Student / Mentor, desgn/build Poll [Archive]

Alex Golec

17-11-2005, 21:36

Well, if I had had my pick, I would've chosen option #3: Students and Mentors work in perfect harmony to design and build the robot together.

However, the case being the two real options, I feel that both are similar in terms of pros and cons, but in the end I selected option 2: student designed, mentor built.

Before I begin with my reasoning, I will acknowledge that I am biased toward designing, and have followed in the footsteps of our team's engineer/designer, Art Ostrowski - designing has become my passion on the team. (I believe that this little bias was most likely the ultimate factor in my pick.)

First off, given the options, the students can gain much from both of the options: design and construction. In design, the challenge comes from deriving a solution, and conceptualizing a system for it. However, the actual construction of the system requires skill as well, in terms of correctly fabricating the parts and executing the assembly process correctly. Both are challenging to the students, and mentors are there to help in the processes.

To me, a robot designed by mentors may have great capabilities, but its assembly might be a bit rickety, and less reliable. A student built robot on the other hand, lacks some of the potential of a mentor designed robot: while it is somewhat true that students may not have been conformed to the "standard box of engineering" and can think outside of this box, the mentors usually have seen more machines, robots, and other implements and have a wider database of concepts to build off of already.

Additionally, FIRST is about a learning process, and in my experience with the team, I have been challenged more and learned more from designing a system than I have from constructing one. Imaginations are stretched in order to find some solutions, and for others the solution is marvelously simple - but both put to use multiple skills in conceptualizing and simplification of crazy contraptions into realistic, constructible systems.

In contrast of my general view, construction requires some finesse as well, not in creation, but in implementation. The first part drawing I ever received to make for a FIRST robot was a strange oblong oval with a square hole in the middle- it puzzled me to the point where I just sat and stared at it until our machinist came over and explained the part to me. I didn't quite get it then, so I was moved on to simpler parts. The most amazing design can never be implemented unless someone knows how to build it.

These two options can both be used effectively to create a wonderful experience for the students, but limiting them to one area is like taking a globe, slicing it in half, and saying, "You can only explore this half."

Its a fair question, and a difficult one at that. Here are my two cents (2.4 cents Canadian, 1.7 euro cents), paid to CD challenging question fund.

_Alex

Kate00

17-11-2005, 21:37

The question is, what do teams want to create: thinkers, designing creative solutions to problems, or workers, doing just what they are told.

If the students are given a design and told "build this," yes, they are learning how to use shop tools, yes, they will have to gain new skills, but they are not problem-solving skills, using innovative designs to solve the problems they are given. They are basic skills that may be replaced in the future by machines. Yes, they are needed, but has FIRST created this program to inspire people who just do their assigned jobs? I don't think so. Not anything against anyone who may hold these jobs, but it's not what our future needs. With all the new improvements in technology, such as the CNC mills, the people in these jobs will probably be phased out.

If the students design the robot, however, they are creating something out of their minds, solving the problem. These are the people who I want in the future of the world, the people who think creatively, solve problems.

I may be taking the term "design" too loosely. I am taking it as meaning solving the problems, telling the builders what to do when there is a problem, and modifying the design to solve those problems.

I’d rather see a team full of innovative, problem-solving students and machinist/technician mentors, no matter what.

EDIT: Or, what ^he^ said...

Smrtman5

17-11-2005, 22:14

IMHO:
I guess the simple answer is, FIRST isnt about teams building their own robots, its about cooperating with engineers.

But, i dont really agree with that idea. I think its a sad fact that machinists are a dying breed and that so many machine shops are closing down. (Its cheaper to have an entire part made in china then to buy the raw materials here).

I have always believed that hands on experience is the best teacher. If a student doesnt want to learn how to physically make a part, thats ok, but i think the option should be open. After all, how can one correctly design a part if they dont understand the processes used to make that part. I found it hard to learn dimentioning until i began making parts, then it all fell into place.

We had engineers who wanted to take over the entire design and construction process, and leave us with nothing do to. Our old mentor flipped out at them, and they didnt come back for the next season.

I would rather build it myself, fail and learn, then watch someone else build it, and succeed, because then, i wouldnt know how to replicate their results. So, in the same sense, i would rather design it myself, encouter something i was unfamiliar with and learn how to do it, than have someone who already graduated school do it for me.

I dont think FIRST should be about who makes more buttons while their engineers build their robots, but i guess it comes down to a simple fact, if the students are having fun doing whatever they do and maybe learning a thing or two, then its all worth it. (i could go on forever with this topic)

Billfred

17-11-2005, 22:16

If I have to pick one, I'll go with mentor-designed, student-built.

Why, you may ask? Well, it goes back to the days I was in AFJROTC at Irmo High School. (Yes, there was a time I had no hair.)

