Quote:
Originally Posted by Qbot2640
This thread has diverged from it's topic to a perennial favorite controversy that has pages and pages of it's own posts...can I ask that we do the quick search on adult coaches - and post in one of the many threads already dedicated to that subject?
Regarding the "Clash of Objectives" I had a quick conversation with my Regional Director the other day - and was surprised to find that she was in favor of the Championsplit idea...On reflection, however, it made more sense that those in the positions of "providing" the program are more likely to favor the idea, where those who "receive" the program may be more opposed. In my opinion the providers want to get that experience out to more teams, while the customers tend toward liking the experience being a more exclusive thing.
A clash of objectives may be exactly the issue. My fear is that an outcome that favors the FIRST HQ vision of what's best will do so at the expense of the FIRST Team vision of what's best. Both of which are valid, and both of which were nicely coexisting before this season. FIRST is either sure that they are right, or don't care (which I refuse to believe). While they are asking for input, survey responses, and a town hall forum - each of these requests is preceded by "In 2017 there WILL BE two championships..." I'm not so sure they are right, and I'm kind of hurt that the tremendous backlash of opinion hasn't resulted in language like "Beginning with 2017, we are still considering holding two championships, but realize now there may be other alternatives. Let's talk."
|
The idea of a clash of objectives comes down to how different parties interpret the name of FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) the vision of FIRST ("To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders.") and the mission of FIRST (Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.)
Those in favor of the championsplit aren't people that detractors should think are inept or malicious people. This group is mostly made up of people who provide the event, see what benefits the event provides, and think providing the Championship experience that they see to more teams fits within their interpretation of these three components of FIRST's overarching message. Let's also take time to remember that a large number of people who
provide the championsplit are
-Not mentors
-Not former mentors (I know Frank is a former mentor, but I would love to know how many people who led this decision are mentors)
-Not students or alumni of any FIRST programs
-Not directly related to anyone in any of these categories
From what I can see,
providers of the split think these components are key to an inspiring championship experience
-Traveling a sizable distance, but not always difficult to compete in a 4 day event
-Playing the game with 399 other teams in attendance (quality is not necessarily a driving factor, but with little variability teams should see half of the blue banner winners and HoF members at either event)
-Experiencing being around in a stadium like environment for opening and closing ceremonies only to listen to speakers like the FIRST Founder and National Advisor, sponsors, and "celebrities"
-Having all programs represented at a Championship event
-Experiencing tangential events to the competition like Scholarship Row, the FIRST Finale, and tourism attractions
To try to make sure people didn't think I was looking at this in an overtly biased way, I didn't say their priorities included "MOAR REGISTRATION FEES!!!", state government influences, and other somewhat tinfoil hat things to claim.
Detractors of the championsplit aren't people that supporters should think are hyper-competitive, elitist, malicious people. This group is mostly made up of people who dedicate a grotesque amount of time to their teams, see what benefits the event provides, and think the most important elements for an inspirational Championship experience are evaporating away under the new plan, meaning the split fails to accomplish objectives within their interpretation of these three components of FIRST's overarching message. Let's also take time to remember that a large number of people who oppose the championsplit are
-Veteran mentors of HoF teams
-Younger mentors and recent alumni on above average, "plugged in" teams
-Current students on these above average "plugged in" teams
-Not board members with USFIRST or staff members at HQ
-Likely not RDs (though some mentors of HoF teams are also RDs, and that's awesome!)
From what I can see, those opposing the split see these things as key components to an inspirational championship experience
-Playing alongside 400 teams, some are the best teams from all over the world
-Playing in the event regardless of distance
-Seeing every Hall of Fame team at an event and learning from them
-Tangential experiences do not make up more than the sum of their parts, these people are here to compete and learn how to compete better
-The competition's scale should dictate the venue, not the available venue dictate the competition's scale
-Commiserating and learning from/listening to teams instead of guest speakers
I'm of the opinion that the best answer moving forward lies somewhere on this spectrum, but not at either end of the line. The ivory tower in Manchester should not expect every idea of theirs to be an unqualified success in the community, and the hivemind here can always stand to dial it back so we don't all look like some megazord version of chicken little, becoming more anxious of the falling sky as we combine our thoughts. I don't think HQ made the right call here, and it's not because of the split itself. We are not customers to the FIRST, Inc., and we aren't pawns in the board of directors' game of stem education thrones. This is a partnership. This is a team effort.
I'm a team leader. I'm not the best at the job. If there was a qualification test for it, I would probably barely scrape by (background check excluded; I'm clean I swear!). I don't always get along with everyone else in senior leadership. But I know we all have the team's best interests at heart and I know no one would shoot first and ask questions later because we thrive on trust and respect, and a kind of action like the one FIRST took with the split does damage trust and respect in the relationship. I hope they were just ignorant to the idea of letting us at least know they were looking in this direction before the contracts were signed, instead of knowing there would be an outcry and pulling the trigger anyway.