FIRST - Reason for existance
 

I started this thread to extend the debate found in the Reputation points thread. The question being debated is whether FIRST's mission is that of US or worldwide base. Originally FIRST was based on improving things in the US. What are your thoughts now that so many teams are from outside of the US and growning in numbers?

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

That's a good thing. FIRST might have been started in the US, but it has spread because people have seen what it is all about and what it can do.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

I don't think anyone can really argue that it isn't a worldwide venture. Sure, it started out in the US, because getting something like this to work in the US was a big enough job. Now we have surpassed that and the bar has been raised to an international effort, I've even heard talk of a possible Brazilian Regional, which would certainly spur some huge interest in FIRST. Really, you can't be an international organization and only help the US.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

FIRST is the best thing ever happened in my life... and i know that a lot of you out there would agree with me that it was your best thing in life... it did start out in US... but now its worldwide... soon we will be seeing teams from across the world... i appreciate and thank EVERY single personality whos working each day and being dedicated to FIRST and keep it running...

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Reason of Existance of FIRST: To inspire students to do something in the field of Science of Technology

It's simple, it does not matter, if FIRST was meant to just inspire kids in US or all around the world, just because it has touched lives all around the world.

Is that explanation good enough?:p

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

FIRST inspiring students to pursue careers in technology was the short term goal. The thought process was that by getting more kids into technology the United States would keep it's dominant position in technology. Which is why all of Dean's current speeches are about the problems with outsoursing technology.

Everyone keeps saying rasing the bar is expanding internationally. That has never been a goal of FIRST. Dean Kamen constanly refers to the statistics for the United States. I don't remember exactly, but around 5% of high schools in the US have FIRST. Rasing the bar to him would mean getting 10% involvement.

Don't take what I say out of context. I would agree that the goal for FIRST is to inspire kids to pursue careers in technology. This applies locally to teams around the world. However, the ENTIRE goal was for the kids to pursue technology for the benifet of the US.

Not one person can explain to me why they believe FIRST's goal is to benifet the world... yet, Dean Kamen's speaches explain how techs jobs leaving the United States are a bad thing. Until you explain this, most of your attempts to explain FIRST going internation seem moot.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

To expand on that, perhaps the question needs to be asked "Why shouldn't it be the best thing that has ever happened in a foreign student's life?" I honestly don't know exactly what FIRST claims their mission to be but whatever it is, it is working and it is working worldwide.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

To me FIRST is, and always has been, about working toward a societal change where the number of people who are positive contributors outnumber those who only take from society. Competing as a means to strengthen the entire society is what FIRST is about. American society, as the country with the most wealth and resources, has an obligation to take the lead in the endeavor to stregthen/bring together the global community.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

http://web.archive.org/web/199611250...ws/960905.html

Simple as that. The text of it is:
"Effective immediately, we have officially changed our name from "U.S. FIRST" to "FIRST". FIRST stands for "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology". The name was changed in order to reflect our desire to expand access to our programs to all youth around the world."

I see it as an economy issue, though. FIRST's inception in the early 90's was built in an economy that desperately needed to pull itself up by the bootstraps. Jumpstarting the US economy helps all US companies out, including Dean's own.

As time marched on, with the popularity of the Internet gaining speed as well as the gradual re-consolidation of companies, globalization became a huge aspect of US business, more than it ever had been before. This may have been part of FIRST's desire to go global - to mirror the economy.

Or maybe the opportunity came up to take on an int'l team and the thing snowballed, I don't know. I find it interesting, Steve, that you brought this discussion up, being from 188. Were you FIRST's first int'l team? I'd love some insight into this.

PS - Don't you love when you hear people call it US FIRST? I grin every time :D

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

I think if you want to understand the reason for FIRST’s existence you need to look more at the big picture. All of the little things like keeping America on the cutting edge or inspiring our young people or filling jobs from within are all great goals but what is the ultimate goal? My view is that, whether we believe it or not, FIRST has the ability to impact entire societies, and even the whole world. Pie in the sky? Maybe – but we all need to dream and DREAM BIG!

Take a look at what motivates Dean. Money? No. Power? No. Influence? No. It seems to me that what motivates Dean the most is the ability to give the world what it NEEDS, and not what it WANTS. Case in point – the Segway. Some can look at it as a rich man’s toy. Others can see it as the latest tech gadget. I see it as a first step toward real change in transportation. The first step toward a solution to the problems of metropolitan congestion, noxious emissions, and a necessary radical revamping of the way we look at transportation. Or how about the Slingshot, Dean’s generator and water purifier? Do we need generators in this country? Do we have a pressing need for potable water in the U.S.? No. This invention is for third world countries that don’t have access to those things like we do. Dean is making the world a better place on some of the most fundamental levels. And he is doing it through FIRST as well.