For those who've never done it, drill is a rather involved process. It involves listening skills, remembering a series of precise movements (especially when you get into fancier things like column movements). It takes most of the first year of the course to learn most of the drill movements. Once you master the elements of actually performing the drill movements, you're able to transition to commanding cadets and the bucket-o-fun that is.

In FIRST, the engineering mentors have had the education and time to master the skills involved in building these robots, something that most high school students have not had time to do. Just as I wouldn't expect most second-year cadets to be able to run an entire flight, I wouldn't expect most high school students to be able to design the entire robot.

Now, should this be some secretive process where the mentors walk in one day with a design that has magically appeared? Of course not. Students should definitely have input into the design. And the mentors should definitely explain why certain aspects of the robot are the way they are. (To use the example of 1293, I wouldn't have connected the dots about grippy wheels and four CIM motors having the potential to trip the main breaker.) By having the mentors (and remember, veteran students can be mentors in their own way) do the majority of the designing, you both demonstrate the process and have the ability to avert mild disasters, which tend to hit everyone at some point or another.

That's my two cents. Apologies if they don't make sense (as the past two days have proven that sleep deprivation isn't just for FIRST).

sanddrag

17-11-2005, 22:29

I'd say you need to be able to use your hands in order to apply your mind well. If you're designing a vehicle, but have never driven one, I don't think that is a good idea. If your designing an aluminum widget with features on 12 different faces, but have never machined anything, I don't think that is good.

I can't definitevely pick one of these options because I think neither is optimal, but I am leaning towards the side of engineer designed and student built, since I think you need to have some intuition about building things before you go designing them.

If I didn't know anything about the physical build process, I would probably design very outlandish things that would require a very large amount of resources to manufacture. Knowing how to build first allows one to put some limits on his/her design so that it can actually become a reality.

Jeff Rodriguez

17-11-2005, 22:35

I chose option number 1.

How many high school students have the training and knowledge to be able to design frames, manipulators, transmissions, etc? Students are just that, students.

mostly because in the engineering world, engineers usually dont build anything. We do the design work, and hand the CAD drawings or netlist or wiring diagram off to a layout person, machinist, technician... and they do the hands on building

when they get done they walk into our office and say "here's your unit" - then we test and debug to see if the design meets the requirements specification (engineer-speak for "what its suppose to do")

How many of those technicians and machinists know exactly what the unit is going to be used for, and know all the guidelines that the engineers had to follow to design the unit?
The biggest difference here is that the students already know what the robot will do, way before you give them blueprints.
It is my experience that every (and I mean every) student who knows about the game, at some point has their own idea of what the robot should look like. They come up with their own rough mental blueprint.

If you were to hand a set of blueprints to a group of students, what you hand them will be different from what they were thinking. They will see how a professional engineer solved the problem. A professional design will, most likely, be much more, well, professional than what they had in mind.
Even if the blueprint you hand them is the same idea that they had come up with, they will see how it is actually implemented, and maybe even improved over their idea.
I see this all leading to the I (FIRST) - Inspiration.
A student sees what a professional has done and is inspired to try and do it themselves.

Now, compare that situation to a robot that is designed by students and built by mentors. As I said before, most students don’t have the knowledge to be able to design a robot. The reality is that a large number of teams do not have students reading these message boards and learning everything their brains can handle about design.
So, the robot is designed by the students to the best of their abilities. Yes, the robot would work, but would it be as consistent or efficient as a professionally designed robot? The students would end up spending more time at competitions trying to fix things and make last minute upgrades that they overlooked while designing the robot.
There is no doubt that the students will learn a great deal from this experience. There is also no doubt that they will inspired.

The two options are simply different ways of achieving Inspiration.
When asked the question, I choose engineer/mentor designed and student built.

Gdeaver

17-11-2005, 22:43

I think any adult involved in First should take a minute and go look up the definition of Mentor and the origin of the word. Then if you see it as I do this poll is unanswerable.

Adam Richards

17-11-2005, 23:41

Tristan Lall

17-11-2005, 23:52

False dichotomy: does not compute
Abort, Retry, Fail?

Steve W

17-11-2005, 23:59

Thinking back now, the only problem I'm seeing now is the lack of parameters by which we can define both "design" and "build" and how to differenciate between them. Is design the first week of build or every design question that comes up while building? Is building taking blueprints and building to the exact specifications, or is it taking the designs and using a bit of creativity with them?

Steve W, before anyone else adds a vote, could you please tell us the limits of each of the words that you were using, as it seems everyone has their own comprehension of what each one means.

Thanks!

If we follow what Ken said, I believe that is what design and build are. Example would be : I design the robot, give you the plans. You build as per my plans and give me back the robot. I test and redesign and give you back the robot where you rebuild as per plans and hand back to me. I really don't care what your problems are when it comes to building as per spec and you don't care what or why I designed my way.

