I am not working for either FIRST or IFI, so all this is strictly me.
First off, my thoughts on the Vex platform can be found via this link:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=65701
Secondly, and ( I think more importantly to this discussion)
The "FIRST versus IFI" mentality is WRONG.
Let me state this again:
It is WRONG to say that IFI and FIRST are in competition. The title of this thread is a misnomer.
Go to the FIRST web site: look at the mission statement of FIRST. Actually, I'll even reprint it here:
"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."
Now, tell me how IFI's robotics program doesn't satisfy this mission? What is important here is what is being produced: the Vex platform is something a lot of people have invested a lot of money in thus far - it is something schools can afford and teachers can use in the classroom. It is a known quantity. It is an educational tool that people have already invested in, and it WORKS. Why is it bad that someone has begun a new competition which uses this tool? If IFI didn’t do it, someone would have. I would have. I already have a game and field designed and built.
This new FTC platform is an unknown variable. But that does not mean it won't work or is inherently bad. I think that the new FTC platform will be more akin to a "mini FRC" program rather than something completely different. Perhaps the new FTC will be the program FIRST administration wanted it to be, and Vex/IFI's competition can be a discrete entity with its own advantages and disadvantages. One is not better than the other: they best serve students in different situations.
The two should not be considered in competition: why can't schools do both? No one needs to pick just one. Both are tools, like anything else, and people will use the one that works the best. FIRST the organization and IFI the organization are irrelevant details in satisfying the educational and ideological purpose for which these programs can be used.
The "Us Versus Them" and "IFI is for profit" mentality is harmful and unproductive: what is important is the end goal of the program, and IFI's program and the founding vision of FIRST share the same overarching goals. Everyone should be on the same team, even if the uniforms might be different. I’m looking forward to the new IFI game and I’m interested in having more concrete information about the FTC platform. The two are not mutually exclusive.
As a side note: I doubt IFI will be making much money from their competition: they make that selling Vex parts. I suspect the IFI events will be much cheaper than FIRST registration because of this. It makes business sense and the students still benefit. No one loses just because a business is involved. I think their products are reasonably priced and by nature are scalable for schools and other programs to build a robotics program, if not in one shot, than over some time.Scalability is key here, as is accessability, as I've expounded on in my six page monster of a post.
That being said, I think Vex is too good of a product and educational tool to abandon at the snap of the fingers, and I think those of you that are trying to bash IFI for having their own robotics competition really need to take a step back and realize what you are doing here. FIRST should not be able promoting FIRST at the exclusion of all other programs. FIRST is about the inspiration and recognition of science and technology. Whether or not that inspiration comes from FIRST is absolutely irreverent.
I think Edward R. Murrow stated it very eloquently when he said in a 1958 speech:
" This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."
He was talking, of course, about television, but his message just as easily can apply to any medium, including this one. What you put into the program is what you get out of it.
The medium is NOT the message.