|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Please bear with me: I think I am about to get overly loquacious.
The mission of FIRST is to "inspire." FRC is a vehicle FIRST uses to that end. FIRST wants to inspire as many people (students, families, friends, acquaintances, etc.) as possible so as to bring an aura of "cool" to STEM education - and FRC does just this beautifully. However, as FIRST has grown we find ourselves dealing with a contradiction: Though FIRST strives to maximize the number of folks it inspires, the "competition" in FRC strives to narrow the field. As I float the the many pages of thoughts, ideas and I suggestions, it seems that the question that stands at the center is: "Are we about competition or inclusion?" At some point, one of these two has to give.
The reason FRC works so well is that it embraces certain aspects of our culture so as to promote something (STEM) that is not universally embraced by teenagers or, even, many adults in our society. It is the competition that gets the public to the events. It is the competition that brings excitement to our schools. It is the competition that pushes every team to do better each year. It is the competition that compels us to learn. Let's face it: in the very nature of our capitalistic society is competition. And, for good or ill, we demand a winner. We have a (rather illogical) need to always be able to name the "best" team, athlete, whatever. Every competition we know and admire has a "winner." If we take this away from FRC, we lose something that is at the very heart of the program.
At the same time, many of the teams that attend Champs are the same every year. The Championship does not really help FIRST to attain its goals if most of the same teams come back from year to year. In fact, nearly every team (and their families and communities) at the Championship each year is already "inspired." The Championship is just the icing on the cake. It's the proof of a good year at competition.
In other words, though an incredible event and a great experience, the Championship is necessary for FRC, but not for FIRST. Dividing it into two events or even making it so big that a huge percentage of teams can qualify seems to weaken the impact of the event for those that do qualify - not to mention create some legitimate logistical nightmares for those trying to travel with last-minute preparations!
The notion that we could have another layer of "championship" after these two events is not feasible. Either it would have to be another huge event or it would be a major letdown after the previous week's (month's?) championship events. Moreover, I just shelled out over $60K in order to get my team to St. Louis - and only 1/3 of the team is attending. If we were to have a second event requiring airfare and missed school: 1) We would not be able to afford it; 2) Way too many students would have to skip out due to excessive missed school; 3) My school district would question why we have to have two championship events requiring long-distance travel when most teams don't have any and 4) My wife would kill me. Robotics events take me away from my family for an entire weekend - and leave me recovering for another day. And, of course, there is the pre-event preparations. To me, this seems excessive when we are talking about teams who are already 'inspire' to excel. (Had they not been so inspired, they would have either not put enough of a robot together so as to qualify in the first place or, had they gotten "lucky" would have not shelled out the cash to go. Do not a large number of teams turn down their bids to Champs each year already?)
It seems to me that, if FIRST is hoping to "spread the inspiration," it really needs to be targeting the teams that don't qualify for district championships or only tend to attend one regional event. I recently attending the PNW Championships and I believe I can safely say that all of those teams were inspired. It's the large number of teams who did not qualify for the event and are in danger of collapsing that need the extra boost.
So, I would propose that the extra efforts to "inspire" more teams should be handled on a more localized level. Some ideas:
* Increase the percentage of teams that qualify for district championships. The PNW championship was a huge spectacle. Let's get more of the "borderline" teams to these events: They can do it without having to cough up airfare and with fewer missed days of school. They might even be able to get more of their families to attend. There is plenty of inspiration for those teams.
* Add a second "district-wide" event for the "almost" qualifiers. Give them a chance to compete and win with all the pomp of a championship event without having to face all the power-house teams that blew them out at districts. If this is held on a different weekend than the district championships, you just might be able to get some of the powerhouse teams to lead really good seminars. Then, invite (and pay for!) mentors from the teams that did not qualify to watch the events, walk the pits and attend the seminars.
* Keep Champs exclusive - 600 teams really should be plenty. The teams who qualify - or come close - are already "inspired." Keep the event special, but put effort into helping more teams be able to complete for that qualification. For instance, a "price" of winning champs should be having a FIRST video crew interview the mentors and leadership students on the winning alliance about how they got there - everything from their training, to their design process, to the technical specs of the robot, etc. Post these online and send the links out to every team in FRC. Le't all learn from the best - not just the teams that can afford to go to St. Louis (or Houston, or Detroit, or wherever).
|