FIRST is a means to an end. It has the ability to inspire young people to take charge of their world and be the ones to solve the problems that really matter. It is the “classroom” where we all can learn so many valuable life lessons. But the lessons are no good to anyone if we just leave them in the classroom. We need to take them out to the rest of the world and make real changes to our society. While FIRST is huge in our minds, it is really just a small but extremely vital part of the bigger picture. And we need to keep our eyes open to that picture.

Just my 2 soapbox cents.

Sean

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Is it only obvious to me that FIRST and Dean Kamen are not inextricably attached at the hip? They are autonomous, independent entities that can and will function without one another. Sometimes, though, it seems that Kamen forgets the same things that people around here forget -- when you open your mouth, you're not only representing yourself, but also the organizations that you are associated with. Like it or not.

FIRST's stated purpose has been unchanged for eight years, as Jessica has already pointed out in this thread. The name change announcement and subsequent descriptions of the purpose behind FIRST and its Robotics Competition are conspicuously lacking any sort of the America-centric sentiment and, undoubtedly, will continue to do so. If that were to change in any official capacity, I'd quickly figure out what constitutes a resignation and hand it in along with my nameplate, my reputation points and my stapler. That is not the organization I entered into six years ago and not an organization I wish to support in any capacity.

FIRST and its supporters are not, by any indication, against outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries -- whether they be Canada, Mexico, India or elsewhere. Companies like Microsoft, General Motors, Daimler-Chrysler and Boston Scientific have each outsourced jobs to international plants and production facilities.

I didn't have the benefit of being able to attend the Championship this season, so I did not hear Kamen's speech and cannot write about it with any accuracy. Given its topic, however, I can surmise that two things might have been happening.

First, Kamen may just be immensely hypocritical and playing the role of propagandist and recruiter for the corporations who back FIRST. It's all too easy to forget that, while the engineers, scientists and technology professionals we work with through the build season are often talented, engaging, inspiring people, the corporations and companies they work for are often engaged in some unsavory business practices, questionable political lobbying efforts and manufacturing processes that damage the environment -- among other things. It's important that Ford is inspiring students to pursue engineering, but do we really want those students to go on engineering sport-utility vehicles that travel only ten miles for each gallon of gas burned? Is that what we're inspiring students to do with this program?

The other possibility is that Kamen sought to apply pressure to these corporations to change their business practices; to become environmentally conscious, to end outsourcing of jobs, and to research and develop technologies that will benefit the entire world -- not just the United States. That is a goal I can stand behind and am hopeful that someone with a little less fervor about their American nationalism can assure me that this was the case.

The foreigners who are taking these outsourced jobs are doing so at a fraction of the salary that an American expects -- and they can do so often because they're simply grateful that their family can eat. Those people deserve such jobs far more than someone who wants ten times as much so their kids can wear Nike shoes and get driven to school in the family's Ford Excursion.

If Dean Kamen or any of the other CEO's represented through sponsorship of FIRST want to send a real message to this program's participants that says, unequivocally, their focus is on preserving jobs for Americans, the best thing they can do is to take a pay cut. When they can prove that they're motivated by something other than increased profit margins and shareholders returns, that sentiment will shift the paradigm of what it means to operate a business in this country.

Until I see that happen, I'm content in believing the stated purpose of the FIRST organization, not the remarks of Dean Kamen, and will continue to believe that FIRST is about inspiring the next generation to conduct business, value achievement, and support each other differently than the generations before it. Should it happen, I believe that it will also set an admirable example worthy of emulation and will be happy to remain involved in the program.

FIRST isn't about trying to end outsourcing -- it's about trying to inspire within the youth that participate an admiration and respect for the benefit of the work being done by engineers, scientists and technology professionals. It's about teaching them that the benefit in inventing the portable insulin pump isn't in the gobs of cash you can squeeze from the deal, but in the lives you save. It's not about harboring resentment towards people who do the same or better work for lower wages, it's about reawakening their spirit of accomplishment and pride in Americans. It's about rekindling a fire of discovery that illuminates how clearly the things we give to others are far greater than the things we earn for ourselves.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Have you ever read Microsoft's mission? "To enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential."

