Pit work during ceremonies

[RunawayEngineer]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Right because we should be teaching our students that not doing your absolute best is acceptable. If I am not 100% perfect all the time and I have students that want to work on the bot to get it to that point you can bet your mediocrity loving butt I say there's a need. I'm not going to let some talking head* get in the way of inspiration just so they can feel important. I'm going to be showing my students the value of passion.


* Talking heads that will always joke about how they couldn't do half of what these kids do. Because that's the lesson we want to show our students, that technical illiteracy is acceptable. That it's something to joke about.

Technical illiteracy is totally acceptable. There are thousands of ways to contribute to society without knowing anything about engineering.
I think that you are reading far into offhand remarks to interpret them to be discouraging people from pursuing technical interests because technical acuity is something you are born with or not. If their field isn't technical or educational, then they can't be blamed for making a comment that happens to have a common misconception underlying it.

Second, working on the robot in and of itself is not inspiration. People don't go to the opening ceremony because they are lazy or less passionate. They go because they see the bigger picture. Students are taught throughout the season about working hard to succeed - the ceremonies are one of the only chances that they get to see the bigger picture: communities, politicians, organizations, donors, volunteers, etc coming together around a common goal that has nothing to do with how well the individual robot performs.

[pyroslev]

*Back to the Orgininal Thread Topic for this post*
Past two years, we've established a Tech Support Group in conjunction with the CSA and FTA staff. We aim to provide enough people to help with the basics.

At the close of the pits on the first day, we evaluate what teams are in need based on NI Parkway, Lead Robot Inspectors notes, general observations and requests. Any teams lacking inspection will have priority on being allowed to work usually have someone from out Support Group.

Here's the list of rules/guidelines go by:

• Usually teams that are lacking inspection are allowed. Then the LRI or some RI is around.
• Teams in the first few matches lacking BASIC functionality are allowed as well. The keyword is BASIC functionality. If the robot can drive, then they have no need to work in the pits.
• Another rule is the bare minimum of persons required.
• No power tools as a rule of thumb.
• Lastly, they must have someone from our group working with them or present as a Gracious Professional. This will also allow us to get the team in the Queue Line or even on the field ASAP. It'll also allow us to enforce the no power tools rule.

All this will depend on your event's staff and coordination. If there is the NEED to work on the robot, then consult with the CSA. They can evaluate your situation. Then if needed, they can elevate it so you might be able to work quietly during the ceremonies.

Usually this is only for the first day of actual competition BUT in rare situations we have let teams work during the second opening ceremonies. But all the same rules apply.

*Return to the thread in the thread*

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by RunawayEngineer

Technical illiteracy is totally acceptable. There are thousands of ways to contribute to society without knowing anything about engineering.

No, it's not. Not any more than general illiteracy. We live in a world dominated by technology and mathematics. How can someone function if they don't know that 30% of 50 is less than 30% of 60? Or basic logic? (If a and b both have to be true for c to be true and c is true... what can we tell about a and b?) This isn't rocket science, it's basic life skills. And yet I see folks fail abysmally at them all the time. And jokes like that "off the cuff" remark just reinforce the idea that it's acceptable.

We don't tolerate a world in which someone not knowing how to read is acceptable, nor should you tolerate one in which people don't know basic logic or mathematics. It's not about contributing to society, it's about functioning in it.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

No, it's not. Not any more than general illiteracy. We live in a world dominated by technology and mathematics. How can someone function if they don't know that 30% of 50 is less than 30% of 60? Or basic logic? (If a and b both have to be true for c to be true and c is true... what can we tell about a and b?) This isn't rocket science, it's basic life skills. And yet I see folks fail abysmally at them all the time. And jokes like that "off the cuff" remark just reinforce the idea that it's acceptable.

We don't tolerate a world in which someone not knowing how to read is acceptable, nor should you tolerate one in which people don't know basic logic or mathematics. It's not about contributing to society, it's about functioning in it.

I think most people think there is a distinction between 'basic logic and math' and 'engineering and the ability to build a 120 pound working robot'.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I think most people think there is a distinction between 'basic logic and math' and 'engineering and the ability to build a 120 pound working robot'.

