informally) right now in a manner that allows for some flexible brainstorming. I thought narrow-minded thinking was for inside the box, not outside of it.

Jeepers.

Jane

P.S. So as not to create another post in the thread (so soon) - let me ask a question or two : there are many more majors in undergrad and in grad school besides engineering. Lots of business majors/programs, for example. What would happen if the concept of Gracious Professionalism was introduced into the minds of college and graduate students who have never heard of it? What about professors and administrators? Why are you thinking that college is so black and white, cut and dry and badabing - you get a job - and never have to use or think about the goals or mission of FIRST again. GP never has to be a part of your life? That's what you sound like now.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

In all honesty, I thought college students were supposed to do very experimental, at the cutting edge of technology research, not playing games with robots. Well I make it sound silly, but honestly it sounds really childish compared to the research papers that college students publish with their complex engineering vocabulary and stuff.

I am eager to go to college to do the very serious research and experimental stuff. FIRST really made be get over the "video game programmer" stage, I really want to work at JPL and do really hardcore research when I am in college. I also want to pursue the doctorate degree in comp sci too.

May be its just me, but the research part of science really appeals to me.


Yea, but what do i know? Im just a Junior in highschool with big dreams.

The discovery of new ideas and the application of those new ideas into new products are two very, very important things. While they aren't wholly mutually exclusive, I believe FIRST, as well as many other programs named above, are more about the latter.

This is not to discount the importance of the former. Many new products are the result of old products plus a newly discovered principle or piece of knowledge. While talented comp sci students are welcome anywhere, perhaps a program other than Collegiate FIRST would serve you best*.

You do bring up the point that while in high school getting students into any sort of STEM is beneficial, many students doing FRC or FTC in high school would prefer to do research and fall out of the Collegiate FIRST Competition (CFC) "market." That and the existence of many other programs may be a barrier to the CFC's success.

*Okay, that sounded really harsh/mean. I didn't mean it to be. I'm not sure there's a nice way to say that you want to be there more than here, but that's essentially what you're saying anyhow.

Jeepers.

A fair point. I think I'll just sit around and see what happens, not being involved myself.

[pSYeNCe]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

In all honesty, I thought college students were supposed to do very experimental, at the cutting edge of technology research, not playing games with robots. Well I make it sound silly, but honestly it sounds really childish compared to the research papers that college students publish with their complex engineering vocabulary and stuff.

I am eager to go to college to do the very serious research and experimental stuff. FIRST really made be get over the "video game programmer" stage, I really want to work at JPL and do really hardcore research when I am in college. I also want to pursue the doctorate degree in comp sci too.

May be its just me, but the research part of science really appeals to me.


Yea, but what do i know? Im just a Junior in highschool with big dreams.

This more or less sums up my opinion. It seems to me that high school is about basic education and getting you ready for college. College is about getting you ready for a career. FRC competitions in high schools give students a chance to see what being an engineer is like, and ask themselves if that's what they want to work towards; college is the actual work that will get them there.

I'm a junior in high school too, so I can't speak for college students, but I personally don't see the value in this endeavour.

[Tom Ore]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Im just a Junior in highschool with big dreams.

You have a great attitude - keep it up. Dream big and work towards it.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Barry Bonzack

Mods, can we have this thread merged with the identical discussion?

Done. Threads merged.

[Tristan Lall]

I can see a few niches for this. (I'll focus on the aerial robotics challenge, because it's the most interesting....)

Not every university student wants the same things out of the experience, and, buried in the depths of their schoolwork, more than a few engineering students need a little reminder of why engineering can be fun. I, for one enjoyed the big challenges (I led Waterloo's team in the 2008 International Aerial Robotics Competition), but many of my counterparts didn't have the time or inclination to do things on that scale, and instead undertook smaller extracurricular engineering projects as an outlet for their creative energies. That's one niche. (Granted, a lot of engineering students looking for a part-time challenge just find an FRC team to mentor, and get the same thing out of it; to each their own, I guess.)

In the proposed form, I can foresee a lot of entrants taking the off-the-shelf route, and building something that is both cheap and fun. However, if some of the more expert IARC teams show up with their 5th- or 6th-mission robots, the dilettantes are going to be savagely beaten (in FIRST flight for sure). That's one of the problems with aerial robotics at this level: it's easy to get a team started, but really quite hard to do it well. (For reference, the IARC robots are capable of autonomous flight within confined spaces, and do it with a 1.5 kg mass limit, and off-board processing...which is well within the proposed FIRST rules, given that there's no significant limit on what the control system is composed of.) So that's the other niche: an opportunity for experts to show off their skills.

