FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)

[richardyun]

@hiyou102

You have raised a good point. On the one hand, the origin of FIRST, and continuing vision as expressed in this strategic plan, is to foster the development of technical innovation in the USA to "benefit the nation's economic competitiveness" and to address the concern that "the United States consistently ranks in the middle of the pack, or lower, in student performance in science and mathematics when compared with other developed nations". On the other hand, FIRST takes pride in having grown beyond the USA and says "Although our primary emphasis is on North America, we operate in more than 60 countries."

Even when talking about North America, there are at least two countries, that are not the USA, with active FIRST programs. This strategic plan talks at times about just the US and at other times includes Canada so it is not clear if the vision is for one nation, two nations or all of North America.

I guess the question is: “If we raise the level and interest in STEM significantly in all those 60 plus countries, but the USA is still in the middle of the pack, is this success?” To what extent is it okay to help other countries build their technical capability?

Bottom line - In the big picture, are we still talking Coopertition or is it Competition?

[hiyou102]

Originally Posted by richardyun

@hiyou102
I guess the question is: “If we raise the level and interest in STEM significantly in all those 60 plus countries, but the USA is still in the middle of the pack, is this success?” To what extent is it okay to help other countries build their technical capability?

That's what I was thinking. Coming from a non-middle of the pack country I really wonder if it's within FIRST's plan to really help us. Since we are a competing nation that ranks higher in education wouldn't it make things harder for America if we became even more educated?

I also thought it was odd at Champs when they kept on talking about America's success even though there were plenty of non-Americans there. It seems strange that we come to a competition in which the host country keeps on talking about beating us.

[Libby K]

To the international sentiments here:

I agree with you. FIRST isn't USFIRST anymore (except in URL). But just like some people still call it 'nationals', some little bits of the statements about FIRST's vision are very US-centric, and that takes some time for adjustment.

Keep in mind that FIRST the non-profit is based in America and therefore, documents its service to US schools and students. However, FIRST the competition has clearly expanded out into the world and encourages that expansion. Don't worry, non-USA teams - FIRST knows you're there, and they couldn't be happier about it.

Changing messaging just takes time.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by hiyou102

That's what I was thinking. Coming from a non-middle of the pack country I really wonder if it's within FIRST's plan to really help us. Since we are a competing nation that ranks higher in education wouldn't it make things harder for America if we became even more educated?

I also thought it was odd at Champs when they kept on talking about Americas success even though there plenty of non-Americans there. It seems strange that we come to a competition in which the host country keeps on talking about beating us.

Please excuse our politicians. Even we really don't like them.

Do foreign political figures not talk about wanting to win all the time?

I guess the question is: “If we raise the level and interest in STEM significantly in all those 60 plus countries, but the USA is still in the middle of the pack, is this success?” To what extent is it okay to help other countries build their technical capability?

That's an interesting question, and the answer really depends on who you ask. If you ask the Dow 30 I would think the answer would be, "No time to talk, have to go hire new workers!" If you ask an American politician, I've got imagine the answer is no.

Winning is awesome, but I think most of us would rather win in a situation where the bar has been raised to new heights than one where its sitting in the mud.

I think it is absolutely FIRST's plan to elevate everyone, but I think they'd rather it slip under the radar at events since they seem to be heavily courting Uncle Sam.

[richardyun]

Good points Ian. thanks

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by richardyun

You have raised a good point. On the one hand, the origin of FIRST, and continuing vision as expressed in this strategic plan, is to foster the development of technical innovation in the USA to "benefit the nation's economic competitiveness" and to address the concern that "the United States consistently ranks in the middle of the pack, or lower, in student performance in science and mathematics when compared with other developed nations". On the other hand, FIRST takes pride in having grown beyond the USA and says "Although our primary emphasis is on North America, we operate in more than 60 countries."

Even when talking about North America, there are at least two countries, that are not the USA, with active FIRST programs. This strategic plan talks at times about just the US and at other times includes Canada so it is not clear if the vision is for one nation, two nations or all of North America.

I guess the question is: “If we raise the level and interest in STEM significantly in all those 60 plus countries, but the USA is still in the middle of the pack, is this success?” To what extent is it okay to help other countries build their technical capability?

Bottom line - In the big picture, are we still talking Coopertition or is it Competition?

Another aspect is getting governmental funding and some sponsorships. FIRST is probably more likely to gain funding by stressing the idea of investing in the future of America opposed to having the money go help those in Canada, Mexico, Isreal and so on.