|
Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?
This is something I've been thinking about for a while.
In a lot of threads, I read comments like "too many teams are going to try to do everything and fail" and "teams should focus on doing ONE task really well". While these are fair points, would it really be better if all but the powerhouse teams only attempted to build "reasonable" robots?
So here is my question:
Are students on a team more likely to be inspired and learn about the engineering process if their team decides to build a reasonable, achievable robot that performs some aspects of the game strongly?
OR
If their team attempts a more ambitious, challenging design that they feel BEST meets the objectives of the game, and ends up struggling to finish and/or perform at the level that they wanted?
At the end of the day, is it better to know your limits and not push too hard, or step up in the face of the challenge and try something awesome? After all, even if a lot of teams struggle, there will be teams out there who pull off something they never previously imagined possible.
__________________
Design/fab team 2011-2013
Design/fab mentor 2014--
There are three types of people in the world:
1. Those who make things happen
2. Those who watch things happen
3. Those who wonder what happened.
|