I’ve been reading the forum lately and shaking my head in disbelief more than once.
As a parent of the VRC aged kids I need to make decision whether to commit the usual $700-$800 towards the registration, game elements, new and replacement parts, etc… at the beginning of each season.
It was an easy decision in the previous years, but this time, the uncertainty around COVID variants, AP test scheduling conflicts, and what I’m reading here, makes me pause and think it through longer than usual.
I know that the educational market is the primary source of VEX income and that important selling points of VEX EDR system over much cheaper alternatives are the lesson plans and tutorials integrated with the development environment and accompanying the line of products that cover wide variety of the trending STEM topics.
What may seem like a great deal for the school administrator making a purchase, may seem like an exuberant price to usability ratio to a passionate VRC competitor on a constrained budget.
Still, one of the big selling points for educational programs is the bundled Vex Robotics Competition that can have a great effect on motivating students to learn STEM topics in greater depth and with more passion and dedication.
And one of the important aspects of VRC that allows to tap into this source of student energy is the notion that every student that has access to the baseline EDR set of parts, could advance and compete on all levels.
Almost every student could imagine themselves making it to the Dome just by working hard, learning advanced mechanical and programming concepts, and tirelessly practicing their building, programming, and driving skills.
Similarly, there is nothing that could spoil that great source of student energy more than the notion of the unfair, unlevel, pay-to-win playing field.
And, I could easily imagine how my kids, coming from a competition, losing to a team with a robot loaded with pneumatics and GPS sensors, will say that the reason they lost was they have none of those. I don’t think I will have much success explaining that pneumatics and GPS sensors also require teams that use them to learn and deploy pretty sophisticated building and programming technics and just slapping parts on the robot is not going to magically let anyone to win.
We may be lucky to be able to afford those extra parts, but I still don’t like the idea of dropping a total of $2000+ on the parts that have almost no usability outside of VRC.
That is a steep price to pay for students not feeling that they have no chance of winning, and far from everyone can afford it.
I am sure there is a better way to balance the playing field.
Now, I thought I knew the answer to this question, but now I am not sure anymore…
I would really appreciate if someone from GDC could provide a concise direct answer to this question, as it will help me to decide my way forward.
Would GDC consider making strategic changes to the Game Rules that could help students perceive the playing field as fair and thus increase long term participation and effectiveness of VRC at the expense of potentially hurting some short term sales?
While not trying to be an apologist for the current state of VRC, this seems a very difficult proposition. What one group of students may consider “leveling the playing field” another group of students may feel “constrains their engineering opportunity”.
I do see a possible future where VAIC may allow teams that feel currently constrained to flex. Obviously one of the draws to VRC is the relative large number of available competitions and teams which VAIC will likely never have.
I do think that the price point to entry for VRC is increasing, even to the point where teams may realize they don’t have the budget/resources to be competitive. Maybe VAIC will provide a release valve for higher resource teams and alleviate that. Maybe it won’t.
Without direct experience, I will say that my perception is that VRC is significantly less of a pay-to-win environment than FTC, for whatever that is worth.
I feel as though if the point is affordability, there should be emphasis towards helping teams with finding sponsorships. At this time, VEX V5 is pricy (since regardless robotics will be pricy) yet gives the appearance of extreme simplification giving most engineering companies the forethought of “Why should we even sponsor them if VEX is not going to prepare them for their futures, as compared to other competitions out there?”
It took Westbury Christian School 4 years to finally get a sponsor for their VEX robotics team. And after going to another school when I did robotics at Ridge Point I had to suck up all of the costs and debt to do VEX robotics because my school was not willing to start a VEX robotics competition because they felt like it didn’t prepare students for college success, and in all of my years going independent and reaching out no company said yes to sponsor my team. Where is the “affordability” component for those who have less funding than what is considered “affordable” in VEX? Its excruciatingly difficult than it already is to receive sponsorships due to the reputation VEX has.