Huh? I thought they were a computer software company!

Usually missions/visions are pretty broad, they're conveyed in that way so that a multitude of people can relate with them. Thus, Microsoft isn't just making software, they're enabling people. Pharma companies aren't making drugs, they're changing lives. The means to that vision usually change more frequently, since the vision hardly ever changes at all.

I see the whole changing society thing as FIRST's mission/vision. Dean says it here: “…to create a world where science and technology are celebrated….where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes….”.

Point is, the means to that end may have changed, but the vision/mission stays the same. So whether we be part of a national or an international organization, we're still changing the culture no matter what.

The reason why I structured my previous argument as such is that the conversation was more about the means change of broadening from a national org to an international org, not about why FIRST exists.

I think that this thread is a bit misleading in the title (but I can see why it was listed as such...so I mean no offense, Steve :) ). I think it's a great thing that FIRST is international now, and I primarily think that because it reflects the state of industry today.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

I agree 110 percent. FIRST has the ability to change the world. However, I have an issue with the semantics of the situation.

In FIRST, your primary goal is to build a robot; with intended consequences, such as positively changing lives. Dean Kamen's vision for FIRST is to bolster America's tech companies, which will create technology that will have the intended consequence of bettering lives all over the world.

Currently FIRST and Kamen's visions...are blurry. In the press, FIRST claims how they are looking to better the world; in speeches, Kamen's focus is the US. I don't think you can simply dismiss them as separate identities since he is the founder and the most influential member on the board of directors.

EDIT:
I also don't see how FIRST is really going international. Sure, there are teams from other countries participating. And those mentors who represent those countries are providing great experiences and opurtunities for their students. However, there isn't a single member on the board of directors who represents another country.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

I saw/heard/felt a totally different speech in Atlanta. To me, Dean was saying that outsourcing is ok because America will find something else to do and move on. To me, he said that "outsourcing" brought us together with the rest of the world...made us one planet instead of many different nations. To me, it's time that we think of ourselves as one planet. Some nations already do that...and I commend them. Is America there yet? Kind of...not really. Am I? No...but I'm willing to work on it.

Also, I thought Dean's speech had a lot to do with 254's winning the Chairman's. When I heard Dean's speech, I turned to Jason Kixmiller (sitting next to me. We were also Chairman's Contenders and felt like we had a good shot at winning.) and said, "Well...any picks on who won the Chairman's Award." and all he could respond was, "Yah...no kidding."

By those two occurences: 1.)Dean saying America will move on. 2.)Cheesy Poofs winning the Chairman's. I am led to believe that to Dean, outsourcing is ok. It won't kill America...simply make it do something different...something better...something smarter.

I also agree with M.

I've only been in FIRST three years. In that time...I've seen Dean move more away from being tied to the hip of FIRST. To me, for a lot of people who have been in FIRST a while, DEAN=FIRST. In today's FIRST, however, FIRST>DEAN. That is in no way meant to slam Dean...but he, Woody, and one other guy who I don't know the name of (sorry) created an organization that grew like a wildfire. It's bigger than one person...to Dean Kamen I say, "Congratulations." But Dean is not FIRST.

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.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Maybe I worded my original post incorrectly. I don't think FIRST is trying to decrease respect for popular culture icons. I said that some people think that.

I agree - when FIRST gets engineers/scientists/etc. enough respect as other icons - it will have succeeded in one part of its goal.

Now, on to mtrawls comments:
For example, do certain FIRST sponsors' "unsavory" (I put it in quotes b/c morality is not univeral) behavior mean they are less fit to be FIRST sponsors? Does Microsoft's antitrust suits mean they are worse sponsors? Not at all.

I agree completely with mtrawls. But the greatness of capitalism :D is a discussion for another thread...

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

I guess that I should post seeing that I started the thread. I am proud to be Canadian. I promote Canada. I trash talk Americans at competitions in good humor. I promote a healthy Canadian/American rivalry. But what does Dean think? What does Dave Lavery think? What does Woodie think? What about Paul Copioli (had to pick on someone Paul)? Really who cares.

