Dean
Flairless
Variously accused of being a hilarious insufferable reactionary post-modernist fascist neo-conservative neo-liberal conservative classical liberal critical theorist Nazi Zionist imperialist hypernationalist warmongering isolationist Jewish-Polish-Slavic-Anglo race-traitor masculine-feminine bitch-man idiosyncratic party-line Fox News boomer. No one yet has guessed a scholar, or multiple people. Add to our list of pejoratives today!
User ID: 430
Dean
Flairless
4d ago
Anecdote, but there's a decent number who use it to see if their kid actually likes programming or STEM-adjacent stuff since the school programs are garbage and self-driven learning is very hit-or-miss, a smaller number who just insist their kid do something as an after school program to get them out of the house and FIRST is something that's still air-conditioned, and a lot of kids who get into it because it's an in-school program and less dumb than most of the other electives.
I'd just add that it's basically the sort of 'disguising good training / education as fun' pipeline that provides early exposure and participation to engineering design challenges in a way that most school curriculum aren't set up to do. Even when it's adult-led it's closer to apprenticeship than school work.
In most contexts or countries, a shop-class works on a 'teach how to use the tools and follow instructions' principles. Curriculum and grading standards are, well, standardized across iterations, oversight is high for safety reasons, and projects for personal design are typically bounded. You are typically doing a series of building steps to a pre-defined end, with an intent of teaching basic skills to demonstrate a culmination. It is usually very much start to finish.
The FIRST competition format is substantially different, since teams are attempting to design (and then implement) their own solution to a problem set that can be approached in significantly different ways. This means they have to work backwards starting with defining their end-state, identifying what they need to achieve to get there, and only then trying to figure out how to do it.
This isn't a natural skill set to many adults, let alone kids with even larger skill gaps and less training.
The dedicated strivers exist, and they're really obnoxious when you run into one that's made themselves a drive coach, but it's not the only entry point.
It also doesn't invalidate the benefits to participants. Bad coaches exist in practically any organized sport, but bad coaches don't negate the benefits of children having a hobby that gives them a peer group to bond with, structured competition to succeed and fail in, and clear demonstrations of inputs to results to build a sense of agency. Even if the child is only doing it because the parents want that resume padding, it is still good for the children, and the future adults those children grow up to be.
Yah. Strivers who actually minmax have to know what to minmax, which is still preferable to would-be minmaxers who don't know how or what to minmax. Even if you cannot get someone to understand or appreciate why a habit is good, it is still better for them to develop the habit than to not. There is never going to be a shortage of ambitious / selfish / lazy people wanting good jobs; it is still better if their average baseline competance is higher than lower, if only so that don't get in the way of other people's good work.
And this holds true even for the insufferable strivers. For the non-insufferable sorts, and even the non-strivers, developing good habits and skill sets is even more valuable. It would be an incompetent education policy that disregards the people who can be taught because there are poor actors who won't internalize the lessons. The world, and a profession, doesn't get better the more less-capable people it inducts.
More options
Context Copy link