Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha Beta
Back off that limb.
|
No, go out on that limb.
I've long been a proponent of establishing FRC teams instead of merely starting them. I saw this post and got excited because I figured maybe, just maybe, FIRST is waking up to the fact that every failed team (and roughly 50% or more of FRC teams that ever form have failed) hurts their goals more than most people realize. A failed team is like dropping a carcass in a well. It rots and destroys the well. And sometimes that gets back into the water table. The teacher/contact thinks FIRST is too hard/expensive. The students think STEM is too hard for them. They think it's for people better than them.
Isn't our goal twofold? We're supposed to build a culture where STEM Professionals are celebrated like the pop culture celebrities and a culture where kids realize that STEM is a field where they can all go pro right? Failed teams have lasting negative impact on the culture by spreading seeds of "can't".
We should focus on ensuring that every FIRST team we establish has a sustainable base. This is done by building relationships with sponsors, mentors, and the community. Teams consistently without all three of these are destined to fail. Maybe not fail as in go under but fail in the sense that they are not being as effective at our goals as they COULD be.
How can FIRST do this? Stop accepting rookies without a business plan, without at least a PLAN for establishing these partnerships. Without showing that they have a plan for when (not if) Bad Things(tm) happen. Because, you know what, even if the plan is total crap you've at least forced them to think it through. Cuz Bad Things will happen.
So, Ronnie, kudos on asking one of those taboo questions.