The Sad truth

[aztech75]

unfortunently im not the best author so some of my points may sound a little bit gramatically off... but i think my point is clear...


More and more today I am seeing once great teams falling out of the FIRST Program because they just can't keep up with the rising cost. In the past seven years that i have praticipated in first I have seen a dramatic change in the way first is run.
The sad reality is that first isnt about kids anymore, its about makeing money for teams and trying to get the rest of the world interested in what we do. It is not a bad thing to promte engineering to kids, but they should be promoting what the kids have built, not who sponsors them or the fact that we can go to the georgia dome to compete. In the first years of first, the idea was for the kids to build a robot with the guidence of local engineers. But now it is the team with the bigger sponsor wins. There isnt even a true national Championship anymore. To get to a championship event you should qualify by being the best in a region not paying the entry fee.
Im not trying to bash FIRST, if it wasent for FIRST i would not have persued an engineering carrer. All i am trying to say is that instead of worrying about getting bigger and bigger, they should get back to their roots and see the reel reason we all are a part of first. TO LEARN about engineering.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by aztech75

unfortunently im not the best author so some of my points may sound a little bit gramatically off... but i think my point is clear...


More and more today I am seeing once great teams falling out of the FIRST Program because they just can't keep up with the rising cost. In the past seven years that i have praticipated in first I have seen a dramatic change in the way first is run.
The sad reality is that first isnt about kids anymore, its about makeing money for teams and trying to get the rest of the world interested in what we do. It is not a bad thing to promte engineering to kids, but they should be promoting what the kids have built, not who sponsors them or the fact that we can go to the georgia dome to compete. In the first years of first, the idea was for the kids to build a robot with the guidence of local engineers. But now it is the team with the bigger sponsor wins. There isnt even a true national Championship anymore. To get to a championship event you should qualify by being the best in a region not paying the entry fee.
Im not trying to bash FIRST, if it wasent for FIRST i would not have persued an engineering carrer. All i am trying to say is that instead of worrying about getting bigger and bigger, they should get back to their roots and see the reel reason we all are a part of first. TO LEARN about engineering.

The sad truth is life is like an onion. You peel away layers to get to the center of it. The more you peel away the more it stinks and makes you cry.
Any organization suffers from warts. From our government, to organized religion to your local PTA or any robotics team. So why is that? Well mainly due to the human element. Not everyone is going to seek the same thing from any given element. There are people who are in FIRST to make a difference and there are people who are in FIRST for personal glory and people who joined FIRST just to pick up girls.
So FIRST isn't the rosy perfection that we FIRST thought it to be. Is anything in this world? Before all of you go flying off the handle and start talking craziness like outright quitting the program or something like that you find me something in this mad mad world that is perfect through and through and I'll follow you right out that door.

[aztech75]

Im talking about quite the opposite of quiting, im talking about the teams that have to miss out because the school board is cutting the major donations or even the program becasue it is just too much money. all im saying is trying that first to grow too fast and forgeting about what is most important... Teaching kids about engineering

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by aztech75

Im talking about quite the opposite of quiting, im talking about the teams that have to miss out because the school board is cutting the major donations or even the program becasue it is just too much money. all im saying is trying that first to grow too fast and forgeting about what is most important... Teaching kids about engineering

There is more to it than just strictly financial reason.
Teams die out due to teacher support issues or lack of interest from the student body.
What exactly would be considered an acceptable rate of growth for FIRST because one complaint I have heard over the years on CD is how FIRST has grown so much and how it isn't like how it used to be.
How is FIRST going to change the culture if it's only limited to a few hundred school? Or even a few thousand?

[techtiger1]

As an engineering major I am told that numbers don't lie. I would like to see numbers on how many FIRST teams are started vs. how many existing teams don't register for any competitions. I have thought about this issue a lot and I actually heard Andy and Mark talking to a 1251 mentor about this. Bottom line starting a teams is great but lets make sure we keep the existing ones.

Drew

[Zyik]

Things grow, you can't go back to a small cozy number of teams. However, teams don't have to have a major sponser to do well at an event, nor to be picked by someone who did.

