View Full Version : Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Hello All,
I am writing not only to congratulate everyone at the Great Lakes Regional over last weekend, but also to say how unhappy I was to see how much work on so many robots was actually done by engineers. I know that FIRST is For The Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, but you can Inspire students without showing them how to do everything perfectly. The thing that I saw at GLR was The big 3 automakers proving themselves. I feel that they already have a competition for their engineers to prove themselves its called the autoshow. Our team feels that to truly Inspire the students they should prove themselves which I think that we do every year. The teams robot was 95% Designed, Engineered , and Built by the students. Our engineer and mentors are there simply to provide guidance where it is needed, to make sure that no one loses too much blood while working on the robot. I pat those on the back who did well at the competition and hope that others will let me know your feelings on the matter.
Thank-You,
David Lamp
Team 1254
3rd Year
College Mentor
sanddrag
15-03-2006, 23:22
It is all a matter of philosophy. There are no absolute right or wrong answers. Every team will do as they please and no one will (or I would hope that no one will) stop them. Do your best to perfect your own team to your liking. Let other teams worry about their own ideologies while you worry about yours.
Thank You sanddrag,
I absolutely agree the way that your team approaches the competition is your own perogative and I am in no way trying to change it I am just expressing my feelings.
Jay Trzaskos
15-03-2006, 23:26
These discussions always become the most heated. I'm positive that if you searched the forums you would find multiple threads discussing, almost to the point of argument, the same situation. Any mods may want to keep and eye on this just in case.
JT
229
Some helpful links:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40514&highlight=student+mentor+built
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36962&highlight=student+mentor+built
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39337&highlight=student+mentor+built
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39358&highlight=student+mentor+built
MrBamboo
15-03-2006, 23:29
My team, team #1888 is a rookie team and over 95% of the work (design, build, everything) are done by students. Our robot may not be the best but we are all proud of what we have created, everyone put in a lot of effort and gave their best.
Team 862 is almost entirely student designed and built and 100% student programmed, we fit into the student built philosophy. We have accepted that there teams out there where the mentors do more of the work and that they won't change and they shouldn't have to, each teams has a plan on how to accomplish the mission of FIRST. Our Hacksaw & Drill method helps to increase student involvement because anyone can use them with very little learning time (unlike most of the larger machining tools).
Dan Richardson
15-03-2006, 23:39
I like to think FIRST is about inspiration but also about showing students how things are really done. Sometimes letting them have free reign with everything doesn't accomplish this task. I don't nesc. take the stand that it should be 100% Professionally Engineered, but I definitely respect teams who do because they have a great bot each year and students can learn as much from that as they can from doing something on their own.
One common misconception however is that student bots can't compete with professional bots. This is simply not the case, FIRST always makes the goal accomplish able by even the least fortunate of teams. If you can perform your primary function well and have a solid drive train you will always be competitive. My team 1902 was completely designed and built by students ( that includes 3 college mentors ) and we were finalist at the super competitive UCF regional.
FIRST is very unique, but not 100% fair, It was never intended to be. Its intended to inspire, and whatever your team sets up obviously works to inspire your students. We built our robot in my garage and our students were just as inspired as 233 who builds it in the NASA Prototype labs. You cant even compare the two robots mechanically but functionally we could remain competitive. But at the same time I can show my students 233's robot and say look at this machine and how they built it, and they can learn from it.
Unfortunately this competition will never have a completely level playing field, it wouldn't be a competition if it did. However if inspiring students and the community is still the goal, then which ever way your team accomplishes it great for them. If teams lose site of this goal, then maybe there is where the problems begin.
Who cares if it's designed by engineers, as long as the kids learn something from it? I don't!
On my team, it's about 50-50 this year, with students designing the shooter and loader to engineer specs, while the frame and pickup were mostly engineer, and the hopper was split evenly. That's just our mix, and it will be different next year in all likelihood.
kevin.li.rit
15-03-2006, 23:59
On our team the work done by students is about 95%. I really think most of the work should be done by the high school students since this is a competition for them.