That being said, I know that I have caused a bit of a stir. That's OK. You see I know that neither of 1 or 2 is the answer in real life. my thought process is :.................. Sorry. I think that I will remain still for a while longer before touching my own topic.

sciguy125

18-11-2005, 00:11

I see the merits of both sides:

student designed - mentor built
This is really the best way to learn. I can show you how to program, but until you actually do it on your own, you'll never really know how. I can show you how a gear box works, but actually designing one gives you a completely different level of understanding.

With that said, I cite my experience with calculus. Until I took calculus based physics, I never truely understood the power of calculus. Sitting in math class, I understood what I was being told. I could see how it was useful. I understood how to use it in the real world. Until I actually used it in the real world (I consider physics to be as close to the real world as most classes get), I never really appreciated it. I was sitting in class one day and had this epiphany when I suddenly realized that the math magically predicts things in reality. I can't really explain the feeling, but trust me, it was something special.

Driving this back home, designing something is different than just building it. If you but together a gear box, you'll see bearings in a lot of places. Depending on your level, you probably also understand their need. When you design it however, you'll punch your hole and put a shaft. Again, depending on your level, you'll probably realize that having a spinning shaft resting in a bare hole is bad. You'll put the bearing and have just solved a problem that will probably help you solve others.

mentor designed - student built
This gives students hands on experience with building things. In one of the other posts on this mentor/student topic, someone brought up the point that this opportunity won't come around in college. College will teach you how to be a good engineer, not how to be a good machinist. One of my professors, it being an electronics lab, off-handedly mentioned that most engineers have bad lab skills. He was refering to the fact that, apparently, a lot of engineers don't know how to efficiently/effectively use the tools they have. One of our team's moderators made a similar comment. If they don't learn these skills in FIRST, where will they? College will teach them some, but apparently, not all. I have a feeling that it's possible to get through college without ever having picked up a wrench. My lab has soldering irons, but we never use them, so I have a feeling that they're just for decoration. FIRST is the best opportunity to teach these kinds of skills.

So, what's so important about these distinctions? When you tell someone to do something new, it'll be a learning process. If they have to design, they'll learn to design. If they have to build, they'll learn to build. So the question is, what do you want to teach them. Personally, I feel that they should learn both. You'll get this by having students design and build the robot themselves. I'm not saying that we should eliminate mentors, just let the students do the work and know that they have help when needed.

Why do they need both? The same reason that I had to take 24 units worth of classes that weren't engineering, math, science, or writing: to be well rounded. An engineer that doesn't know how to assemble something is as worthless as a knife that come in packaging that takes a knife to open. Designing the perfect product is one thing. Designing something that can be manufactured and assembled is another. Simmilarly, a machinist or other assembly type person is just as worthless if they don't know engineering. "I'm out of this bolt, but I need this now, so I'll put this one in, not knowing what will happen."

But, seeing as my ideal choice isn't available, I'll go with student designed - mentor built. This will be more helpful when it counts the most. Getting some experience and knowing the process is a great help in college. For some reason, my classmates find it strange that I know so much while they struggle. The difference is that they have chosen a major because they want to learn it but I've chosen mine because it's what I do. I didn't walk out in the middle of a midterm to change my major because I hate the material (yes, someone did this). I started college knowing what I wanted to go into Electrical Engineering. Actually, not only did I want to do it, I already was.

As Ken has been preaching in several threads, engineering is about designing, not building. FIRST gives high school students a taste of engineering. Whether it shows them that they like it or hate it, it's an opportunity to try it and see how they feel about it. If they find that they don't like design work, then they don't have to become an engineer. If they do like it, they know exactly where they are headed.

gburlison

18-11-2005, 00:31

I voted, mentor designed/student built. I believe it is the best of two bad choices. As many have said, it is hard to design something that you have never built. As an electrical engineer, I have little practical experience in mechanical design. I remember the first thing that I designed in inventer. I spent a lot of time chamfering edges, filleting angles, in general making it look good. It was impossible to machine with the tools we had available.
By learning how things are made, a designer is better able to create workable designs in the future. I think that the best system would be for new team members (students and adults) to learn how to build the robot, and veteran team members (students and adults) can design the robot. This provides a progression from the novice to the expert and helps students learn how to be mentors, since the veteran students can be mentors to the new members as they learn how to build the robot.

AmyPrib

18-11-2005, 00:55

I vote neither. Because this topic has been discussed very thoroughly very recently and I don't like repeating myself.

See the 8pg Baker thread - which ironically was brought back to light the last couple days.

JohnBoucher

18-11-2005, 06:01

Compromise. One of the most important "skills" we learn in FIRST is to compromise. One of the keys to a successful team is to teach BOTH students and mentors to compromise.

My favorite part of my "what FIRST is all about" rant/speech is talking about the six weeks. Watch the reaction that people have when you tell them what your team has accomplished and will accomplish in six weeks. (Correction for those that are not in New England... Six weeks minus a minimum of 4 snow days) In the outside world, six weeks is nothing. We cannot do what we do without compromise.

