I gotta agree with you.
To be honest PID understanding has saved me so many times in Engineering. Linear and quadratic interpolation, alongside integration with data points with no set-and-stone equation and just a bunch of data points is essential in Engineering 217 at TAMU. That being said I wholeheartedly think that if students should at least know something when it comes to code they should get a good understanding of PID and how it works because it may hit hard in engineering classes that deal with integration of large datasets as compared to mere equations.
But to get back on topic, I believe that VEX Robotics has little impact resume-wise. But experience-wise VEX Robotics offers teams the capability to better understand STEM as a whole on a relative budget. If a team wishes to have an adult build robots, it completely removes the entire purpose, or effectiveness of VEX Robotics. Some of the rules are impossible to enforce and is just up to the self moralities of the adult, but if an adult is building robots for students then they are not only diminishing a learning environment but is also crushing the dreams of the child, not to mention the bond with the adult who decided to spoonfeed the child too much, diminishing the drive of the students to generate creative ideas. I feel as though handholding is okay at the beginning, but some adults overdo it and dont comprehend they are demotivating the student to get into STEM. If thats the case then the only losers in VEX is the team that decided to try to get an edge by having their parents build or program their robots, and only time will make them realize just how much the team lost once the members fail STEM classes when going to college.
Right now in my shoes about half of my peers failed a STEM class, making them one or two semesters behind me. Even though we started at the same time, I am now pursuing classes for my major, as many of my peers will continue to be non degree seeking until they have the essential STEM classes covered to finally be an engineer. I am not trying to scare anyone, but Engineering curriculum is not an easy feat and to waste such an opportunity to learn STEM beforehand by spoonfeeding the team is only going to make the students in the team fall behind long term.
Hey, when you come to one of my VIQ events and you see 20 robots running stock Fling robots, give me a chat first. Early season events by new teams are often populated with Hero bots.
I realize that Hero bots isn’t your issue, but dragon like actions sometimes kills off the inocent villagers.
Maybe this is the crux of it; rather than asking the students “Did you clone/collaborate on your sister-team’s robot” the EP/Head Inspector has a discussion first with the coaches/mentor of the program. It need not be confrontational or accusatory, but it should be direct. “I see your teams all converged on very similar robots, what is your workspace like? How do you ensure that each team is contributing?”
That is a good idea, but that does make me wonder. At what point is that considered interrogation? If that instance is considered interrogation, is it ethical or worth the time to go that extent when it comes to refereeing and/or judging? Is interrogation moral for something as small-scale as VEX Robotics?
Its a competition. Ensuring a level playing field is table stakes. The GDC, to its credit, defines the level playing field clearly and reasonably with regard to G2 and G6. If there are legitimate concerns about whether a team’s robot represents their skills and efforts, it seems natural and reasonable for questions to be asked. Perhaps it really does represent the team’s skill. Perhaps all the sister teams provided input and insight into the collaborative process.
Flip it around - if a robot looks too big, is it ethical or worth the time to investigate whether it fits in the sizing tool and then tell that team that they have to get their robot into specs if it’s too big?
I understand your perspective but as much as I appreciate the thoughtful response I just feel like it’s not a perfect as it appears.
I think the difference here is a matter of fact as compared to speculation. What would the head referee do if the adult or mentor does not consent to answering any question about what the team did inside of the school? Would they kick the team from competing because of this? What would the referee do if the adult lies, and is it worth speculating if they lied and the referee punishing a team based upon a hasty generalization that they lied?
A team pointing out an opponent’s robot as being potentially out of size is speculative until the point in time where the sizing tool determines the fact of it being within size or not. Can the team refuse to be sized?
If the coach or mentor refuses to answer questions about the team’s design and build process, some things have already gone wrong with the approach. Its generally pretty easy to start a conversation in a friendly manner in which one can gather the information sought. If the answers are vague and do not put to rest the concerns of G2 and G6 violations, it may be time to be more direct and say, “We’re concerned that there are G2 and G6 violations here, unless we are convinced they were complied with, your teams may not compete”. G2 and G6 are fundamental to the level playing field; escalating this to the RECF could be a reasonable next step. Yes, people lie. Yes, people are not good at detecting when they’re being lied to, but people can catch out some lies.
Think about it from the perspective of the other teams at the competition who did build, design, and code their robots in accordance with the rules. Is letting someone compete who did not fair to them?
G2 especially is similar to G1; I don’t think anyone is making “hasty generalizations” when concerns like these are raised.