TimCraig
16-03-2006, 00:45
Yada yada. Basically, this has been run into the ground on here. Even if everyone adhered to your approach of mentors playing rah-rah and the students doing "most" of the work, you still have the case of some schools having very heavily invested in vocational programs and have state of the art machine tools available with students capable of running them. Just listen to some in today's posts talking about CNC mills and laser cutters. My team has no such tools, in fact this high school has gutted their vocational programs and currently offers none, but they do have a capable engineer, if I do say so, helping them. So where do you draw the line?
Yada yada. Basically, this has been run into the ground on here. Even if everyone adhered to your approach of mentors playing rah-rah and the students doing "most" of the work, you still have the case of some schools having very heavily invested in vocational programs and have state of the art machine tools available with students capable of running them. Just listen to some in today's posts talking about CNC mills and laser cutters. My team has no such tools, in fact this high school has gutted their vocational programs and currently offers none, but they do have a capable engineer, if I do say so, helping them. So where do you draw the line?
I'd say you draw the line at the point that there is no student that could do what the engineer could doing. Maybe teach the student how to do <blah>, but then the engineer does <blah> for time or quality reasons. If the engineer simply says "and then I'm going to do this!" and the student really has no idea what he is going to do or why, then you haven't inspired anything. All you've got is a bunch of engineers building a robot with a couple HS students watching. I'm fine with engineers building stuff when time is tight or quality needs are paramount (and a learning student might screw it up a few times), but it they're doing stuff that students absolutely cannot do, it seems to defeat the purpose of learning things while building your robot. When I mentor programming, I try to make sure that the students do all the work unless we're on a close deadline to get a feature working. It's a high school competition, not a "hey engineers! find a bunch of high schoolers to enter for you so you and your coworkers can build a robot" competition.
At the very least, the students should be PRESENT when the robot is being worked on so they might pick something up. I've seen way too many teams where the students are off in the stands while their team of professional engineers fix/upgrade their robot in the pits.
JVGazeley
16-03-2006, 09:12
Every team takes a different line on this and ours is that the mentors want to have the students do as much of the robot as they can. Over the course of January 2006, I learnt how to use certain types of saw and how to weld, plus gained a lot of experience with files, despite the fact my role is actually as the scrutineer on the team.
The Mentors will guide us but they will want us to come up with the ideas, feed in their own on occassion for us to consider, and have us do as much of the build as we can, with them teaching us how to do things if we've never done them before. Students also do all the programming too.
I would hope other teams use a similar philosophy rather than have the mentors do all the work. I can personally say about parts of the robot; "I suggested that" or "I welded that" or "I cut that" as can a large part of the rest of our team.
As for tools, we use a mentors garage. You can see that on the FIRSTwiki as on the page for Eric there is a picture of the robot outside the garage, the door still open. We are not the most high-tech team by a long way, part of this years robot will prove that, but we Brits here at Systemetric do put in a good showing most years at NYC.
Greg Perkins
16-03-2006, 09:28
Was it just me or did you all think FIRST tried to narrow the playing field with the 5' height rule? I personally think that they did; this takes away any major leverage that teams (who have ambiguous resources) have with creating arms and whatnot. I like this idea, it gives each and every team the ability to compete fairly without one team being restricted as another is unrestricted. As for mentors/adults/enginners who build robots....I have no comment.
I think that engineers doing the work is wrong. You should do the work yourself. I have heard of teams that engineers built most of the robot for them, I seriously dought they gained as much as a team that built every thing by themselves
It also depends upon the dynamics f the students on your team, if they can build the robot themselves with a little guidance from mentors then they should do that. If the team doesn't have amny students with mechanical and electrical know-how then it is better if the mentors get more involved in teaching the students what to do and what would be the best way to do it.