I feel the need to defend erector sets. Legitimate engineering has been done with erector sets. The Soarin’ ride at Disney was originally designed with an erector set. Erector sets are cool
Also, it might just be that I went to a bottom tier party school (woo ASU, go Sun Devils, throw that sports ball!), but even just having done VEX put me way ahead of like… 90% of the people in that program out of the gate. It also got me my first internship because the mere fact I had done literally any extracurricular engineering-ish work put me way ahead.
I like the way vex is right now as it allows students to get into vex more easily without any prior knowledge. While I want 3d printing, i do have to agree with the point that it would make vex too hard to approach. Pneumatics and GPS are nice, but wont necessarily make or break a team. GPS is of limited use in vrc outside of skills (and no beginner team is focusing on skills). Pneumatics are a late stage modification. If a team has a bad robot, slapping pneumatics on it wont magically make it better. You need a good platform to mount your pneumatics on.
What you are saying here is not only incorrect, but is damaging to the community with the misinformation.
You have a common point in this post, which revolves around the same central idea that “doing vex gives no credibility in a professional setting”, I am unsure where this notion comes from and it is incorrect to continue to perpetrate the myth that participation in VEX is somehow worthless(or even negative). The level of skills that are taught through VEX expand well beyond what you can put in a sponsorship packet and that was always the goal. Anyone who knows me also knows that I have done my fair share of ripping into VEX and the RECF, but their approach to teaching fundamental engineering process skills through the competitive realm is their most valuable asset.
When you mention “college-level engineering” you are so far off from what university level engineering actually is. I never had a class where knowing Inventor or how to 3D print is expected (I do know upper level design courses expect this, but the prerequisite classes do teach these skills) but every single course that I have taken requires that I have the foundational engineering design process skills.
I do not understand where you are coming from in the notion that VRC has some negative connotations with college admissions departments, I’d love to see anyone present hard evidence on this. Universities could care less about any specific VEX awards you receive, instead most care about your teamwork, leadership, and other soft skills. Stating that VEX Robotics has zero use as a prep for a degree in engineering could not be further from the truth. As a follow up to what I stated originally, make sure that you know what you are talking about before saying things. Mentors and students rely on this for information and guidance, misinformation will just hurt the community as a whole.
I’m sorry, but do you really believe that VEX has a negative stigma so bad that you can’t find sponsorships because of its supposedly negative reputation? This is absurd in itself. Furthermore, to ask a company to help you find sponsorships is even more absurd. It seems like the trend here is that you would rather blame the larger system as a whole than thinking about your circumstances.
By breaking off from your school and going independent, you also decreased your chances of having a company sponsor your team (granted, I understand that you had no other choice). Is is extremely misleading for you to blame VEX for your failure to find money from companies by not having a school affiliation.
Yeah, if I’m a company donating money and you don’t have an account tied to a school I can send the money to, or if that’s not possible a registered 501c3, I’m not giving you money, no matter what robotics program you’re part of.
EDIT: Disclaimer. Am not a lawyer, accountant, or company with money. Your mileage may vary. Ask your doctor if a nonprofit is right for you.
What?
Firstly, I never stated that there is no credibility with VEX. I am stating that I feel like the credibility does not compare to other competitions. If you have not realized, I am highly emphasizing my feelings into this situation. I have signified that what I am stating is what I feel, so to come to the conclusion that I am somehow “spreading misinformation” is untrue as this is my own personal opinion, which I felt like I thoroughly emphasized.
I am aware, but I am stating that I feel like, for the majority of colleges from the outside perception looking in from most engineering professor’s perspective may perceive VEXU as not worthy of their time (NOTE: I am talking about colleges). For someone on a higher level of education, or has a degree in Engineering who has never heard of VEX Robotics, how in their right mind would they consider VEX in its current state (as in, current state of perception from the outside-in) capable of preparing someone beyond college, when they are hearing that it is “An erector set?” If I am at least thinking this, I highly believe that I am not the only one.
