We absolutely did tryouts again this year, with a few minor changes, not all of them were improvements.
The fall 2014 tryouts (for the 2015 season) were about four weeks long, I believe the four weeks leading up to Thanksgiving. I did the arduino-based programming one - I built the hardware, set the problem (modifying the sweep program to do various fancier things), and gave the test to about half of the applicants; the other half were given by a varsity programmer. Some tests were all-mentor given, others all-student given; we worked with the skills we had on hand. Because we started late (knew we would only have December before build season), many of the tests began with a mini-training session or seminar. The tests were offered “station” style - they were all going on at the same time, and each station could support a limited number of people taking the test at a time. The tryouts went on long enough that a gung-ho applicant could finish in a bit more than half the sessions; most of the students who did not complete the tests either gave up or attended fewer than half the sessions (or both). As I at least hinted at in the OP, our scoring rubric included both attitude and performance metrics. Attitude was much more important as far as making it onto the team; performance was only a discriminator when it came to initial team/role assignments (which WERE initial - several changes were made).
In fall 2015, we made two major changes, and a number of minor changes. None of the tests were identical, as we knew we would have re-applications, and we required our 2015 team members who did not make the “varsity” (those we brought to Bayou on Thursday and Friday and/or CMP) to try out again.
Major change 1: We reduced the number of tests, and shrank the duration to two weeks (Two Mondays and Two Thursdays, 10 hours total.) Definite improvement. We had a few students complete the tests in two sessions, and a great many in three.
Major change 2: Much earlier - we ended in September. This was too much of a good thing. We had fewer applicants (as we had brought the air cannon to fewer games before tryouts started). On the other hand, we had more time for both “classroom” and “hands-on” training between tryouts and the beginning of build season. This year we’ll probably split the difference and do something like the first two weeks in October.
Minor change 1: We added a “teamwork” challenge that encouraged the applicants to network with each other to build a combination electric/pneumatic circuit designed by one of our lead mentors. We’ll probably do something similar this year.
Minor change 2: We added a “Kobyashi Maru” test. Those of you who are Trekkers and/or Trekkies will know that this means a test that CANNOT BE COMPLETED, intended as a test of character. I’m not sure exactly what balance between “too willing to accept defeat” and “Don Quixote” the testers were looking for, but I didn’t disagree with them on any specific cases.
And, to sanddrag:
We absolutely recognize that there are times that the member needs the team more than the team needs the member. In both years of “tryouts”, as well as all three previous years, the coach and/or mentors agreed to accept one or more “project” students, for whom at least one coach or mentor agreed to take on some extra responsibility. I can think of at least two “spectacular successes” with this (team members brought on as “projects” who proved to be brilliant thinkers and/or real leaders), and a few “serious failures” (ultimately quit or kicked off the team) over our five years. Our bottom line on this is that we do not accept “project” students unless at least one mentor/coach accepts the student as his/her project.
Finally, addressing BigBeezy’s response to sanddrag as I was assembling the above:
Attitude - willingness to learn, tenacity, and general demeanor are far more important than any native (or pre-learned) ability as far as our selection process. Students without the proper attitude are far less likely to respond to (or even recognize) the inspiration an FRC team has to offer.
The bottom line is that I’d rather inspire someone with tenacity but little or no recognizable technical skill to the importance of STEM over someone with considerable technical skills but no ambition. Perhaps I’m deluding myself, but I like to think that I’m following (Dean’s?) reasoning of “Who does the world need to lead us into the future?” over “What does the team need” or “What does the student need?”.