When it comes to the actually building of the robot i beleive that the mentors should take a "hands-off" approach as much as possible and allow the students to learn through experience, but if there are time/capability reasons then the mentor/engineer should take on the building task.
Was it just me or did you all think FIRST tried to narrow the playing field with the 5' height rule? I personally think that they did; this takes away any major leverage that teams (who have ambiguous resources) have with creating arms and whatnot. I like this idea, it gives each and every team the ability to compete fairly without one team being restricted as another is unrestricted. As for mentors/adults/enginners who build robots....I have no comment.
I think it was partially because the game would become significantly easier if your robot could be arbitrarily tall. There would be nothing stopping a team from building their shooter at the 10 foot level and just kind of pumping the balls in, which would eliminate the need for use of the camera. The field-leveling was probably a side effect.
RebelWithARobot
16-03-2006, 11:37
I know this is a touchy subject for many people but let me explain the way I see this.
1) No company is going to hire a student simply because they worked on a FIRST robot.
2) You can be inspired to be an Engineer without knowing how to build anything.
My point is that if a student is very interested in being an Engineer they will go to college to do so. They will learn what they need to know in college. I'm not going to argue that you can't learn as much from FIRST as you can from college, but company's don't care what FIRST team you're from, they care about your degree. FIRST his in place to show you what Engineers do, not to teach you how to be an Engineer.
Our Engineer is Richard Wallace, one of the smartest guys I know, and I would not for a second think that he could teach me everything he knows. Nor do I think it is his mission as a mentor to teach me everything he knows. But if he can inspire me by showing me what he does, what is career consists of. THAT is mentorship. You don't have to teach to inspire.
Just my opinion.
1) No company is going to hire a student simply because they worked on a FIRST robot.
2) You can be inspired to be an Engineer without knowing how to build anything.
Being inspired to be an engineer without actually knowing what it involves (i.e. being inspired without actually knowing how to design or build anything) is pretty dangerous. Someone creative who might otherwise go into arts or the humanities might say "gee, that mentor of mine sure knows how to build a good robot, I want to go into engineering!" but be horribly disappointed when they realize engineering is calculus, math, and many other somewhat boring (to a creative/artistic person) things that they may not enjoy.
If you only understand the ends that someone achieves without understanding the means that got them there, you might get a very wrong impression of what they were doing and whether or not you'd like it. If someone doesn't like math but they like designing/working with robots, a career in marketing or sales might be a better choice than engineering. They'd still get to work with them and perhaps set specs for new robots, but they wouldn't need to deal with the nitty-gritty.
indieFan
16-03-2006, 15:29
1) No company is going to hire a student simply because they worked on a FIRST robot.
My point is that if a student is very interested in being an Engineer they will go to college to do so. They will learn what they need to know in college. I'm not going to argue that you can't learn as much from FIRST as you can from college, but company's don't care what FIRST team you're from, they care about your degree. FIRST his in place to show you what Engineers do, not to teach you how to be an Engineer.
On the contrary. I handed my resume to someone at a career fair and had listed my undergraduate research and my having mentored/coached two FIRST teams. He looked at the resume and said, "Oh, I see you have 5 years robotics experience." He then proceeded to write down "5 yrs" on the resume. I later received a phone call asking for an interview and got the job working with robots. He barely even touched on my undergrad research or my college during the interview. You never know what an employer is looking for until you're there.
Getting back to the thread at hand:
Yes, it is great when the students have the time and opportunity to do the majority of the building. However, many schools do not have the time and/or resources to do this. Many lessons can be learned, including how *not* to build a robot from watching the engineers/mentors. (Those of you that saw 1070 at AZ on the first couple of days will know what I'm talking about.)
