Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

There was actually a team from Jamaica before 188, but Woburn is the first international team that stuck around. I was in my last year of High School at Woburn when 188 formed in 1998, so I can shed some light.

When Woburn first signed up for FIRST, we did it because looking for a new challenge. We had been in previous smaller robotics competitions, which no longer satisfied us. We knew very little about the mission of FIRST, rather we just saw it as a cool robotics competition. No special support or attention was given to us by FIRST for being an international team. (Nor did we seek it)

So, at the beginning Team 188 was a not project in getting FIRST to become an international competition. FIRST really began supporting the Canadian in movement in 2002, with the debut of the Canadian Regional.

I hope that answers some questions...

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

There are other threads that talk about this; however, Kamen being pro-America is paramount to my stance on the issue.

I wasn't personally at the championship. However from the CD discussion, I can tell Dean gave a similar speech at my school about a month after championship.

In his speech at my school's centenial aniversary he talked about how we might be moving to an era where engineering itself is being outsourced. He doesn't mind outsourcing technology once it becomes a commodity, but he is steadfast in not wanting the US to lose it's position as the number one technology innovator in the world.

Perhaps I'm twisting his words, but I don't think so. It seemed a lot of folks on CD felt that his championship speech ignored the international teams.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Yeah, we've got pages of talk about outsourcing over here.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

This is true. Dean Kamen does not...in my best estimation...want America to lose its "innovationness". Neither do I. That is what FIRST is all about...I think. Innovation. Countless awards use the word "Innovation". This year the IRI has attempted to use this innovation to inspire an award. The Rolls-Royce President's Award. It focuses on Innovation, Reliability, and Integrity (IRI...clever huh? which by the way...everyone going to IRI should read the awards section of the packet and get your info in quickly so you can be eligable for some of the awards). Anyways. In my opinion:
1.)Dean doesn't want to lose Inovation in America.
2.)Dean is Pro-America
3.)Dean is not FIRST
4.)FIRST is Pro-Inspiration...no matter where it happens
5.)FIRST is Pro-Earth
6.)The "I" in FIRST is most important.
7.)David Kelly is *DUE TO A REQUEST BY BRANDON MARTUS* [edit]definately[/edit] a nerd...but a great mentor and friend.
8.)Andy Baker should be on Survivor
9.)Everyone should try to come to the IRI July 9-10

Hope that clears things up.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Hi,

I'd like to share a few of my thoughts about the internationalization of FIRST and expansion in general. I've been around since 96 and it is safe to say FIRST has grown just a little. Even in 1998 as a few more regionals were added there was concern that things were getting to big and FIRST was loosing the tight-knit feel that many people liked so much. That has always been a big concern with FIRST are we growing so fast that things have become diluted? Is the message lost? Dean has articulated this concern in recent years. He has called on the veteran teams to help the rookies understand what we really mean by this concept of gracious professionalism.

The problem I have is that Dean frequently seems to say one thing and then completely contradict it in the next sentence. For example he will say that we're growing so fast that we need to pause and remember what we're up to and then in the next breath he will implore us all to do our homework so that we can grow faster. I would like to see a little more focus on growing in a constructive way that remains true to the mission of FIRST rather than growth for growth's sake. Another example of this is that Dean will say things like there are 22,000 high schools in the United States and they all need teams. Then we will hear things about how the NYC regional is the "Ellis island of FIRST." What happened to the U.S. teams?

It's interesting I've always had the perception that much of the push to grow FIRST has been reaching some kind of critical mass that only Dean knows. Some have suggested for years that it is about TV but if we couldn't make it on TV during the Battle Bots era...will be ever? Is surrendering control to the corporate big wigs who run TV empires a good thing? I wish Dean would spell out the goal/mission/vision whatever in a way that gives teams actionable goals to work towards.

Thanks,

Justin

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

I remember my first year in FIRST- Dean's speech at the 2000 UTC Regional. I remember it's focus was more on transforming culture in terms of social standards. What I remember is Dean comparing engineers and scientists to famous sports stars, actors, and singers, and where the spotlight of influence was/is in our culture. I remember thinking "Yeah, why do people get paid millions of dollars to swing a stick at a round object, while the people who design and build the things that affect our everyday lives make a small fraction of that."

To me, that's always been one of the main goals of FIRST. I've seen it (and it's happened to me) as transforming people's visions of what engineering is, and how much it really affects our everyday lives. Before my involvement with FIRST, I would look at things for what they are- I'd look at a computer monitor and think "hmm.. monitor," or a stoplight or bridge, and just think of them as random things. Now I look at everything and wonder who designed that, or what the inspiration behind it is, and try to figure out how everything works. Once you realize that literally everything around us has been designed and engineered, it's really an incredible feeling to know you can play a part in the design of things that will make life better in the long run.