[basicxman]

Originally Posted by Zyik

Things grow, you can't go back to a small cozy number of teams. However, teams don't have to have a major sponser to do well at an event, nor to be picked by someone who did.

i agree i started an FTC team at the age of 13 (and its our rookie year this year) and we got a sponsor and have had alot of financial issues (suaully to do with shipping costs) but we've pulled through ok, you just have to improvize with the resources you've got, ive changed my design several times now but iv finally found the right one that works and i can build it with the limited number of parts we have

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

There is more to it than just strictly financial reason.
Teams die out due to teacher support issues or lack of interest from the student body.
What exactly would be considered an acceptable rate of growth for FIRST because one complaint I have heard over the years on CD is how FIRST has grown so much and how it isn't like how it used to be.
How is FIRST going to change the culture if it's only limited to a few hundred school? Or even a few thousand?

This is the million dollar question.

FRC will never meet Dean's goal of being in every school in America. It's simply too expensive. Much of the country is already saturated with teams. There isn't enough money to support more than a few teams per school district (or even that many, in some cases).

The average FRC team probably costs in excess of $10,000 per year. That's an astronomically high price for an after school activity. Granted we all know it's one of the most amazing programs a student can be a part of, but all that money has to come from somewhere.

VEX/FTC is a big step forward towards Dean's vision. It could be plausible that sometime in the near(ish) future there could be a FTC team in most schools in the country. It's much cheaper, yet it also gives students a taste of the experience they will receive in FRC. Once they move on from VEX, they can join a local FRC team, even if their school does not have it's own.

I've thought for awhile that FIRST is growing too quickly in California. I don't know about other states, but it seems like too many teams are being started, with no long term plan for funding, mentorship, etc (or a plan, but just falling short of being able to execute it). I'd much rather see no new teams be started, and every old team last at least 10 years than a ton of new teams popping up, but then being forced to quit after a few years when they can't sustain their program.

Mentor turnover is a big issue too. Working (or going to school), mentoring a team, raising a family, having a life outside of FIRST, etc is very difficult with the current time commitment required by FRC mentors. It's very easy to burn out, between the actual work with the students, and the strain of arranging travel, fundraising, paperwork, actual travel and supervision of the students, etc.

I know personally that last year I was spending over 65 hours a week physically at our team's facility during the competition season. Combine that with attending school full time, missing 12 days of class (and even more time with friends/family/etc) due to attending competitions, and eventually something has to give.

Pretty soon there will be too many teams for anyone to attend the Championship, outside of regional winners, and chairman's award winners. Presumably at some point there may not even be enough space for all those teams.

FRC will get too big for it's own good. The only question is how soon will it be?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Cory

The average FRC team probably costs in excess of $10,000 per year. That's an astronomically high price for an after school activity.

Have you ever seen a high school football team budget?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Have you ever seen a high school football team budget?

Yes. But that price is absorbed by the school. Nearly every (is there any high school without a football team?) school has a football team. The students don't have to come up with the money themselves. The football team will exist every year, regardless of how little money a school district has, because something else like FIRST will get cut before the budget for sports does. I can't think of any student/parent/mentor fundraised activities that are as expensive as FIRST.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Cory

Yes. But that price is absorbed by the school. Nearly every (is there any high school without a football team?) school has a football team. The students don't have to come up with the money themselves. The football team will exist every year, regardless of how little money a school district has, because something else like FIRST will get cut before the budget for sports does. I can't think of any student/parent/mentor fundraised activities that are as expensive as FIRST.

Doesn't this come down to the priorities of the school and school district?

As much as I might enjoy football, I don't think of it as a necessary activity that has a positive impact on society and our future. Yet, sports programs often thrive in schools where computer access for students is limited, laboratory equipment is archaic, arts and music departments face budget cuts. That's just wrong!

When doing Dean's homework, we need to clearly describe this situation in writing to our government officials. If FIRST becomes "curriculum" where the costs are borne through district budgets (derived from the tax base), then FIRST teams won't have to struggle to do so much fund-raising or rely on fickle corporate sponsors in order to survive. I think doing some fund-raising and selling the FIRST program to sponsors is in itself a valuable, educational activity, but it shouldn't become an overwhelming, all-consuming ordeal.

