|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
You will see phrases like: - "The Olympics of Smarts" - "FIRST is not your father's science fair; this is bigger, and better - and harder" - "The educational community in this country is full of programs to help the underachievers and the poor performers - but what about those that do well? Why should we leave them out in the cold, with no dedicated programs to help and nurture THEM?" - "Yes, we are elitist - we are SUPPOSED to be!" - "How else can we support the best and the brightest students that we have?" - "FIRST is the place where the nerds and geeks congregate - and prepare to change the world." - "FIRST teams are the academic cream of the crop." FIRST was not originally designed to be a wide-open, anyone can join, all-inclusive, no qualifications required, free-for-all. It was not supposed to be for just anybody, it was supposed to be hard get in. Members of FIRST teams were supposed to be selected from the "best and brightest." We can argue for a long time about how and why it happened, but FIRST has moved away from this philosophy. We can then argue for a lot longer about whether this is good or bad. But before everyone gets all huffy and indignant about how FIRST has changed - or, alternately, about why it took them so long - think about this. What is wrong with this approach? Why shouldn't FIRST be for the intelligent/academic elite? Why shouldn't it be intended for just the very best students? Practically every football, basketball, baseball, and other high school varsity sport team in the country has a well-established program to ensure that only the best players of all the applying candidates make it on to the team. You have to practice, you have to try out, you have to pass a series of qualifier workouts, you have to demonstrate an acceptable set of skills, and you have to survive a series of "cuts" to make it on the team. People understand this process, and accept it. Why should FIRST be any different? Isn't having something where you have to earn your way on to a team by being smart a good thing? Why is it OK to be "elitist" when we select people to be on a team to hit rocks with sticks, but not OK when we try to reach the special group of students that embody the intellectual capital that will define the future of this country? -dave |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ALERT: FIRST Nationals and High School Chess Nationals Overlap | rufu5 | General Forum | 34 | 17-08-2003 20:13 |
| Please help make the Nationals in Houston AWESOME ... You be the Tournament Director | Natchez | General Forum | 42 | 13-12-2002 18:50 |
| Meeting at Nationals | Gui Cavalcanti | Programming | 43 | 05-05-2002 12:45 |
| qualification for nationals | Perseus | General Forum | 2 | 25-03-2002 23:14 |
| Competing in the nationals | Ian W. | Championship Event | 4 | 21-02-2002 13:45 |