In addition, the engineers/mentors actually get benefits from working on the robots. 1) They refresh their memory on the more basic engineering fundamentals. 2) They learn things outside their area of expertise. 3) They get hands-on experience which is absolutely invaluable. In order to be able to fix a process, you need to be able to see the mechanical issues at hand. In order to design an effective piece of equipment, you must understand how things are machined/manufactured. Don't see FIRST as only being for the students, see it as being for the present engineers/mentors, as well as the future generation.
indieFan
Uberbots
16-03-2006, 16:58
Well first ill start out by saying that we had 2 robots.
the first one was built 75% mentors, 25% students, but 90% student idea. THe robot stank when we took it to the scrimmage, as it was topheavy and had indigestion (the loaded balls never reached the shooter).
so our second robot was about 40% mentors and 60% students, but 100% student idea (at the time of shipping). The robot obviously performed alot better (after we had fixed a major shooter problem) and won us the regionals.
I think that the mantors are the ones who take the responsibilty in the pits because the robots have to be fixed fast in rder to be ready for the next match. If we had students fixing our bot, i dont beleive we would be ready for the next 2 matches. the mentors are there when effeiciency of build is needed, as far as design of the bot goes its the students job.
pwilczynski
16-03-2006, 17:02
FIRST as an organization makes it so that every choice the team makes is totally up to the team. Therefore, each team is different when it comes to placing control in the hands of the mentors. While a student might learn a lot with 100% student built robot, they would learn even more if they worked with a mentor on a robot. On my team, we use a kind of 'board of directors'- 3 students and 2 mentors who make final decisions on the robot. People from the team can voice their opinions to this group who then choose. Actual physical construction occurs with about 80% student:20% mentor. We seperate our team into different sub-groups, with one or two mentors per 5-7 students. They will tehn show the students how to create the parts if they don't know how, and in general just help them. While I agree that 100% mentor-robots are not the best, I also think that 100% student robots are not the best. Students need examples from the mentors in order to learn.
Commanchetruck
16-03-2006, 17:37
Our robot is 98% built by students. We built it in a classroom at our school with an everyday toolbox, a saws-all and some drills. Yet we still came in 23 at the Granite State Regional. I personally hate it when adults try to help. The idea is for students to build the robot. If im around and i see a parent or mentor with a tool i ask what needs to be done and i take the tool away and do it. I dont want to become one of those teams where all the work is done by professional engineers and the whole robot is made with a water jet cutter. We all know teams like that are out there.
Dan Petrovic
16-03-2006, 18:18
Just like Dean has said, or implied, multiple times, this program is for the students.
The students on my team does a vast majority of the work. Mentors are there to keep us on track and do the stuff we aren't capable. Yes, we are spoiled with engineering help, but it's mostly done by the kids.
The team captains run the show during design when all of the ideas came from the kids. The mentors step in when things get rough and start to slow down.
During the build, the students do all of the CAD drawings and modeling. The kids put the thing together. We do ask for help making a part.
This year, we fell behind and the mentors actually threatened to build the robot. Yes, it was a threat.
The students do all of the animating on the animation team. The one mentor we have for that trains the new students how to use 3d Studio Max.
Programming is done by the students as well. When things get complex and the students need help, the mentors are asked. Just like everything else.
We don't care if our robot does well or not. The important thing is that we did it, not the adults.
We're going to try to not rely so much on the mentors when it comes to making parts next year. There are going to be classes held training students how to use the mill, lathe, and other power tools, as well as a welder.
I think that the mantors are the ones who take the responsibilty in the pits because the robots have to be fixed fast in rder to be ready for the next match. If we had students fixing our bot, i dont beleive we would be ready for the next 2 matches. the mentors are there when effeiciency of build is needed, as far as design of the bot goes its the students job.
We have two mentors in our pit. They barely do anything. That isn't an exaggeration. Our pit is awesome. Loaded with hardworking and motivated students. As long as everyone has a job and does that job, your pit can be amazing and fix your broken shooter inbetween two matches. :D
People were amazed that we broke our shooter in one match, then had a whole new replacement in by the next.
