__________________________
Today, January 9, 2010, was the kick-off of the six-week build season for FIRST Robotics. It was very much similar to my experience from last year’s kick-off: mildly-interesting speeches, great food and intensive designing. Despite this, the first few days of robotics are quite slow because it is centered on design and strategy, rather than implementation. The team spends hours discussing the pros and cons of the various actions involved in game play and how effectively certain designs could accomplish those actions. Once the design is formulated, it is presented to BAE engineers and team sponsors in a preliminary design review. After this, the three groups of the team, mechanical, electrical and software, split off and work on their respective technical problems.
The design phase of the build season raises a question. All three sections work together in order to brainstorm a design when only two work to actualize it. Structural design deals with structural efficiency, something that only the mechanical and electrical people will work on after the design is finalized. On the other hand, making the robot perform its functions, like kicking a ball or navigating terrain, is the sole task of the software team. Why ask them to contribute to an aspect of design that they are not responsible for? Personally, this seems incongruous. It is similar to asking a mechanic which language he would prefer the robot to be coded it. Of course this never occurs during the build season, because the software team, not the mechanical team, will be writing the code. Likewise, there is no need including software in a task that they will never be involved in.
The audience tangibly sees the physical form of the robot, rather than the code that makes it work. Is the inclusion of software some latent form of altruistic narcissism where one assumes that the design will be better when more are involved? The concept of “the more, the merrier” does not apply in a situation when “the more” are people that primarily concern themselves with the loops and conditionals rather than gear ratios and forces.
________________________
http://xkcd.com/451/
This comic helps the reader visualize the differences between technical and humanities careers. The biased opinion does not give enough respect towards writing. One does not need to be familiar with the terms “deconstruction” or “inextricable” to understand that the engineer is portrayed to be infinitely more analytical and perceiving than the literary critic. Despite the divide, there are clear similarities between the two fields.
Simply put, engineering involves itself in solving a problem. The solution must account for the limitations in design and address the requirements. This is seen in software engineering. The limitations are often the space and time constraints for program execution, and the requirements are often the layout of the interface and the presentation of the end result. As a student in AP Computer Science last year, I often had to create user interfaces that allowed the client to do something. This often involved splitting the problem down into simpler steps and combining these steps into a complete program. On the AP test, the program would be graded on how it addressed each of the shorter code fragments that accumulated into a complete program. Points would be given for each section and totaled at the end.
For the sake of clarity, I will change the subject of literary criticism to writing, specifically, writing essays. Essays are one of the most overlooked literary forms, although they are most effective in uniting the reader and the writer. They are involved in introducing a stance on an issue and convincing the reader why that stance is justified. A different level of analysis is involved, where the writer must gather information and formulate arguments in order to be effective. This process is also known as synthesis. In this sense, the writer often encounters a task of the same difficulty as an engineer, even if the only limitation may be the amount of words and the only requirement is to convey a point.
However, there is a distinct difference in grading when it comes to the AP English Language and Composition test. The piece is graded holistically and a score of 1 through 9 is given. Factors like flow, diction and structure are considered, but they are not evaluated separately. This leads to some interesting issues about the discrepancies between the two subjects. I walked into both my APCS and APE class knowing very little about programming and writing, respectively. Had I taken the national APCS test on the first day, I certainly would have failed. However, the APE questions were approachable. After doing some multiple choice questions and free-response essay prompts later in the semester, I found that I would have fared well if I had taken the national test on the first day. I got around 75% of the multiple choice questions correct and a 9 on the essay. This clearly demonstrates how quantitative a subject like Computer Science appears when compared to English. The later has some concepts like “bathos” or “apothesis” that are considered esoteric, but it seems that proficiency on the AP test is based off of one's tendency to read critically and write effectively rather than one's ability to learn and use information. The writer only has to be persuasive to be proficient, whereas an engineer must be knowledgeable and analytical to be competent. The job of the literary critic is certainly difficult, but it has no adherence to grounded concepts and ideas.