Note, yet again: I am not saying that VEX does not prepare you. I have competed before in VEX and I know that is false. But, what I am saying is to those with engineering experience who had a first initial impression of seeing VEX, I feel like they will not have as positive of a notion for what is explained above and below
During High School, when I asked someone in VEXU during a Texas State competition “Why are you in VEXU,” they responded with “I don’t know. There are plentiful of other things I could be doing but I do VEXU just because I have been doing VEX throughout my High School.”
It is, without a doubt, correct as the opportunity is heavily limited as you really have to “squeeze” the Engineering potential out of VEX robotics for beyond college.
For instance: plane building, engineer racecars, building a robot dog, all with parts that have a closer correlation with the real-world.
When it comes to college, there should be a greater upscale in the level of difficulty based upon your dedicated major. VEXU is limiting in that component for the most part, where you are not required to use processors and electronics that correlate to the real-world for electrical engineers (far few usages of transistors, resistors, capacitors, etc. in VEXU, if any by competitors), but at least within the mechanical side they added the capability for variety and expandability for the most part that can apply past college.
How useful does VEXU get junior/senior year in College? Maybe the first two years, possibly, VEXU may be beneficial. But whenever you ask someone in VEX if they are going to do VEXU, they will more likely than not say no because I feel like they perceive it as niche and ill-advancing.
I do not have any hard evidence. I am not in any position to request or find any hard evidence supporting or against it. But I am merely stating my perception, to provide relative evidence as this is a forum and not an article.
I do not believe I have said that at all, neither implied it.
I am not asking a company to help me find sponsorships. Where are you even getting this from? I am not competing in VEX anymore, so it is illogical to conclude that I am asking for a company to help me find sponsorships in VEX robotics.
I feel like robotics itself has a positive reputation (rep point 2), but I feel VEX having a connotation of snap-in-place makes the reputation feels more eccentric (rep point -1). So, I feel like to say I did robotics (rep 2) would appear better than saying I did VEX robotics (rep 2 -1 = 1), if you’re catching my gist.
I do not believe you understand that I stated two circumstances associated with it, to at least relatively verify the stigma associated with VEX robotics. I have no extreme knowledge but I am at least shining the perception to light. I am merely an individual who is expressing his opinion. Nothing more.
I have never stated that sponsorships are not available nor have I stated that grants are neither available. I am merely stating that I feel like sponsorships are far more unlikely provided from the association with VEX robotics as compared to FIRST, FTC, and other competitions with a perception of pictures that appear essential or related to the engineering world supporting it or rather a story that is unique and intriguing like “sponsor us for building a robot that flies,” or “sponsor us to make a robot submarine.” I merely used my own example, as hard evidence is very difficult to be supported for this situation.
Most of I have said is merely stated upon the basis of rumors, assumptions, and chance. It is excruciatingly difficult, if not at times impossible, for someone to generate hard evidence to improve a specific product or idea when it comes to preparedness and “future.” But it is, of course, more plausible for those who can have the resources and power to somehow prove it to do so but that is not me.
Anyways though, I just enjoy expressing my opinions (or sometimes being a devils advocate and trying to express the contrary thereof) until someone says “enough” so I can learn about other’s viewpoints or possibly change my own mind. Is there anything wrong with that? Do you honestly believe I state what I say for ill-intentions? It is fun to be a devil’s advocate at times, because I get to also verify the merit of other people’s perceptions as well. But anyways, if you are going to make absurd claims while stating that my claim is absurd is, indeed, absurd. @tkelleher to say that what I say is “untrue” and that I need to “provide hard evidence” is an act of hypocrisy as you make a claim yourself (which is, that what I stated is untrue) while not providing hard evidence yourself. So, are you going to provide hard evidence that what I stated is untrue, or are you going to side with me that it is nearly impossible to provide hard evidence in this discussion and that we both are merely expressing opinions?