Everyone of us has a reason for being here. It really doesn't matter if Canadian or American. What does matter is the fact that we are here learning together. Each and every one of us is human. We all have likes and dislikes. The thing that has drawn us all together is FIRST. What a great organization. Yeah, I hear Dean promoting the US. Sometimes I wonder why he forgets us non US residents. You know why he forgets us? I don't, but I have some ideas. I believe that Dean is proud to be an American. I believe that he speaks from his heart and sometimes forgets to mention others. I don't condemn him for this but I find it refreshing to see the passion that he shows to us. So many people are politically correct but are not sincere. I believe that that is not the case with Dean. I watched him on Curie as he spoke to the students and watched the game. His eyes told it all. Wide eyed and sincere as he watched competition and spoke to individuals.

Remember if you hear me at competitions. I do show my Canadian pride sometimes. I give a bit more to Canadian teams. I spend a little extra time in the pits with Canadian teams. Does that mean that I don't think that Americans are important? No, I just get a bit carried away, just as Dean does.

My feelings are that FIRST is a healthy organization that is pushing down boundries. I have felt nothing but goodwill no matter which regional or championship that I have been to. I believe that FIRST's main goal is what it states in it's name. No hidden agenda, just plain Inspiration and Recognition. These are items that have no political, national or social boundries. Boy I sure am glad that I was introduced to FIRST.

BTW in an earlier post it was mentioned that all of FIRST executive were US citizens. Paul Shay is Canadian I believe.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Yet at the same time, it's the drive for increased profit margins of this Capitolist society which as at the heart of all this "outsourcing" debate.

Historically, the bohemoths of companies that have succeeded have done so through less than scrupulous means. Standard Oil was busted up for having a trust in the oil industry, and inflating prices. Bell was broken up for having a monopoly on the phone system (and are now slowly merging back together), and charging unfair prices. Microsoft gets money for virtually every computer built in the world, and has essentially been declared a monopoly by virtually every major world government, and slapped with countless fines and lawsuits, yet they continue to be "successful." I'd argue those organizations motivated around utopian goals have largely failed by being pushed around or bought out by the Big Guys through underhanded means. I know many small independant shops with utopian goals struggling to compete with the Walmarts of the day. Not because their products are inferior, but because Walmart has the buying power to undercut them in virtually everything they sell. Same with computer shops like the one I work in. We can't compete price wise with Dell or Compaq. The only reason we're in business is we provide one thing the big companies can't- personlized service. Capitolism is great in theory, but so was the Republic in Rome- which eventually fell for a number of reasons. Once any given market is dominated by companies large enough to control virtually every aspect of that market, choice slowly degrades as independant shops are wiped out as consumers choose lower prices over local business. Once all the competition is wiped out, the king of the hill is awarded the satisfaction of a high investor payout, while the owners of the independant shops file for chapter 11.

I think FIRST is a step in the right direction in this sense- if enough students are touched by the conept of gracious professionalism, those students will take those ideas and fundamentals with them into the business world. I hope the lessons learned about teamwork at the competitions play a role in the relationships the future leaders of this and other countries will create. I'd like to see world business and politics function as our own robotics competitions operate- teams willing to help each other out whenever possible- because in the end, everyone can win in some way. Teams learn new designs and techniques from one another, and grow and prosper with one another, even if in direct competition with each other. Idealistic- yes, but not unfeasable. The only thing preventing it from working is the current infrastructure of cut-throat competition of megacorporations. I'm hoping enough FIRSTers rise the ranks of these companies to steer them back in the direction of true capitolism- with visions for the long term, not just the quick payoffs of the present.

No one has the moral intellect to decide what's best for everyone. But as you yourself stated, the drive of a company is to cut costs to inrease profit, even if it means expending hard working employees in favor of cheaper labor. The facts show that outsourced labor is a fraction of the cost of local labor, and of very comperable quality. As everything in our capitolist society, the contract typically goes to the lowest bidder.


Note- I apologize if I offend anyone in my posts... it's certainly not my intention. I like to look at the world from a global perspective... and I can't help but wonder what we, as a common species, humanity, are capable of if we all were to work together for the betterment of all, regardless of country, race, religion, or whatever.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

FIRST exists (or the stated mission) to provide inspiration to high school students to enter fields of science in their professional career. It is obvious to me that FIRST is supposed to be something that provides the United States with more engineers, which is noble.

However, I think FIRST right now is just serving to inflate Dean Kamen's inflated ego and to provide and outlet for him to spread his silly ideas.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

I'm not quite sure if it is the science or the technology ... but both seem to be sligthly amusing at best ;)

Yes, and debate is healthy. And in this debate, it is often riddled with emotions. People look at one thing, that they are out of a job. Sure, that's not good for them, but they have to deal with it. Another side is that goods are produced cheaper. Most people, if they had a choice, would prefer cheaper goods to recovering lost American jobs -- well, actually most people want both and don't like to think about it too much. But I digress, and this has been discussed in another thread.

