[ttldomination]

I see this argument as one that is similar to one of those age old arguments that doesn't really have a "correct" side.

- If you look at the greater scope of the competition, we are indeed ALL winners. Each teenager who walks away from an event has had a unique experience, and most likely one that he/she is going to learn from. Jane, you say that the FTC team's coach said "we're all winners" and I can't blame him/her. It might have been the beginning of the day, and the coach just wanted to get the team excited about the rest of the day.

I truly believe in the fact that we're all winners, in the greater scope. Students learn valuable skills that will help them in the real world. These skills go beyond building and CADing, and these skills are extremely valuable.

- But on the other hand, I can see what an abuse of the phrase can do. If people keep strong on the belief that we are all winners, then some teams become conceited and don't recognize the room for improvement. Even on my own team, I see that there is a small group of students are who CONSTANTLY looking to improve our program and improve our robot, while there is another group of students who are content with what we have and the idea with "we are all winners".


In short: I believe that this term has it's importance. If we emphasize the point of winning over what truly matter, then core values of FIRST will deteriorate. But if this term is overused, it can cause the standard of FIRST of deteriorate.