Students need to learn what to ask of their mentors and the mentors need to learn that they are not the ones standing on that field with that robot.

Compromise

Not2B

18-11-2005, 08:07

Bah... no answer is good. I voted for engineer designed, student built.
Why?
1) Forces the engineers to remember they need to design for a set of builders who DON'T have the skills, knowledge, or ablities to design something amazing. Sometimes we design stuff that is just too complex.

2) Forces the students, many who have never picked up a drill, to see what all goes into building a complex device. The hope is that they learn what kind of amazing skill is needed to build something, so when they are designing something in the future, they don't make it too complex.

Of course I can also see it from the other side of the coin - this is just what I thought.

Cheers

KenWittlief

18-11-2005, 13:26

I would draw the line between design and build by looking at the engineering design cycle:

1. there is a problem to be solved. 1st you must clearly define the problem (understand it), understand WHY this system you are designing is needed, and specify WHAT your system will need to do in order to be an effective solution. This is design. (example: last year we decide our bot needed to pick tetras up off the floor and place them on the goals - this is WHAT our robot will do)

2. you brainstorm ways to create a system, and you decide HOW your system will do the WHAT. (example: we will create a robot with two wheel drive, with an arm that raises up and down, and with a claw. This is HOW our bot will pick up tetras and place them on the goal) this is still design.

3. you break up the system into mechanical, electrical, SW, sensors, user interface, and go through the WHY, WHAT and HOW for each of these subsystems. This is still design

4. you create drawings and SW algorithms, wireing diagrams, sensor schematics... of what needs to be built. This is still design

5. you have your subsystems fabricated and assembled: this is finally the build stage.

6. you test the system to see how it works, and if necessary go back to any previous point in the design cycle to make adjustments or modifications.

OK, looking at it from this perspective: how many students want to 'only' do design work, and how many only want to 'build' the robot?

BTW, there are 6 steps here, and for a well disciplined team, each step should take about a week!

lukevanoort

18-11-2005, 17:06

Well, from a purely competitive point of view, student built makes more sense. Since there are more students (I hope), the chances of not having one that worked on apart and can fix it are much lower. So, for durability, the students building seems to be a better alternative. But, we must remember that creativity peaks at ~13, so student designs would be, on average, better if they had the same knowledge/experience. So, say, if the student browses CD, and reads tech books and specializes in an area specific to FIRST, then designs in that area they would probably be more creative.

Kyle A

18-11-2005, 19:43

I did not vote.I would have voted though is there was a student design/ student built option. But if I had to vote i would probably go for ....... Well I guess i have to think it over a bit.

CraigHickman

18-11-2005, 20:43

I believe another option should be considered. Our team, for expample, has a rule that the mentors never touch the robot. Thus, our robot is designed and built by students (and we learn more).

gburlison

18-11-2005, 21:51

I believe another option should be considered. Our team, for expample, has a rule that the mentors never touch the robot. Thus, our robot is designed and built by students (and we learn more).I think some people are overlooking the intent of this poll. The question was not, "What is the best way for the team to build a robot?" This poll is supposed to be, "Pick what you think is the best of two almost equally bad choices and if you want to, tell us why."
Its kind of like asking:
"What is better, chocolate or peanut butter?
and all of the answers are: "Peanut butter and chocolate mixed together is the best".
While this is a still a good answer, it doesn't answer the question.

Alan Anderson

18-11-2005, 23:58

I think some people are overlooking the intent of this poll. The question was not, "What is the best way for the team to build a robot?" This poll is supposed to be, "Pick what you think is the best of two almost equally bad choices and if you want to, tell us why."
Its kind of like asking:
"What is better, chocolate or peanut butter?
and all of the answers are: "Peanut butter and chocolate mixed together is the best".
While this is a still a good answer, it doesn't answer the question.
I think that the question as asked is unreasonable. I will not choose between two bad options when a better one is available. FIRST is about partnerships, and neither of the available responses recognizes that.

KenWittlief

19-11-2005, 00:10

I think some people are overlooking the intent of this poll. ...
This poll is supposed to be, "Pick what you think is the best of two almost equally bad choices ...

seeing that you are not the person who posted the poll, dont you feel a little odd telling us what his intent was

or what the poll is suppose to be?

gburlison

19-11-2005, 00:48

seeing that you are not the person who posted the poll, dont you feel a little odd telling us what his intent was

or what the poll is suppose to be?
Since I dont know Steve W personally, I assumed that the statement:
I am posing 1 question with only 2 answers allowed.
Meant: I am posing 1 question with only 2 answers allowed.