Like I said, when people stop playing by the rules things go bad. If companies unfairly use their monopoly status, then this is surely not good. And if there is no competition for them, then they become complacent, which is not good (but also the problem of the utopian idea). Capitalism unguarded isn't perfect, sure ... even I admit that some control is needed (however slight). But it's the best we got.

I agree with you here. Gracious professionalism is about the long run. Too many businesses are short sighted and look for increased profit margins in the short term, irrespective of what will eventually happen.

Are you assuming this is a bad thing?

Some, for sure. But let me give you an example of what I mean. Take the Red Cross; they train lifeguards as a non-profit organization and various swimming pools require red cross certification. Wonderful service; entierly necessary ... but the red cross was only motivated by utopian principles. (Which isn't a bad thing, i admit; but profit can sometimes be better.) There's a certain company in Florida that started training lifeguards as well, but they are a for-profit company. They follow up their training and do periodic suprise checks to make sure life-guards are paying attention, and also do many test drills of emergency situations. Also, they've innovated many techniques (which the red cross has duly copied). The moral? The red cross is great ... but many pools in Florida have started switching over to the for-profit company's lifeguards because they are better trained and stay on task, since they know they're going to be watched. Was the red cross doing a good thing? Yes -- but without competition, they were complacent to leave it at a good thing. Looking for a buck or two, this company managed to make it a better thing.

Remember, it's not just "the Big guys" that are capitalists ... most small businesses are motivated by profit too. And if they can innovate and provide a better service to the market for a better price, generally they will succeed. If not, what should we do? Help them out because their motives are pure? Even if it means more money out of our pocket -- money we probably have other uses for? A lot of people complain about the big guys and their buying power and what not ... but oddly enough, I haven't heard a single person complain about the lower prices they're paying! Oh, and all those "awful" "Robber barons" we learned about in history ... remember that they started out penniless.

But a debate about capitalism and monopolies probably isn't appropriate for this thread -- it would take many pages, I imagine. And I've procrastinated enough from my english paper (for now, anyways).

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Silly ideas are only seen as silly in the eyes of the beholder. All ideas come from thought processes. If Dean or any of the rest of us only think within the box, nothing will ever change or get accomplished. I am not saying that SilenceNoMore doesn't think outside of the box (actually I'm sure that he/she must), but that he/she does not always agree with others that think outside of the box.

I have said to students "what are you thinking about?" when they are trying to solve a problem and when I look back, I realize I was the one that hadn't opened my eyes. Look around, keep an open mind and see what new things that we can experience. This is FIRST.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Very true, how about the most useless invention of all time the slinky. It's a silly invention right? What was Richard James thinking in 1945? I'll tell you who doesn't think it's silly, Poof Products. They sell the slinky. Did you know approximately 300 million slinkys have been sold worldwide? That's a lot of "silly money."

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

i am not a foreign student.... :rolleyes:

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

yeah, our team does nothing but rag on canadians and their tiny worthless money, the frenchness, the stereotypes and just over all canadianism.
however, we dont dislike them enough to avoid the Canadian Regional, which we have been a part of since the beginning.

by creating the Canadian Regional, FIRST is both promoting rivalry in competiton and partnerships in industry, science and tech.
personally, i am $@#$@#$@#$@# glad that 639...cough cough....639 luckily managed to whoop some canadian $@#$@#$@# this year and recover our lost pride on the missisauga battleground from previous years.

Rivalry and competition drive performance. Everyone knows it. That is why FIRST is a COMPETITION. Yes I said it. FIRST is a competition first and foremost.

good game.

Re: FIRST - Reason for existance
 

Soezgg, I am sure glad that you don't say what you really mean. We here in Canada were glad to help that fragile flower (Red Tulip) grow into a beautiful thing. It must be the cool arctic air that stimulates the plants growth. I just hope that next year that it doesn't suffer from wind burn, shrival up and die.

BTW now that we know how you feel, we will be notifying the accomodations people and will be lowering your priority level to a lower mid quality igloo for next year. We will make sure that an outhouse is within 100 yards of your igloo to prevent any accidents.

Your Canadian Host,
Steve


:D :D :D :D :D