Dan Richardson
16-03-2006, 18:33
Our robot is 98% built by students. We built it in a classroom at our school with an everyday toolbox, a saws-all and some drills. Yet we still came in 23 at the Granite State Regional. I personally hate it when adults try to help. The idea is for students to build the robot. If im around and i see a parent or mentor with a tool i ask what needs to be done and i take the tool away and do it. I dont want to become one of those teams where all the work is done by professional engineers and the whole robot is made with a water jet cutter. We all know teams like that are out there.
On the contrary FIRST has never stated that they don't want mentors building the robot. In fact Dean has given many speeches the other way, the objective is to inspire, and obviously these teams that have mostly mentor built robots often time have the largest teams and win the most chairmans. The reason is because FIRST is there to inspire you to be a little bit geeky. That sometimes being a nerd is OK and to strive to be professionals like Andy Baker or JVN or DLavery or Woodie Flowers or Dean Kamen is completely OK.
These mentors are there so that you can strive to do well and perform professionally, and heck to hopefully teach you as much as they can along the way. Its definitely OK to learn proper methods of doing things along the way, and who better to teach you than a person who does it for a living. There are teams out there who have there bots water jet and cnced and what not just search " How we cut. " But even without professionals that will always exist there are schools with full machine shops and students who know how to use them. There are many teams who come up with very professional pieces of work that don't have much to work with and not much engineering influence. However, I'd rather have a job done right than by a student any day. If the student can do the job right than by all means I let them do it, but if he can't then you must do it properly otherwise no one gains anything from this situation.
The fact of the matter is if we spend to much time complaining about our situations, then we've achieved nothing. If we work hard learn as much as we can and inspire as many as we can, then you've lost nothing. The measure of a successful man ( or team ) is not where he's gotten to, but where he's come from to get there. If you measure yourself by how much you were able to accomplish then you can never be unsuccessful.
Jaine Perotti
16-03-2006, 18:40
I have to say that I have done quite a lot of thinking on this subject.
My team, the Who'sCTEKS, is primarily a "student-work" oriented team. With guidance from one engineer and several other adult mentors, about 90% of the robot is student fabricated. The only items we do not machine in our shop are the parts for our custom transmissions. The only reason we do not make these in the shop is because we simply don't have the machining capability to do so.
With that said, our team has a pretty straight forward philosophy when it comes to allowing students to do work. Any student is welcome to work on a project, as long as they are qualified and/or willing to learn how to do it. Our mentors care very much about letting students gain hands-on experience. Even if this means that the robot will not be 100% perfect, our mentors still encourage us to get our "hands dirty", so that we can have a chance to use and develop our problem solving skills.
Personally, I agree with what many other people have said already - it is up to the team to decide on the structure that will allow them to best "inspire" the students. In the end, I think a healthy mix of both mentor input and student input creates the most functional team. A team with no technical mentors will have a harder time trying to learn how to design, fabricate, and troubleshoot properly. Likewise, a team who has mostly technical mentors doing the work will have difficulty teaching the students how to do the same things.
In this way, both extremes result in similar problems. A student who never had a mentor to teach them will have just as much difficulty answering questions during inspection as a student who was never allowed to touch the robot. On a team where mentors actively guide the students, but still allow them to use their own problem solving skills, students are much more likely to come away with greater theoretical knowledge as well as hands-on experience. This is how my team has been run, and it has been a wonderful experience for me.
I have had experience on both ends of the spectrum, however. I have done numerous independent engineering projects where I became very frustrated because there was no one there to guide me. For example, in my freshman year we had to independently build a mini race-car to compete at the science fair. I had alot of very good ideas for it, but became frustrated once I started building because I didn't have the technical knowledge to make it work. Years later, after gaining much more experience, I know what I did wrong and what I should have done to make it work. But back then, I would have been very grateful to have someone who could have guided me towards the right solution.
