Quote:
Originally Posted by lilstogi11
Even if FIRST reaches the 4000 mark next year or w/e, it doesn't matter unless those teams below the landmark are sustained...having a team 3000 means nothing in an economy that might not even be able to support the 1500 teams we have...
Landmark numbers mean nothing when the other teams are falling.
|
Exactly. Approximately 50% of all teams die off.
Now, this might be misinterpreted by many as being harsh and accusative. Bear in mind I mean no such thing. I'm simply musing here.
I believe that the job FIRST is doing to promote new teams is awesome, but a little misguided. Very low number, high experience teams will be motivated for the awards, contest, and recognition that stems from this push for more teams, be it selfish and intentional or totally benign. These teams will then strive to start as many teams at as many nearby schools as possible. This is a GOOD THING. However, the reams are a little irresponsible. Rather than follow up, and make sure the program is well supported and healthy, they're too buy dashing on to found the next team.
Now, this IS a generalization. There are other teams that strive to help others survive, and work on program continuation. This number pales when put next to the number that go for starting teams.
So yes, team 3000+ does herald a good thing, that being growth. The 1500 or so active teams inside of 3000+ number slots, however, signal a lack of attention to program lifetime. This isn't good. Something ought to be done about this. Be it in depth training at events, "team rescue kit in a box," or what have you, something ought to happen. So who's up to have a grant writing lesson happen on Thursdays of regionals? Heck, for all the money FIRST throws at events, there has to be a little bit left over to entice some english professors to come and speak about grant and proposal writing...