But, to get back on-topic tying back to what I am saying… I feel like 3D printing will help with high school perception and merit of VEX. Thats all for the most part.
I do not believe school affiliation means much when it comes to sponsorships. But yes, I did fail to find sponsorships, as that is what I implied. And no, I am not blaming VEX. I was providing an example to make individuals think that “affordability” can also involve another currency, which is reputation. There are other ways to make VEX work with 3D printers, and to argue that it creates a competitive edge to those who have $$$ seems reasonable, but I feel like it is only reasonable to an extent.
On the point of 3D printing battery clips, would the GDC consider making an exception for those like they did for the license plates? Custom battery holders are really nice to have and don’t give teams any advantage during a match over standard vex clips.
^^^^^^^^
I have experience fundraising for a “real” “non-erector sector” robotics competition. It’s not any easier than VEX if you’re not a 501c3, in which case its equally easy. Don’t talk out of your ■■■ Connor
Did you read my post in full? I never talked about VEXU and the original post that I responded to had nothing to do with VEXU. If you want to debate about VEXU, I’m sure that my organization would be of high interest to you considering it’s use of the VEX platform in “real” engineering. Did you read my comment on university-level engineering classes? I think it answers most of your points very easily.
You present your opinion as coming from one of experience with collegiate level engineering and robotics education. To your own admission, you do not have the evidence to back up what you are claiming. I’d love to know which colleges do not think VEX is credible or has a negative community connotation. I don’t think you realize what damage you are causing by “expressing (your) opinions” since this community does have newer mentors and teachers that read. I really don’t want to be a community policeman for misinformation but this has to end.
It is not my job whatsoever to provide counter-evidence to your claims. You are ultimately responsible for proving yourself after someone asks for clarification (which, thankfully, you did by admitting you have no evidence supporting your side). If you would like to find some information on this matter, there’s a wonderful thing called engineering education research. There’s also a great thing called a University Library which gives you the ability to access millions of journals and publications, some which just so happen to be about engineering education.
I really don’t think that calling me a hypocrite makes your case any more credible, frankly it feels like you’ve admitted you don’t have any foundation here and are resorting to coming at me personally. There is no shame to admit you are in above your head.
I like to nitpick some But as you point out the Knowledge Base article about how to seek out grants is one action by RECF/VEX along those lines to support teams. Acknowledging that the “Development” aspect is a skill for teams to learn and support them outside of robotics, but to other endeavors. It amplifies the myriad of new skill opportunities for teams. During the RECF Summit, there was a session on Development for EPs, and one thing that was mentioned was putting more examples on their website, hopefully, these documents will help teams as well in finding sponsors and grant writing process. I know our organization has done a lot reaching out to organizations, doing fundraisers, etc.
I think there is more we can do as a robotics community to support new teams in finding funding. VEXforum has been good at helping a bit, but something more formal would be useful in the Team Resources links on RoboticsEducation.org VRC Team page that is like the KB article, but more tuned to small teams.
Honestly, this could not be more wrong. As a part of a successful VEX organization(2616), I’ve seen many many students write their common app about VEX and have their #1 extracurricular be VEX and get into massively successful colleges(the likes of Princeton, UPenn, even Harvard). So saying that VEX doesn’t hold weight is downright stupid. It’s up to the applicant to present VEX as a worthwhile experience that changed their perspective and got them involved, not VEX. It is up to the STUDENT to make VEX valuable, not VEX.
But as you point out the Knowledge Base article about how to seek out grants is one action by RECF/VEX along those lines to support teams. Acknowledging that the “Development” aspect is a skill for teams to learn and support them outside of robotics, but to other endeavors. It amplifies the myriad of new skill opportunities for teams. During the RECF Summit, there was a session on Development for EPs, and one thing that was mentioned was putting more examples on their website, hopefully, these documents will help teams as well in finding sponsors and grant writing process. I know our organization has done a lot reaching out to organizations, doing fundraisers, etc.