In terms of the ability to inspire, there is no doubt that teams from all over the spectrum have been able to inspire students to choose careers in science and technology. However, I do think that the best way to inspire is through guided learning. It is frustrating and discouraging to not have anyone to mentor you, but at the same time, it is also discouraging when you are not even given a chance to learn for yourself. Discouragement does not amount to inspiration. In my opinion, the best way to inspire is to provide a hands-on, yet rewarding, guided learning experience for any student who shows a desire to learn.
-- Jaine
JoeXIII'007
16-03-2006, 18:45
Team 66's build components:
-100% Student and Mentor Design concept (50/50) It is a very good and educational blend
-Roughly 75% of the frame is student built. All the parts are cut, and screwed together by students, and partly done by mentors.
-Electrical, the team has not really had a student really interested in doing that in a long time, so that is a void the engineers fill. But, if a student wants to learn about it and do some of the hands on stuff, I am more than sure the mentors would be willing to make some room for them.
-Programming: I am one of the programmers on the team. What I basically get is updated programming stuff from the adult programmer, and I read it and try to make sense of it, and if I spot a possible problem, I tell them. The mentor on our team uses english a lot in his programming, so interpreting it is not very hard at all. Just an understanding of how C works is required. The result is that I have been given the capability to build programs if I ever wanted to. It doesn't have to be robotics related, I could do it right now due to how good the mentoring is.
-CAD: there are some conflicts here primarily with the school cirriculum, which uses Autocad and Inventor, and GM, which uses something call CADkey I think. However, from what I've seen the engineers do with the CAD there, I am 100% sure it can be done in AutoCAD and inventor, if not easier than in their software (no offense to GM by any means).
It all comes down to the FIRST program and student ambition. If the program is set up right where the resources are available to learn what students want to learn without screwing up the robot, 2 thumbs up. Same if the students want to build themselves. The learning experiences available are ~ equal. However, it is ultimately what the student makes of it that will slant their P.O.V.
I dont want to become one of those teams where all the work is done by professional engineers and the whole robot is made with a water jet cutter. We all know teams like that are out there.We don't all know that teams like you describe are out there. Teams with access to waterjet machines are rare enough; having the whole robot waterjetted are even rarer. Teams with all the work done by professional engineers are the rarest of all. The combination of all three? Maybe one team in FIRST total. And that is a high estimate.
I'd like to request that this thread be moderated, as it has started to have very vague and general accusations thrown around, without reason or facts. Not to mention that some previous threads on this topic have become or almost become flame wars.
Being a mentor on 233, 1592, and 1897, I have seen both extremes first hand. They both have their pros and cons. With 233, students get to see what is possible with today’s top of the line machinery, and engineering expertise. They get to be involved in operating an amazing machine, and get inspired. With team 1592, and 1897, students learn how to use regular hand tools, how to troubleshoot problems, and how to stick with the process even when their designs don’t work as plans, and overall, get inspired. With both of the rookie team that I helped start (1592 –2005 Florida Champs, and 1897 - 2006 Arizona Champs) we try to have the students do as much as possible, teach them as much as possible, but make sure in the end that they have something that they can compete with. This approach has proven to be a recipe for success for us, and it is always fun to beat the “233’s” of the world with our homemade bots. With that said, I think USFIRST is great because of the diversity in how each team runs their program, and as long as students learn in the end and become inspired, I believe that all these methods create learning opportunities for students.