Since most of the responses were a 3rd answer, I assumed that those people were missing the intent of the question. I have since seen the error of my ways and have decided to interpret the statement as:

Pay no attention to what I asked, just tell me what you think.

seanwitte

19-11-2005, 10:06

Adam Richards

19-11-2005, 10:29

Of the two bad options, how can anyone pick Mentor Designed/Student Built? Do we want students leaving the program to feel like engineers or machinists? In the current global economy, which do you think is more valuable: the person designing the product or the person building it? I would rather see a team spend 5 weeks on design, have THEIR parts made for them, and spend a day assembling than spend 1 week on design and the rest at the mill. Fabrication is fun and rewarding and requires skill, but it should not be the primary focus.

That said, FIRST is not life. As an adult volunteer its fun to get in there an get my hands dirty since its not part of my regular job. I'm sure most other adults feel the same way. The third obvious, but unavailable, answer is full collaboration throughout the lifecycle.
Alright then, here's a hypothetical situation for the two bad answers:

Rookateam just started this year. They have no clue what they're supposed to build. Their engineerig sponsor, Bigasponsor, has sponsored another team in the past, and knows what the average robot for FIRST looks like.

Who probably should design a basic concept, Rookateam's student members who have no idea nothing about engineering and will have Bigasponsor build off their plans, or Bigasponsor's engineers who know what they're doing and will have Rookateam build off their plans?

Learning through mistake takes much more time than learning through example, and the mistakes have probably already been made by others who are willing to share their lessons.

KenWittlief

19-11-2005, 12:47

Alright then, here's a hypothetical situation for the two bad answers:

Rookateam just started this year. They have no clue what they're supposed to build. Their engineerig sponsor, Bigasponsor, has sponsored another team in the past, and knows what the average robot for FIRST looks like.

Who probably should design a basic concept, Rookateam's student members who have no idea nothing about engineering and will have Bigasponsor build off their plans, or Bigasponsor's engineers who know what they're doing and will have Rookateam build off their plans?

The answer depends on whether you think FIRST is:

A. a contest to see which sponsor/HS team can build the best box stacking, ball handling, tetra flinging... robot in the world or

2. A program designed to show students what its like to be an engineer, by doing actual engineering for several weeks.

?

If the goal is to build the best robot in the world, then there should be no students on the team AT ALL! let them come to the competition and watch professional battlebots games, and then go home inspired.

The mentors / sponsors goal determines how their team is organized and run.

Steve W

19-11-2005, 16:32

I guess that I should stop watching and put in my thoughts. The reason for this poll is NOT to say which is best. I started this thread as a way to have people think about both sides of an already running thread. You see, there is no true or right answer except the one that applies to your team at this time. Next year it may different. As members of FIRST we must always be looking forward to new ideas and ways of doing things. So many people have posted that they would not chose between the worse of 2 evils. This however is life. We sometimes do have to chose the lesser of 2 evils.

All I ask is that we all look at all sides of the discussions. Push our limits. Try to see things from the other side and most of all, do not condemn others for how or why they do things. This is FIRST, let's grow!

Alan Anderson

19-11-2005, 18:32

So many people have posted that they would not chose between the worse of 2 evils. This however is life. We sometimes do have to chose the lesser of 2 evils.
No, this poll is not life. This poll is an artificial and unreasonable limitation of our options. Life permits us other choices. My choice is to reject the question as both misguided and unproductive.

Veselin Kolev

19-11-2005, 21:33

I actually think this is a good poll question. The question is not "which of these two would you want to do", the question is "which of these two is better". Anyway, on the answer the question.

I think student designed / mentor built is the way to go. I am the "engineer"/mentor/machinist of my team. The kids from the high school design their own robot, and all I can do is help make sure it gets built. If it needs CNC work, I go get it CNC'd. If it needs to be watercut, I go get it watercut. The reason I build a lot of the robot is because none of the students know how to machine, and the school they go to does not have any kind of shop (and also does not like the liability involved with them working at my shop). I stick around during the design period and give tips on how to make the same gearbox or arm with less fabrication time. This not only helps the kids learn about simplicity in design, it also makes my job easier.

Now, once all the machinists have fabricated all the parts, we hand them to the students and let them assemble. Of course, you run into slight problems, plates need to be filed, screws need to be shortened, holes for rivets need to be drilled, stuff that students can do. Through the experience of assembly, the students learn how to design and build robots more efficiently. A student that is designing a drivetrain for the first time doesnt need to know how to weld or use a mill. When that student is a junior or a senior and is themself teaching younger students on design, then they can be taught fabrication if they want. However, I think it is very important that students first learn about design. Of course, different teams work differently, so this is just my opinion based on how my team works. I can understand if a person from another team would answer the exact opposite.

