I am trying to write my final paper for my research writing class and I chose to present the positive aspects of FIRST and its impact on the participants and the STEM industries. The only problem with this argument is that I am inherently biased being a participant with FIRST for so many years and I am struggling to define a proper counter argument to make my academic argument complete.
I ask you, the broader CD community what counter argument can you bring against all of the good this program provides? Is it the monetary burden involved and the sponsorships? Is the time spent in the lab/shop a detriment to more general studies/grades? Is the demand for technically skilled persons in the future an over estimate? Should a more standardized educational system be favored to make equal opportunity for all students to enter colleges? Are there better programs than FIRST out there?
I am wondering if anyone could come up with legitimate reasons, without going into too much detail (I do have to write this paper myself:D) as to the “negatives” of the FIRST program.
I think all of the ones you mentioned are plausible counter arguments to FRC. A favorite of mine is to use how Maslow’s hierarchy of needs begets a fundraising priority: people would rather spend money on saving lives, getting people fed, and shelter before they spend money on higher needs, such as enhancing career goals.
Even though a more advanced career force should eventually trickle down to fulfill those needs within a society, people like the feeling of having a direct affect on those things today as opposed to later. We’re impatient people, you know.
I’m not sure exactly what kind of “research writing” you’re going for. Is it supposed to be a proposal for academic research where you lay out the phenomena of interest, and describe the things about them that you’d like to study further? Is it intended to be a piece of research, where you collect evidence and come to a conclusion? (I assume that you’d be interpreting others’ data, since you didn’t mention that you’d collected anything.) Or is it something else? I’d approach it in very different ways, depending on the objectives and the scope.
In general, you should probably address what’s best for society (without unduly infringing upon individuals’ rights). Is FIRST (FRC?) the optimal use of resources in pursuit of social welfare, given all the possible alternatives? That’s obviously an impractical question for all sorts of reasons, and conventionally, one would break it up and simplify it with assumptions, to make it manageable as a piece of research. In selecting a few ideas to represent the larger picture, you need to be systematic about the choices you make. What conditions, if true, would invalidate the benefits of FIRST? Can any of those conditions exist, and if so, how? How likely are they, and how much risk can we tolerate?
Its great to have engineers, and we do indeed currently have an excess of jobs, but, if FIRST really proliferated throughout society as its goal states, we might end up having too many chiefs, not enough indians. The idea is that, if everyone becomes a techie or an engineer, society begins to devalue the artistic and athletic people, which are important to a healthy society.
As a rebuttle to that, I’d talk about animation, websites, etc. that encourage digital artistry.
I like how engineers are likened to chiefs and artists are compared to ordinary tribespeople. :rolleyes:
I think a more robust counterargument to that is that if a job is important to a healthy society, market demand will create those jobs anyway regardless of government programs; furthermore, there are currently myriad opportunities for kids to play sports, draw, write, etc., but it’s less easy for them to be able to learn modern engineering and software skills.
The lesson here: find assertions that broadly hit the entire issue, rather than focusing on a few minor exceptions.
I would phrase my counter argument strictly as cost/benefit. For $10-$30K each year, you provide a value to an average team size of 20-25 students. For the sake of argument (and nice round numbers), lets say it’s $10k and 20 students. That’s $500 per student. You can see how this value would increase for an aggressive team (multiple regionals, Champs, travel expenses), or increase for a smaller team.
Now, lets look at schools in general. According to this article, schools spend anywhere from 7k-13.5k per student. That means the cost of FIRST is basically an increase in the per-student allocation of 3-7%, for those students that participate. And with all that, what do the students get? Some education that they’ll be taught again when they get to college and major in engineering!
How do you put a price tag on inspiration? How do you argue what “might have been” if a team wasn’t formed… would those students still have gone into engineering? Would their success in school and work have been affected?
As participants in FIRST, we all see the benefits. We can all point to specific examples of students we’ve seen inspired, or student’s we’ve seen changed because of their involvement on the team. How do you generalize that, and justify the cost?