I think most people recognize that the phrase 'technical illiteracy' doesn't mean 'can't build a 120 pound working robot'.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I think most people recognize that the phrase 'technical illiteracy' doesn't mean 'can't build a 120 pound working robot'.

Yes, I agree. Then the speakers who say they can't do what we do (aka build 120 pound working robots) isn't a comment about technical illiteracy.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

No, it's not. Not any more than general illiteracy. We live in a world dominated by technology and mathematics. How can someone function if they don't know that 30% of 50 is less than 30% of 60? Or basic logic? (If a and b both have to be true for c to be true and c is true... what can we tell about a and b?) This isn't rocket science, it's basic life skills. And yet I see folks fail abysmally at them all the time. And jokes like that "off the cuff" remark just reinforce the idea that it's acceptable.

We don't tolerate a world in which someone not knowing how to read is acceptable, nor should you tolerate one in which people don't know basic logic or mathematics. It's not about contributing to society, it's about functioning in it.

This is a faulty comparison.

Pretty much everyone has the ability to learn to read.

Not everyone has the ability to be an engineer.

It is not at all unacceptable for someone to admit that they do not have the capacity to design and build a robot, because not everyone can. That technical fields are integral to modern society is completely irrelevant to this.

Note that this is not a speaker saying that people should not learn basic arithmetic. This is a speaker saying that he is impressed with students completing specialized, complex technical tasks that he cannot. There is no shame in that, and it is not perpetuating a culture of unacceptable ignorance.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

This is a faulty comparison.

Pretty much everyone has the ability to learn to read.

Not everyone has the ability to be an engineer.

It is not at all unacceptable for someone to admit that they do not have the capacity to design and build a robot, because not everyone can. That technical fields are integral to modern society is completely irrelevant to this.

Note that this is not a speaker saying that people should not learn basic arithmetic. This is a speaker saying that he is impressed with students completing specialized, complex technical tasks that he cannot. There is no shame in that, and it is not perpetuating a culture of unacceptable ignorance.

Based on the responses I continue to get in this thread, not everyone has the capacity to learn to read.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Based on the responses I continue to get in this thread, not everyone has the capacity to learn to read.

Or perhaps you're not particularly clear in your writing?

You could lose the snark. It's not pleasant.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Or perhaps you're not particularly clear in your writing?

I can understand him clearly. And I'm not exactly reading, I'm skimming the post.

There is a difference between reading and understanding/critical reading. If you can read, you can see these words on the page and know that they represent some thought. If you're actually understanding, or reading critically, you see the words, understand what the thought means, maybe pick up some context, and generally get a much better picture of what someone is trying to say.

As an example:
If I say "Shop skills are more important than engineering", I'm sure some folks will jump all over me about that one, something along the lines of how those "are engineering" or some such line of thought (or the other one, "just build it, the engineer knows best"). But, to put some context in that, I hold an engineering degree and work as a technician. And sometimes I go "I'd just LOVE to get the engineer who designed THAT down here and have HIM try to build it." And if you think about it, how is that engineer's design going to get built without some shop skill? Hmm?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Without being judgmental here I would like to relate some observations from an LRI view about work required during opening ceremonies.
1. Only about one or two teams at any event are so far behind that spending the time during opening ceremonies on Friday (first day of competition) would help.
2. Of those teams that need the time, the LRI is fully aware of the needs of the team and the event schedule as it applies to that team.
3. Rarely will more than one or two team members and a single mentor will be effective in this period. The rest cannot get close to the robot or are working on non-essential items.
4. Often (almost always) the LRI and/or RI will be in the pit supervising and assisting and therefore miss the opening ceremonies.
5. The team that needs assistance usually is behind due to school travel rules, lack of mentorship or failure to understand all of the applicable rules. (overall size is historically the biggest issue requiring work)
6. There is no better inspiration at the event for the entire team than to participate as a team especially if they are being called out for being the team that has traveled the furthest, is the only rep from their state at the event, is the rookie or oldest veteran, etc.