savage

22-11-2005, 12:28

all that i have to say is the last year 1368s students built there bot completely by them selves no one over the age of 18 putting a finger on their robot

congrats to 1368 and good luck this year

Ben white former member of 1368 now in Isreal

Starke

22-11-2005, 15:35

i will not vote because i have not seen any of the two answers myself. i recall #340 mentors sitting int he back of the room, doing nothing but watching the kids come up with ideas and figure them out. all the mentors did was guide us where we needed assistance. like one of the mentors taught me how to thread a hole correctly. beforehand, i always wondered way all of my threads were wrong. :yikes:

meaubry

23-11-2005, 11:18

Given only the 2 choices - either could be correct depending on the what the student is attempting to get out of the program. Some will learn more by design and don't want to build (nothing wrong with that), while others don't care much for design but really get into building (nothing wrong with that either)
My choice would have been - Engineer/Mentor/Student Designed and Engineer/Mentor/Student Built? In my humble opinion that is the best of all worlds and there shouldn't be a need to pick 1 or the other of the 2 choices that cannot optimize the overall experience of participating in both the Design and Build.

KenWittlief

23-11-2005, 12:31

It just occurred to me, another way to look at this:

1. students do not get to do any designing. This would be equal to FIRST providing specific plans for a robot, and every team must build the same exact robot. No variations allowed (no designing). There would be lots of machining and wiring and assembling and painting involved, but the end result would be akin to the IROC racing, or design-class sailing events: everyone has the same machine, and it all comes down to how well you assemble and drive it.

2. Students do not do any "building". This would be equal to FIRST providing a versatile kits of parts that contains everything you need, no other parts or fabrication allowed. The team could design the parts into any type of robot they like. The result would be like Lego League on a bigger scale.

This analogy is not perfect, but I can see that some people would prefer one over the other.

John Gutmann

23-11-2005, 14:13

If engineers design it it is an engineer's robot not a student's robot because the engineers know how every should and will work usually and they usually find the easy way to do something. If the students build it they are just following directions.

You can compare it to FLL. do the kids in FLL build a lego robot of those pictoral direct or doi they actually design and build it? If they built them from directions FLL would just be one big lego set that competes with a predetermined outcome.

Elgin Clock

23-11-2005, 14:26

With our current setup and team inner workings, I don't think I can even choose one of those.

For us, we have the kids think up different ideas, and then both students and engineers work together to refine those into designs, and basically the engineers are there to help refine and make it work.
Entering our 8th year as a team in 2006, we have semi-standards for our robot that we know works, and we try and convey those as soon as possible to the students before build season starts in case we use those standards.
(ie: chassis and drive designs, and preffered 237 material selections)

Then the students do as much fabrication as their skill sets allow them too, and if something is too advanced, they either help up to a certain point and then watch and thus hopefully learn what the can't do, or help as much as they can to finish it for the most part.

So, basically the students as a (whole group) lay out a a rough draft, then the mechanical team (students and mentors) design the inner workings of that basic idea, and then the mechanical students work with our engineers to refine it like a huge engineering process... (Go figure!! lol)

I think that has worked very well for us in the mechanical aspect of the robot at least.

I can't really speak for electrical because A) I'm not that involved with electrical, and B) It's a whole different ballgame and not really based on designs and making it work, but brute force and dealing with the available resources and then making it work. lol

Starman

03-12-2005, 22:59

I don't know how it SHOULD be, but on our team the students do as much of the design and building as they can. The mentors show them how to solve the problems, like helping to figure the size of an air cylinder needed at to move a load with a given air pressure, but we want to kids to do as much as they can. We even expect them to handle the role of coach during competition, something unheard of in FIRST land.

While it is true that engineers now design and give the plans to technicians to build, it can be a very humbling experience for an engineer to try to build something. When that happens, the engineer often develops respect for the tradesman and learns an awful lot that makes him a better designer.

When the students do the design and building, they are developing valuable life skills that will give them confidence as adults to tackle jobs around the house or in the workplace. Our robot last year was built almost entirely by a team or girls who had never before used power tools such as drill presses, belt sanders, cut-off saws, etc. Without the robot project to give them this experience, they probably would have never learned how to use these tools. And guess what, one of these girls has already chosen to enter engineering as a career and is in college. Another, a senior, hopes to go to an engineering school next fall. I wonder if that would have happened if the mentors had designed and built the robot for them?? What do you think!

Our students have become aggressive about wanting to do the work to the point that they really get upset if a mentor steps up to do a job for them. I like that and wish all students could have that feeling of ownership and pride. Sadly, I have seen teams where the students were only allowed to touch the robot controls during competition. The rest of the time adults worked on the robot. One team I know even posts pictures in their pit of all the adult engineers on their team, but no pictures of students. How sad.

Nuttyman54

22-12-2005, 00:47

I think any adult involved in First should take a minute and go look up the definition of Mentor and the origin of the word. Then if you see it as I do this poll is unanswerable.