Incidentally, have any committed competitors been identified for this pilot challenge?

The games look like they could be a lot of fun, and represent a fresh interpretation on the FIRST format. If FIRST is indeed willing to sanction this tournament, I think you've got a worthwhile game (or series of games).

Now, as for the competition as proposed here, I have many reservations about the rules. (This isn't just idle criticism: I think it's fair to say that I've got a lot of experience in stuff like this, and I've seen the good and bad aspects of FIRST's various programs, as well as VRC and IARC.)

Foremost is the question of safety. I hate to put this foremost, because I don't mean to suck the fun out of this by neutering the robots, but there does need to be some more concrete consideration of the implications of the relatively open-ended design constraints.

There are no limits on the amount of energy stored onboard, no limits on robot or mechanism mass and no limits on the amount of kinetic energy in a mechanism. Is the proposed netting really an adequate defence against a damaged Ø20 in carbon fibre propeller failing at 6 000 rev/min, especially if it's driven by a 1 250 W electric motor on a 40 V, 16 A·h lithium polymer battery pack?* Hell no!

This isn't FRC which is predicated on the concept that power is strictly limited by the available batteries, circuit breakers and motors. And while the configuration I described would consume most of the budget, that's not to say it's implausible that a team would build some sort of ducted fan flying machine using those sorts of parts.

Even an off-the shelf indoor aerobatic R/C aircraft could conceivably be flown by hand through the obstacles in the FIRST Flight playing field. I certainly wouldn't want to be standing too close to an electric F3A aircraft doing its thing, especially if there's a risk of collision, or if the pilot isn't very good.

Sure, you could fall back on the FRC-style safety clause, but that means nothing to someone who wasn't in FRC, and there's not even any reason to believe that precedents from FRC mean anything here. The friendly request to be safe is reasonable, but ultimately, it makes the requirements unclear because teams won't know where to draw the line—should they introduce slightly more risk to be more competitive? And even assuming that the safety precautions will protect everyone (i.e. assume the inspectors will be able to identify what is and is not appropriately safe), how are teams to know what the inspectors will rule at the event? This is an important design constraint that needs to be made clear.

As for other issues with the rules, let me summarize by saying that they include a number of the ambiguities of the FRC rules. That's not a good thing. Regarding robot design, although the IARC rules are far from perfect, there are some worthwhile lessons to be learned from them. If you'd like, I can certainly give you an FRC inspector's perspective on what works and what doesn't, with respect to the simplifications you've made.

Also, from a gameplay point of view, the proposed rules overlook a number of scenarios that could easily come up during a match, some involving behaviour that might be considered shady, but which is not prohibited (FRC has had issues with this in the past—flipping of robots in the late 1990s, for example). Additionally, I think the scoring conditions for FIRST Flight need to be rephrased for precision, and the requirement for human interpretation of the robots' actions is a bit troublesome.

Finally, do you have the game design and engineering staff in place to ensure that the pilot teams will have well-defined objectives and a well-tested game, well in advance of the competition? The teams certainly will need to know what's expected of them prior to the competition, so that they can do justice to their own logistics, design, construction and testing processes.

*I only bring that particular configuration up as an example because of my direct familiarity with it: we used two of those on the Waterloo IARC entry, which was a 100 lb fixed-wing aircraft. The only way we dared operate that indoors was with the aircraft tied down in the fluid mechanics laboratory, and nothing of value in the propeller arcs.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

I'm also curious how this program gained support, I attended the session on it in Atlanta and spoke with a large number of people and I was under the impression there was not much interest. As a college student, I wanted to say that I will not be participating in this program.

I'm wondering the same thing right now. I'm a junior in Materials Science and Engineering at MIT, and FIRST is a large part of what inspired me to study engineering and pursue a career in engineering. While there was a lot of value to my experiences in FRC in high school, there was also a lot of value in me applying those skills that I learned from FIRST to new experiences in college that challenged me in new and unique ways. My experiences outside of FIRST over my past three years at MIT have been just as important to my personal and professional development as my experiences within FIRST were during high school. If a collegiate FIRST competition had existed when I entered college, I might not have challenged myself to go outside of my comfort zone and may have missed out on many of the opportunities I've participated in by devoting all of my free time to FIRST. At this point, I'm too busy with other activities at MIT to make FIRST into a full-time part of my life again like it was in high school, so I can't see myself participating in this competition now.