While we're at it, students should look at their own spending habits: extravagant proms, expensive clothing/shoes, latest video/computer games, etc. before criticizing the cost of FIRST participation. Do the "cost-benefit" analysis and decide what the best use of your dollars is in the long run. Don't you get more out of a trip to Atlanta than a night in a limo, tux and fancy dinner?

Priorities...it's in Dean's message.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Doesn't this come down to the priorities of the school and school district?

As much as I might enjoy football, I don't think of it as a necessary activity that has a positive impact on society and our future. Yet, sports programs often thrive in schools where computer access for students is limited, laboratory equipment is archaic, arts and music departments face budget cuts. That's just wrong!

When doing Dean's homework, we need to clearly describe this situation in writing to our government officials. If FIRST becomes "curriculum" where the costs are borne through district budgets (derived from the tax base), then FIRST teams won't have to struggle to do so much fund-raising or rely on fickle corporate sponsors in order to survive. I think doing some fund-raising and selling the FIRST program to sponsors is in itself a valuable, educational activity, but it shouldn't become an overwhelming, all-consuming ordeal.

While we're at it, students should look at their own spending habits: extravagant proms, expensive clothing/shoes, latest video/computer games, etc. before criticizing the cost of FIRST participation. Do the "cost-benefit" analysis and decide what the best use of your dollars is in the long run. Don't you get more out of a trip to Atlanta than a night in a limo, tux and fancy dinner?

Priorities...it's in Dean's message.

Right on Brother!!

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Cory

[The cost of a football team] is absorbed by the school. Nearly every (is there any high school without a football team?) school has a football team. The students don't have to come up with the money themselves.

I'm pretty sure you're not looking at the same budgets I am. A large part of the funding for most sports programs comes from tickets and concession sales, booster clubs provide another big chunk, and sponsorship is significant. In a few specific cases I know, parents are required to volunteer (yes, it's an oxymoron) for a certain amount of concession duty, or to buy their way out of the obligation. The costs cannot be "absorbed" by the school; they must be covered by income from specific sources.

And in many schools, the students (or their parents) do pay to be part of the football team, sometimes on the order of several hundred dollars a season.


The biggest difference in funding models I see between football and FRC teams is that admission is free to watch FRC competitions. As long as FRC is cheap for the spectators, it will be expensive for the participants.

[ebarker]

Basic economic theory tells us that if I give you something, I want something of value in return.

Sponsors have to see value in their support. If they perceive things as they pay money so someone else can have a hobby, or even an education, then that is a non-starter.

Sponsors have to be convinced that there is a value proposition here. ( FRC )is important to us but probably not to them. Substitute FRC for every other activity that happens at school and the community and you will see what I mean.

If you can persuade enough sponsors to see enough value to them and the community then you have a shot at getting 100, or 500 or 1,000 bucks or even more from each of them.

The persuading is the (relatively) easy part. The harder part is figuring out how to connect the dots on bringing value to the potential sponsor.

There is a reason Tyco supports FIRST and Yamaha supports Band and Nike supports sports, etc.

[AcesPease]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I'm pretty sure you're not looking at the same budgets I am. A large part of the funding for most sports programs comes from tickets and concession sales, booster clubs provide another big chunk, and sponsorship is significant. In a few specific cases I know, parents are required to volunteer (yes, it's an oxymoron) for a certain amount of concession duty, or to buy their way out of the obligation. The costs cannot be "absorbed" by the school; they must be covered by income from specific sources.

And in many schools, the students (or their parents) do pay to be part of the football team, sometimes on the order of several hundred dollars a season.


The biggest difference in funding models I see between football and FRC teams is that admission is free to watch FRC competitions. As long as FRC is cheap for the spectators, it will be expensive for the participants.

In the Northeast many smaller schools do not have football teams and many middle class school systems are going increasingly to "pay to play" funding.

Back to the original topic: Maintaining the health of existing teams should be a part of the overall FIRST Growth plan. Teams need to find long term support from their school or sponsor to pay that difficult initial entry fee so the students only need to raise money for a trip and can focus on science and technology.