~Shea~
LightWaves1636
16-03-2006, 19:28
Our robot is 98% done by students because we had a mentor help with the panals on our harvester. Our instructor only helped with supplying his garage for a weekend build and make certain cuts with big panels on the table saw with whatever measurements we make. But in general, students completely designed and built the bot and our instructor would stand by with helpful advice and take care of financial things of the team. There's no scheduling build times. If the students want to build, they build. We just have to tell our teacher we're working on the robot and he'll keep the shop open for us.
lukevanoort
16-03-2006, 19:56
I agree with the idea that the mentors should only really come in if you're doing something stupid, or with general advice like, "You might want to try putting a washer on that", or "watch out for side loads on those bearings." In fact, the parts that were mostly student built (drivetrain, electrical) this year were the most reliable, finished the quickest, and performed the best. And, I know I learned more and was more inspired by "have you thought about using and X because Y and Z", than "here's what we're going to do." And, if inspiration isn't the point what is?
techtiger1
16-03-2006, 19:58
On a team where 100% of the design and 80 to 90% of the work is done by students, where still inspired. Our engineers look over and advise our designs they don't change or redesign. We ask questions and get answers from our engineers,we use the engineers and mentors as a guide. Although FIRST has some teams that have professionally engineered designs, the mission of a FIRST team should not to be to win but inspire no matter who builds your robot. OH by the way if you talk to the Pink kids which I encourage, they design most of that robot. Some finer points of design are done by there engineers which is true I think for most teams with engineers but the better part of it is designed by the kids. As far as the machining and fabrication part of it there mentors do that because of insurance and other reasons most of them can't get into NASA's machine shop to help or they would be. This is just what I know from talking to the PINK kids and I really don't like when people jump on 233 because there are other teams out there too that have the same sophistication of design as 233. Anyway I would just like to say inspiration comes from many sources and life isn't fair welcome to the real world kids.
My two and half cents,
Drew
LightWaves1636
16-03-2006, 20:02
I agree with the idea that the mentors should only really come in if you're doing something stupid, or with general advice like, "You might want to try putting a washer on that", or "watch out for side loads on those bearings." In fact, the parts that were mostly student built (drivetrain, electrical) this year were the most reliable, finished the quickest, and performed the best. And, I know I learned more and was more inspired by "have you thought about using and X because Y and Z", than "here's what we're going to do." And, if inspiration isn't the point what is?
Hey, that's what we did, we only called in our mentors if we needed help, mostly it was programming because except the captain, no one knows programming, I have little knowledge but just enough to work in user_routines. Autonomous I can't do.
Daniel Morse
16-03-2006, 22:24
Team 213 was built mechanically 85% by the students with only advising input from the engineers. I was one of the primary Inventor designers on the team, and I took a part devised from the brainstorming, formed a core group of students and started to work. We had a small amount of assistance from one engineer in the form of constructive feedback and a sounding board, but for the most part, I did most of the designing myself. The only team with more professional support was the drive train. The programming was a collaborative (50/50) effort between the engineers and the students. In previous years, we have much more engineer domination of the construction, but the last two years have been much more student oriented. I very much enjoy having this sort of setup, because when I look at the robot, I see our students as much as our engineers in the machine.
Henry_Mareck
17-03-2006, 01:05
I know that most of our team, including me are for student designed and built robots over engineer designed and built.
If its "inspiring" for a student to watch an engineer build a robot, try actaully letting the student design and built the robot. It takes inspiring to the next level. If your team is going to have engineer help and laser or water jet cutting and all that, make sure that the students are involved and learning, and that they understand what is happening. Thats the important part.
http://boards.buffalobills.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/deadhorse2.gif
This is such a tiresome subject.
I know teams that have all the work done by students and I know teams that have work done by the mentors and I know teams that split it up evenly. So many teams do these things so many dfferent ways and they can still be awesome right?
Last weekend at FLR there was a situation where a veteran team was openly disrespected by another tema because of this. I would never openly judge a team because of who builds the robot and to shun them is just insane.
I don't know the exact percentage on our team ( about 50/50 far as I know)but basically we just have people work on the bot to get it done and not obsess over who did what because we all have to get the robot finished so we all are going to work towards that goal. If anyone has issue with us because of how we work on the robot that is their issue, not ours.
Jack Jones
17-03-2006, 07:26
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Koko Ed again.
Ed - you are a beacon.
team1611
18-03-2006, 00:09
100% designed by the students. all of the work done by students except for the welding and a very small amount of machine work.