When I was growing up, my heros were the typical sports stars of the day, Larry Bird, Michael Jordon, Don Mattingly, etc. etc. But now I think, "what did they really do to better humanity..." Now my heros are people like Dean Kamen, Dave Lavery, Ed Gilchrest, George Rhiem, and all the FIRST mentors and engineers out there. I think that's the main aspect of FIRST- to change our culture from superficial idle-worship of movie, sports, and music stars to a reality based respect for people with varying talents. I appreciate and respect the talent it takes to star in a movie, or produce a record, and even play sports, but on the same level I appreciate the engineers that designed a car I use to drive to work, or the architects that designed the house I live in, or the inventors of the computer so I can post in this thread.

To me, that goes beyond any political or geographic boundary. Inspiration is a human feeling, and as such all humans are capable and deserving of the same chances, regardless of where they live. I'm proud to be part of FIRST, and hope it does continue to expand around the world. When we can have an international championship, I'll be there cheering everyone on, as a global community of people dedicated to making a positive difference.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

And for those who may be interested, the entire team 188 history is nicely chronicled here:

http://www.team188.com/web/index.php...urn +Robotics

It includes info on some interesting forays into failed copycat FIRST competitions held in Canada before the real-deal debuted in 2002. Also included is our short-lived stint as "Team Canada Robotics" which was officially recognized in an address on Parliament Hill in 1998. It was easy to call ourselves "Team Canada Robotics" when we were the only FIRST team from Canada. Needless to say, it didn't take long AT ALL for that to change!

Now, to keep this post on-topic:

Debating whether the goal of FIRST is to service the US, or the world at large, is a bit like arguing whether Civil Rights or Women's Suffrage should apply to just the US, or the world as a whole.

The creation of all these things are deeply rooted in the US, but once the concepts became well-developed and defined, they were exported and practiced all over the world, to the benefit of EVERYONE. If anyone were to claim that Civil Rights and Women's Suffrage were exclusively for the US because they were invented there, they would promptly be met with a firm smack to the back of the head by yours truly.

You wouldn't want us Canadians to keep Celine Dion just for ourselves would you? :p (please don't answer that!)

If you're thinking I'm a crackhead for paralleling Civil Rights and Women's Suffrage to a pithy robotics competition, then humour me for a second: To me, FIRST is "for inspiration and recognition of science and technology".

In a world where our heroes are recording artists, media celebrities, professional athletes, and the uber-wealthy, we glorify them for the fame and fortune they've received. We give little or no regard to whether that fame or fortune was gained by stealling millions from stockholders through bogus financial reporting, whether they simply stumbled upon the right people to sleep with in Hollywood, or if they're just freakishly good at throwing a ball through a hoop. We care even less if they are genuinely GOOD people - so what if he deals drugs, beats his wife, and neglects his kids... he's rich AND famous! I want to be rich and famous too, no matter what it takes... I can find lots of easy money too, just like these people did. The ends will justify the means.

It pains me to see such perversion of the American dream.

"for inspiration and recognition of science and technology" represents not just a robotics competition, but a change in our priorities as a society. The people in FIRST are the ones who should be recognized as "the rich and the famous." Wouldn't it be great if we paid our teachers and innovators the salaries of our professional athletes? What about our scientists and researchers? We envy someone for being able to run fast? But ridicule the "nerds" for being able to think fast? How wrong is that? And if you share those feelings, participating in FIRST is your way to speak up.

Too often, society's inspiration often comes from the wrong people, and recognition goes to the wrong people. FIRST is a great movement that aims to set things straight, to reward and recognize those people who society really depends on. The robotics competition is just a very successful mechanism in the FIRST movement as a whole.

So in short...

FIRST is for the world.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

I believe that FIRST should continue to focus on operations in the US. Sure, teams from other countries should continue to enter, but the main focus of FIRST should remain in the US. Plain and simple.
;)

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

It strikes me that this conversation could be titled "________ - Reason for existence", the blank could be filled in with any of 100 different company or organization names, and the conversation would be strikingly similar. FIRST is what it is and the cool thing is that it can be something different for each person who gets involved.

We've got/had students on our team who have absolutely no intention of getting into a tecnology/engineering related career. They have an interest in business (just like Jessica Boucher! :) ) or a talent at putting together awesome videos for team sponsors and awards banquets or they're just looking for a place to fit in and belong! Whatever the "reason" for their wanting to be a part of something really cool, it's their reason and just as valid as anyone elses.

This feeds the premise that FIRST is what it is to every person depending on what THEY want to get out of it.

For me, I just want to see students learn something. Every one of the kids on our team will be able to regurgitate my canned speech for our team banquets but the message holds true every year and it is just as general as a mission/vision statement. I tell them it doesn't matter if we come home with a trailer full of awards or we come home empty handed, it's the process and experience that is important. Then I ask them the same question I've been asking for 5 years - "Did you learn something new?" If the answer is "yes" it doesn't matter if what they learned is directly related to engineering or is something else that has personal relevance to them. They've learned something and grown as an individual AND as a member of the team.