For those that see no value in politicians or other high ranking guests getting a good reception from a large crowd I have an interesting tale. The Midwest Regional specifically moved to a Chicago site in order to attract important political and educational representatives to the event. Specifically targeted was the mayor of Chicago, Rich Daley. It took several years and then the mayor's office only promised a 15 minute appearance and a short speech at opening ceremonies. Well the reception he received made him decide to suspend other appearances and walk the pits. His 15 minutes turned into several hours. And I can tell you that many a Chicago Public School student was flattered and shocked to be talking with the mayor of the third largest city in the US on a personal basis. That is some inspiration those students will rarely get.

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by Tanis

Now we run into the issue of what constitutes a need to work on the robot. For some teams it is obvious- maybe their robot isn't moving. However, many teams also see other "needs." Maybe my robot is already the best robot at the regional, but I "need" to tweak the shooter arm a little bit to ensure I got from getting 95% of the shots to 100% of the shots. Is this really a need though? Should I skip the opening ceremonies to do this?

Making a subjective judgement like this cannot work, as it is not at all fair. Regardless of comparative performance, why is it acceptable that one robot is virtually forced to run at 95% while other robots get to run at 100%?

Originally Posted by Taylor

And I'd hate for some of my students to miss out on this potential inspiration because they were tightening a 10-32 bolt.

I would argue that the kids who feel the need to spend every last second getting their robot tweaked that last little bit are already pretty inspired. When you are as passionate as a lot of students in this organization are, there is little that anybody could say to make you more passionate than you are.

[waialua359]

Rules are rules.
Until Aren pointed out the rule from the manual, I was unaware you could still be in the pit.
After doing soo many different regionals and events, I have yet to attend one recently that had teams continue working in the pit during opening ceremonies.

Whatever FIRST allows, we will comply. However, given the chance to stay in the pits, most times I'd rather do that.
There is always something you can discuss/check/work on in the pits.

[Libby K]

Quietly working on the robot may not even be enough at a particular venue.

For example, during alliance selections at MAR champs this year (yes, I know, not a pits-closed time, but bear with me here) a team was working in their pit was right next to the field. Even just the talking and use of some tools, coupled with the mediocre acoustics in that gym, made it near impossible to hear the picking until someone asked the team to stop until the ceremonies were over.

In some events it's just not realistic to say people can work, because it creates an acoustics problem. At the other events, it just comes down to basic respect for the people helping make your event happen. (At some MAR events, people talk -in the stands!- through opening ceremonies. Don't even get me STARTED on that level of disrespect.)

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

Don't make it a judgement call. Allow 3-4 members from every team to stay back and explicitly disallow power tools. Done.

I do like this. Set a hard limit on number of people to stay back, but in that same rule remind the teams that the purpose of the rule is to be respectful to the guests and to the ceremony. That way, the team can make their own call - do we NEED those 3-4 people in the pit, or can we all sit in the stands and show our respect to the event & its speakers as an entire team?

This is just like that cell-phones-during-speeches thread many years ago, and the airplanes one last year. It's down to the teams to make sure we're creating a culture for ourselves where disrespect for FIRST/speakers/the event is not tolerated.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Most of the time I see a politician at opening ceremonies there is a joke about "You kids are doing something I could never do" followed by some nervous laughter. But this could be a function of the majority of our political leaders have zero engineering background.

I've seen the same kind of statement from Rush Holt at NJ events - and he's a rocket scientist. It's more about 'Wow, you guys are insanely smart, and I wish I'd had the opportunity to learn all this when I was your age.'

Originally Posted by Taylor

I've never seen any VIP laugh about illiteracy or 'ha ha dumb is cool' - I guess I missed the regional Jessica Simpson judged.

I understand your sentiment here, but keep in mind Jessica Simpson is actually an incredibly successful businesswoman. One remark about Chicken of the Sea does not (and should not) define her.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I've seen the same kind of statement from Rush Holt at NJ events - and he's a rocket scientist. It's more about 'Wow, you guys are insanely smart, and I wish I'd had the opportunity to learn all this when I was your age.'

That's a VERY different statement and not at all like the statements I'm referring to. These aren't "I wish I had this chance when I was your age" they are literally "You guys are so smart, I could NEVER do this". To me it's the same as saying, "I'm bad at math". The statement, "I can't read" would be ridiculed. But somehow it's acceptable to be unable to do math? They are both VITAL life skills. And it bothers me to hear folks who seem to think it's acceptable wave it about like some sort of badge of honor.