I concur wholeheartedly. On our team, the students join for different reasons: some want to do the building, some want to do the designing. The mentors are there to make sure everyone's safe, and to help out when called upon. But other teams have other priorities. It all boils down to what FIRST is for. In my opinion, it's to inspire the students. If that means mentor designed/student built, then that is the correct way. If it means student designed/mentor built, then that is the correct way. To me, the only wrong way is if the mentors do both, because then it becomes their project, and not the students', which is NOT the purpose of FIRST.

Alex Burman

22-12-2005, 06:49

I say neither and both.

It should be both designed and built by the students. The engineers are there to provide support, ideas, tips, and help if needed. But not to do everything in one area

Stu Bloom

22-12-2005, 09:33

I was a bit disturbed to see this thread resurrected after lying dormant for almost three weeks. I basically agree with Alan in that I think this question is both misguided and unproductive. However I will concede that my uneasiness could be a positive sign that my ideas are being challenged as I am being forced to consider options I don't like ...

As I read the responses here one thing strikes me. Most of the posts refer to "teaching" the students in one way or another. I challenge all to remember:

For INSPIRATION and RECOGNITION of Science and Technology

I don't see anything there about teaching or education. The original goal/purpose of FIRST was to inspire students to pursue careers in science and technology by having them work with engineers and immersing them in technology. In my opinion that hasn't changed, nor should it. I would agree with most here that maximum inspiration will come from maximum hands-on involvement in every aspect of this robotics project that we all love. I still don't think this poll is "answerable" because I could never choose between the two options offered. But every team will find their own way down this path and figure out how they can best inspire their students.

Jon Jack

22-12-2005, 11:26

On our team we try to treat everyone equal so for us we design Student/Engineer/Mentor and build Student/Engineer/Mentor...

Ebolagirl

22-12-2005, 11:37

Where's the choice for student designed/student built with a little bit of mentor guidance? After all, according to the Oxford dictionary the definition of mentor is one who is a “experienced and trusted advisor”. And the definition of advise is to “counsel, guide, steer; caution, admonish, warn; suggest”. In neither of those definitions does it indicate that a mentor is someone who “does”. They are merely a source of guidance, and advisor. And that is exactly what our mentor is. He is an advisor and only that. He never lays a finger on our robot.

F:or- “in the interest or benefit of”
I:nspiration- “creative force or influence stimulating creativity”
And
R:ecognition- “realize or discover the nature of”
Of
S:cience- “branch of knowledge involving systemized observation and experimentation”
And
T:echnology-“study or use of the mechanical arts and applied sciences”

Nowhere in the FIRST acronym does it indicate how inspiration and recognition should occur. So it is difficult to justify either student or engineer designed/built. But, as we all know, the best way to learn is through FIRST hand experience, and the best way for a student to acquire that experience is through both the conceptual design process and through the actual hands on building (Paulo Freire would admire FIRST in this regard because it removes all “banking” in the unavoidable educational experience).

Collin Fultz

22-12-2005, 12:42

Where's the choice for student designed/student built with a little bit of mentor guidance?

Answer:

I think some people are overlooking the intent of this poll. The question was not, "What is the best way for the team to build a robot?" This poll is supposed to be, "Pick what you think is the best of two almost equally bad choices and if you want to, tell us why."

The question isn't "How does your team work?" or even "How do you wish your team worked?" or "How does the ideal team work?"

It is "Pick: A or B"

Alex Burman

22-12-2005, 17:55

The question isn't "How does your team work?" or even "How do you wish your team worked?" or "How does the ideal team work?"

It is "Pick: A or B"

I believe I speak for many people when i say this but we believe there should be an option C, a balance, where the engineers and mentors guide the students.

Take a rookie team for example with no experience what so ever. You have the best engineers in the field:

Option A: The engineers make the best design possible, but the students struggle through building it and may have parts not put on right or not at all because they didn't know what they were. They get to the competition and come in last.

Option B: The students make a OK design with a few of flaws and the engineers follow it to the T in constructing it. At the competition they win a few matches but don't get anywhere. But the students are still proud to see their design succeed somewhat.

my Option C: The students and engineers collaborate, with the students creativity and the engineers experience, create a very good design that satisfies everyones needs. The engineers help the students through the building process explaining how things work, what has proven good, what has proven bad. At the competition the robot proves great and the team ends up first seed.

yes I know the examples are extremes but the show the point.

phrontist

22-12-2005, 18:01

These results dishearten me greatly.

Nuttyman54

22-12-2005, 18:11

These results dishearten me greatly.

Care to explain some more? It seems to me that most everyone who's replied has a slightly different variation on a general theme: It's best when there's the right mix of both mentors and students working on both aspects.