Garrison Keillor said it best when he said "I'm 56 years old and no longer question the motives of those who ask me to do what I want to do." I WANT to mentor young people in FIRST and I don't worry about my motives or theirs...unless they're looking for a cheap trip to Atlanta! :)

Just a little different twist on the discussion.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

This question almost seems obvious since the are teams from everywhere, including the US, Canada, and even Brazil. So I supose FIRST is striving to improve things outside the US too. The only thing that I question is that the Website is usfirst.org. :confused:

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Jess' post above quotes the reason for the name change from USFIRST to just FIRST, and someone else posted the link to first.org, which shows it's already in use by another organization. I think any other domain that could represent FIRST (frc.org, etc.) are already registered to other things as well, so I think they're stuck with usfirst.org, until the other domains expire and aren't renewed.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Yeah, FRC.org is owned by the Family research Council out of Washington DC.

At this point, I don't think it's a huge issue that the domain name is usfirst.org. It can't really be FRC.whatever, because FIRST is more than just the competition, its FIRST Place, FLL, and other stuff. And all the FIRST.whatevers are taken.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

As you say yourself, Dean is representing the organization of FIRST as a whole. Is it not, then, appropriate for his feelings to mirror FIRST's intent (which did start, at least, partly from his vision)? Therefore, I think it is safe to say with at least some certainty that FIRST does try to follow what he envisions (what that is, I'm not arguing about).

In addition, FIRST is a business venture like any other. The primary goal for a business is to succeed (whether non-profit or profit). In order for FIRST to suceed it needs financial backing. What we do if our sponsors stopped giving us money? If Dean needs to help FIRST's sponsors by being their advocate, good for him! Its helping us keep the funding we need.

I don't think FIRST's role is to play as moral/ethics policeman in the American economy. Instead of scolding others from "bad" things, FIRST is inspiring the future generations to do "better".

I never once saw in FIRST's mission statement a desire to make people less greedy. On the About Us page of usfirst.org comes:
Does it say that FIRST wants better business practices? No. If FIRST "keeps its eye on the ball" (where the ball is inspiring a recognition of science & technology) I think it would be far more successful than becoming a behemoth that can't keep its focus.

Another thing I see in these posts is the tendency to lower the respect/admiration for the "rich and famous" in order to increase respect for science/technology/etc. If FIRST is trying to decrease respect of other people in order to meet its ends, then it is using the same quote-unquote "unethical" practices that some on this thread seem to abhor.

It is my belief and hope that FIRST never does that, and I don't think it will.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Shift it from, oh I don't know, capitalism? Maybe I misunderstand you, but currently "what it means to operate a busness in this country" is all based on capitalism ... try to provide the best product as cheaply as possible so as to maximize profits. It sounds awfully greedy, sure, but are you saying it is a bad thing? Those increased profit margins that "motivate" people are what keeps innovation going (granted when people stop playing by the rules this isn't necessarily the case). If you'd prefer profit to stop being the motivating factor, what would you put in its place? Love, compassion, sympathy, pity, etc.? Is a farmer in the mid-west supposed to get up before the crack of dawn because he loves New York? Just look at the type of organizations that operate on these utopian principles ... you'll find a lack of competition and real motivation creates complacency, which is A Bad Thing. Increased profit margins, however "evil," create an incentive to do better. I'll refrain myself for now ... I think maybe I don't understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that capitalism is somehow bad? You say "when they can prove that they're motivated by something other than incresed profit margins" ... but why should the by motivated by anything else, as a business? Success and history are hard to argue with; those organizations motivated around utopian goals have largely failed, or done worse than those motivated by profit.

I'm refraining from a lot, but I will respond to this. How can you measure how much someone deserves a job? Or who is more worthy? Who gives you the moral superiority to say without a doubt that "those people deserve" the job "far more" than the greedy American who wants to "wear Nike shoes" and own a "Ford Excursion"? So far as I see it, if a person does honest and hard work, he deserves just compensation. If he wants to wear Nike shoes while some other poor person is lacking, is that so evil of him? The thing that really gets my blood boiling is these bleeding heart statements of "compassion." I won't say too much more. I'll show some restraint, and before I continue I'll ask for a clarification. You say they deserve the jobs more ... can you please tell me why? Do you have anything that these poor people do not have (be it Nike shoes or something else)? Would you give it up, or give up a job or job opportunity because they deserve it more? I'm sensing that you are trying to take a view of moral superiority ... maybe I'm wrong, and if so I'd like to be corrected (and I'm sure you'll be more than happy to correct me ;)).

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

I don’t think that FIRST is trying to decrease respect for the rich and famous as much as increase respect for others. FIRST offers great opportunities to thousands of students. These students are able to not only explore the possibilities of science and technology, but also the skills that they possess but just never realized they had. By encouraging talents that popular culture seems to shun, FIRST is already changing the lives of thousands of people.I think FIRST could someday have the ability to cause a change in the way society views science and technology.

If this sea change in society ever happens, then the way that entertainers are treated is going to change as well. While music and TV are very important parts of culture, I wish that the people who are truly changing the world received as much recognition as those with musical and acting talent.