Quote:
Originally Posted by artdutra04
That's a hard question.
But if FIRST has to sacrifice their ideals and values* just to grow the program, that's not healthy growth. That's cancer.
* FiM is a robot competition. It's not a culture-changing competition that happens to use robots as a vehicle for inspiration.
|
I have run some of the numbers and posted it in another thread (started by Dave) what I would do.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=68653&page=18
Check those out. I really think something great could come from FiM.
I would argue some of the key objectives of a "Pilot" is to have a large enough sample for it to be meaningful. Also to not destroy the integrity of the whole by just making Universal changes to everyone. That is why you do a "Pilot".
The State boarder was chosen as a way to Geographically limit the damage if things go bad. Take it as it is.
I think it is very selfish to make statements like: "FIRST should not care about those that don't have programs, and instead help me and my friends". This is what "I" hear when senior teams tell me that they don't want things to change. I know that is not what you are intending, but again that is what I hear.
Back to the Quality vs. Quantity vs. Funding. Currently most of the regionals are subsidized heavily by corporations. Guess what, when discressionary money runs out, so does the large sum of cash to put on a regional. You already have Automakers like Nissan and many others pulling out of Auto-Shows that help sell their products. Do you think they will continue to earmark $250K so a "certain" group of kids can be inspired? A big part of FiM is trying to find a sustainable model for FRC. Right now their are 6 district events that teams automatically get to participate in 2 for $5k. Then 50% of teams get to qualify for the State Championship, which should be at least as good as GLR. What is not GP about that? Finding a way to remove one of the "off work" days so more mentors can participate, what is not GP about that? Having events close enough so that parents can come and watch. Letting Rookies get 2 events under their belts their first year. And there are many more positive elements. Talk to Rookies that didn't come back, and the number one thing they will tell you is too limit return on investment. It takes a couple of years for the "values" to sink in.
As far as the Culture Transforming awards, some might say that any points you put towards a culture transforming award cheapens the meaning of the Award. Just a thought. I too was shocked that there were not points for those awards, but I think there is more to it.
Disagreeing with some of the points system is great. Adding input on what you value about FIRST is great (thank you Beth). Being passionate about your program is great. Please be realistic. Most teams are building with donated money, and traveling with donated money, and playing on fields with donated money. FiM may not be the exact right answer, but I applaud them for trying. I look forward to looking back on 2009 to see if FiM is a success.