Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the old?

[FIRST JerseyKid]

The way my team maintains members and progress is by always having goals and projects to work on. If you find that everything is becoming old try something new. My team is learning so many new things. We have started to teach more members Inventor and 3ds Max. We have the programmers working on new sensors and writing a simulator. Our Spirit committee is working on revamping the image of our team.

There are so many things you can learn and try out that I don't understand how teams can become bored.

[sciencenerd]

Originally Posted by TimCraig

We've managed to develop a strong program in every area EXCEPT fund raising. It would be helpful if FIRST provided more support in this area.

I can definitely relate to this. Team 1318 is lucky to have a couple of great mentors who know how to fund-raise, but even with their help explaining sometimes the hoops you have to jump through to get money from a company can be bewildering to the uninitiated like me! I pick up the technical side in a jiffy, but the letter-writing and all that takes some more time.

It would be awfully nice of FIRST to provide materials to teams to help with sponsor gaining, such as form letters or even examples for us to base it off of. Our team wouldn't need it personally because of the awesome aforementioned mentors, but I'm sure there are plenty of teams struggling financially who would appreciate the help. I am sure this would increase team retention rates, because there are some teams who fall out simply because they don't know how to raise money and don't know who to ask for help. This may not be directly related to FIRST's mission, but it would enable people to continue in the programs that are, which is necessary for this program to be a success.

[Shu Song]

I've never thought about creating new teams as a source of a revenue for FIRST, but you're definitely correct. It is vital to FIRST's survival to create new teams and I think that's why the push for new teams have been the main focus and that keep old one's alive isn't. From a business standpoint, if two new teams get created while an old one is forced to retire, you've made a profit. But seeing as FIRST is a non-profit organization, there's no reason to continually push for new teams. I'd definitely like to see FIRST address this point here.

[Ashley Christine]

Thanks for all of your replies so far, its nice to see everyones points of view. And you all have really good back up for your points. So yeah, nice job you guys. And I still would like to hear more thoughts cuz its an interesting topic.

[MChapman]

I agree we really should work on keeping the older teams around with all the expierence. Yes it may be hard to keep in touch with the community and schools an fundraising you always have other teams to back you up in your support. I'd also rather see a team with expierence stay around for as many years as they can, rather then rookies who can only be here 1-2 years an let go of FIRST. More should be put into keeping the older teams..

[KORN_lover_2007]

I think it's great to start new teams too, and I never thought about teams quitting because of disappointments or boredom. Our team isn't incredibly old, but I could never see us quitting. Yes, we have financial problems too, but our community has been incredibly supportive and has helped out a lot, especially for being a small town, and we have always found we could scrape up the money to go to a regional and championship. We have always found it great to start new teams, because we are incredibly enthusiastic about FIRST and it tends to spread. I could never think of a team going to a competition, then not being excited about FIRST. After my first competition, I was absolutely addicted, lol. Our team is a role model for the over 20 new teams in Kansas this year and I think it just feels really good to be spreading FIRST, and I hope that old teams remember this feeling and don't die out, even if I find that really strange and hard to believe.

[Jack Jones]

On the one hand, FIRST is doing an excellent job at recruiting new teams. The NASA grants into the NASA events works to entice prospective schools into joining the program. Local volunteers, such as Gail Alpert team #469, work tirelessly digging up sponsors. Veteran teams help the rookies cope with the arduous task of building a team and putting a robot on the floor. ChiefDelphi is there to answer their newbe concerns.

On the other hand, FIRST isn’t doing as well in keeping the teams it worked so hard to start in the first place. The system in place that of seeding the field and expecting it to flourish thereafter may have reached the point of diminishing return. Last year at this time there were 888 teams (source). This year there are 873. Of the 873 registered teams this year 113 are rookies. We can project that over 128 more teams will no longer be with us in 2006. The rate of growth shrank from 38.1 percent in 2001 to just 8.6 percent in 2005. The projected growth for this year is –1.5 percent, not growth at all, but decline.

So what is the reason we have over 1800 team numbers but less than 1000 teams? No offense kids, but it’s not because of team politics. There’s a new bunch of kids every year, and any slackers are gone for sure within four. True there are cases where the teacher’s union or the administration won’t buy in – or a dedicated teacher is nowhere to be found - but those situations are rare. The reason boils down to economics. When a mentor is given a jumpstart from NASA and/or found money, then has it vanish, he/she either goes out and finds an amount that’s almost as much as his salary, or he says; “Oh well. I was great while it lasted.”

The fact of the matter is that it is not FIRST’s fault. It is a national problem. In the last 25 years the U. S. has slipped from third to fourteenth place in the proportion of young adults holding degrees in engineering and science. The number of baccalaureate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math fell by 18.6 percent in the last 15. Meanwhile, Congress thru NASA kicks in a few million dollars toward FIRST. Meanwhile, Congress kicks in $223million, as a start, to build the Bridge to Nowhere.

Apparently our government believes that Inspiration can/should be achieved by a Faith Based Initiative. That is, the parishioners of FIRST (corporations) will find it in their own best interest to take up the cause. As long as the congregation exists, then Inspiration will flourish. What they ignore is the fact a portfolio that starts out weak, then attempts to grow by keying to the Dow, is doomed to go basically nowhere – just like that bridge.