EricH

22-12-2005, 18:14

I believe I speak for many people when i say this but we believe there should be an option C, a balance, where the engineers and mentors guide the students.
Do I have to quote Collin or anyone else who saw through this one? Steve did not put in a third option on purpose. The idea was to get us to choose the lesser of two evils, not come up with an alternate. That lesser depends on the team and the year. Most people on the thread went for a third option that was not in the poll. Now, that is not answering the question. If this were on a multiple-choice test in a class, and the only responses were the two in the poll, and if the correct answer, which you knew was correct, was not there, you couldn't insert it, and only those two answers on the test were "right" (to get credit), you would practically have to choose one, right? If you didn't, you would get the question wrong, right? But, both are wrong, and you have to choose one. Choose the lesser of two evils, whichever it is, and you get the question "right".

Let's not introduce something that isn't there. I don't care if you don't do either of these or if you do one or the other, these are the only two options. Pick one.

Should there be an option C? No. It's the way it is for a reason. The question was designed to be as close to unanswerable as possible, and to get people to see two sides of an ongoing discussion (if I understand Steve right, that is).

We are assuming, for these purposes, that only two options exist, and that both are bad. There are situations like that in real life, though they are rare.

EricH

22-12-2005, 19:51

After thinking a while, I chose student designed/mentor built. The reasons: 1) Students have ideas that mentors might not. (The same is true the other way, but students might come up with something that is totally crazy and the mentors might just dismiss.) 2) Mentors are more likely to know how to build x part or know where to get it built. 3) Assuming that mentors are allowed to give feedback/make suggestions, a mentor may spot something that a student missed, then show said student what he missed and what some possible solutions are. If this is not allowed, mentor may just fix it if it's minor, then tell the student later.

My $0.02 worth (worth everything you paid for it:p ).

Nuttyman54

22-12-2005, 20:50

I chose student designed/mentor build also. My reasoning is similar to EricH's, but is based my team's goals and capabilities. We have very little in the way of machining capabilities, and so most of our assembly is with nuts and bolts, which (in my opinion) is not very different if a student does it or a mentor does it. One of our main goals, however, is to encourage creative solutions to engineering problems. In my experience, most of these solutions come from the brainstorming and designing end, not from the manufacturing end. I have seen the build team come up with innovative solutions to problems not addressed by the designers, though.

Andrew Blair

22-12-2005, 20:54

But, both are correct, and you have to choose one. Choose one, and you get the question right.

Nope. Neither one is right. Trick question, you lose. J/K. Fact is, nobody ever has a completely correctly operated team. Some come close, but theres always somebody who doesn't like it. Think of it as a number line. Both answers are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, with the ideal choice in the center. But, like some evil parabolic slope, you can't ever get to the middle. Oh well, stuff happens, the universe will average out eventually...Probably.....:rolleyes:

Alan Anderson

22-12-2005, 21:03

If this were on a test in a class, and the only responses were the two in the poll, you would have to choose one, right? If you didn't, you would get the question wrong, right? But, both are correct, and you have to choose one. Choose one, and you get the question right.
The thing is, this is not a question on a test in class. I believe that if you do choose one of the given options, you get it wrong, big time.

The intent of this poll was to force a choice between the lesser of two evils. I reject that choice as unrealistic and unnecessary. Making such a choice cannot further the goals of this community.

phrontist

22-12-2005, 21:24

Care to explain some more? It seems to me that most everyone who's replied has a slightly different variation on a general theme: It's best when there's the right mix of both mentors and students working on both aspects.

I think the question is a valid one. Which is the lesser of two evils? What bothers me is that the majority seem to think student design responsibility is more important than student build responsibility.

Engineers design things. A variety of highly skilled machinists and other technicians implement them (well, occasionally an engineer makes things, but it's the exception to the rule). They are both very important, but FIRST aims to turn out more engineers.

EricH

22-12-2005, 22:05

The intent of this poll was to force a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Was it? Steve's post on page 3 of this thread gives another explanation, and he should know the intent better than anyone.

phrontist

22-12-2005, 22:15

Was it?

Yes. I simply rephrased for dramatic effect.

EricH

22-12-2005, 22:21

Yes. I simply rephrased for dramatic effect.
See my previous post. That is not the whole purpose.

Steve W

22-12-2005, 22:58

Let's try again. Page 3 quote :
"All I ask is that we all look at all sides of the discussions. Push our limits. Try to see things from the other side and most of all, do not condemn others for how or why they do things. This is FIRST, let's grow!"

First of all I do not believe either are right in 99.9% of the time. I do believe that I started this thread with a purpose. There are so many on these forums that have become closed in their thoughts and believe that they are the only right ones. I deliberately introduced a question that would cause a lot of people to think. Is it better to have professionals design and students implement or vice versa? Which would inspire more? What do engineers bring to the table? What do students bring to the table? Are all students equal? Are all engineers equal?

Work through the thought process, look at things from different angles. Keep our minds open. Inspiration comes in many forms, ways and people. Let's not close out minds but approach this new season with our eyes wide open. Let us see the value that engineers have. Let us see the fresh ideas of students. Let's do tasks that we haven't tried before. Let's grow ourselves and FIRST to new heights in 2006.