[l0jec]

Originally Posted by Sue-San

In essence, the FTC team is comparable to a JV sports team, while FRC 25 is more like the varsity team.

Although this may be a valid model for many established FRC programs, I have an issue with this attitude in general and cringe at the thought of it being used as a model for the relationship between FTC and FRC.

For many here on Chief Delphi, there is an unfortunate view of FTC as a stepping stone to FRC. In regards to FIRST and the goals of inspiring students to take up STEM, I believe this to be a flawed and destructive perspective.
So often on this forum I read posts about the real goals of FIRST and how “it isn’t about the robots”; why then do such values seem take a backseat the moment we discuss FTC’s relationship to FRC for so many? I’ve never understood this and it bugs me.
The purpose of FRC is not to promote & grow FRC. It is to inspire students to pursue STEM careers/activities.

FRC teams should be actively promoting the other FIRST programs, not figuring out how to constrain and fit them in as feeding systems to FRC. Taking such a narrow view of FTC is a disservice not just to all the high school students currently in the program who have no intention of ever participating in FRC, but to all the other high school students who do not have a FIRST program available to them at all and to whom FTC might be a better fit than FRC.

I’ll take this a step further and state that FRC is not and should not be the only goal when we discuss the relationship of the various FIRST programs. For many organizations FTC is the better end goal and this reality should be reflected in our community here. Asking if/how teams move students “up the ladder” from FTC as the OP put it is itself a flawed & disrespectful question.

Rather than a progression of Jr. FLL --> FLL --> FTC --> FRC, I believe a more realistic and pragmatic progression is Jr. FLL --> FLL --> FTC || FRC.
As for the middle school gap, I think there should be a junior varsity concept, and maybe it should use FTC’s platform, but it should be separate just for the middle school students who are too old for FLL, but not typically equipped to compete against high schoolers.
Thus, the ideal progression would really be Jr. FLL --> FLL --> Jr. FTC --> FTC || FRC.

Originally Posted by Corey Oostveen

When we decided to do a pilot FTC program in Michigan for middle school students we were really trying to get the programs back to the way they were originally designed. FLL for elementary school, FTC for Middle School, And FRC for high school. This creates the intended flow of students and allows you to keep students and mentors around for a lot longer. This solves all the valid issues discussed in this thread. I believe that FIRST is working towards this transition after the success we had in Michigan with the pilot.

I respectfully disagree with this for the points stated above. It is not about forcing the original intent of FTC (a prototyping platform for FRC), but rather it should be about actual potential that the program has. I really hope that FIRST does not take anything from the Michigan pilot other than a new junior program is needed at the middle school level and the FTC platform would be a good fit.
Doing away with FTC at the high school level is an awful idea and would be detrimental to the goals of FIRST. I love FRC as many here do, but after 20 plus years I think we all know that it is not logistically feasible for every high school. I’m sure that as FIRST’s impact on culture is made, that may change, but to get there we need affordable programs like FTC & VRC and all these programs will have dramatically evolved by the time we get there.