AcesPease
18-03-2006, 09:40
I don't have any percentages, but the amount of student design, build and maintenance on our robots has increased dramatically since 2002. We also get a lot of help from mentors. Our lead engineering mentor (Woodie Flowers winner Dave Leenhouts) insists on a fairly complete design cycle: Brainstorming, testing ideas with prototypes, designing the parts using Autodesk, making the parts and assembling the robot. During this process there is a lot of interaction between students, engineers and machinists. That interaction is what I see as inspiring our students the most. Teaching students about interacting with adults before they graduate is one of the most surprising benefits of the FIRST program.
BTW Students have all but taken over the management of our team activities :)
hah. our team was 100% students.
we, as rookies, had problems with engineers and funding.
so we just did it all (as per my signature)
CourtneyB
19-03-2006, 01:22
Its fairly and equally designed out and worked on by everyone on our team (meaning students and mentors). The students on my team do alot of work on it. Even from one year being on electrical subteam and mechanical subteam, i remember alot of the tools i learned and used (which is really good from me hehe), and still alot of the electrical based things. Its really good when students do alot of the majority of the work, but while getting alot of help by engineers or mentors. They learn something new every day that they work and put their effort into. Its really exciting.
-Court-
Matt Reiland
19-03-2006, 14:58
I don't know about the rest of you but our robot was 100% built by team 226. Our team consists of students, parents, teachers, engineers, and alumni.
In most teams, usually you win or lose as a team not as a subset of the group. The one thing I hate more than anything is working on a team and having others in the team taking all the credit. As I say every year, so you built your robot with just students, yippee, woo hooo, you built it totally with engineers or mentors, fantastic, a mix of both..... super duper. I really, really, really don't care. At least in my business one of the key things that the executive director at GM always tells us is that the customer doesn't care about which brand of PLC or robot we use to build cars or whose specification we used to program the PLC's. The customer does however care about the end product not necessarily how we got there. Just a little food for thought.
Are there any other teams out there that built there robot as a TEAM???
blaskay16
19-03-2006, 16:05
I can honestly say that team 815 was 100% designed and built by the students and we almost won the GLR im extremly prouond of my team
I don't know about the rest of you but our robot was 100% built by team 226. Our team consists of students, parents, teachers, engineers, and alumni.
In most teams, usually you win or lose as a team not as a subset of the group. The one thing I hate more than anything is working on a team and having others in the team taking all the credit. As I say every year, so you built your robot with just students, yippee, woo hooo, you built it totally with engineers or mentors, fantastic, a mix of both..... super duper. I really, really, really don't care. At least in my business one of the key things that the executive director at GM always tells us is that the customer doesn't care about which brand of PLC or robot we use to build cars or whose specification we used to program the PLC's. The customer does however care about the end product not necessarily how we got there. Just a little food for thought.
Read this message. Read it again. Study it. Engrave it in brass, and staple it to your forehead. This is a message of wisdom from someone that "gets it."
Chris Fultz
19-03-2006, 18:49
I don't know about the rest of you but our robot was 100% built by team 226. Our team consists of students, parents, teachers, engineers, and alumni.
In most teams, usually you win or lose as a team not as a subset of the group. The one thing I hate more than anything is working on a team and having others in the team taking all the credit.
Are there any other teams out there that built there robot as a TEAM???
Matt,
You beat me to the post / thought. I really couldn't tell you what percentage of our robot is student built and engineer / adult built. We all work together, through brainstorming, drawings on chalk boards, prototypes, Inventor, making parts and putting things together. Ideas fly everywhere and the best ones land on the robot and it would be hard to define who suggested what. There are usually several hands on wrenches and drills and machines and no one really worries about whose hands they are, as long as they are trained in how to use the tool properly.
We work as a team, win or lose as a team, and continue to grow and develop as a team. I would welcome the perspective of some of our current or alumni students on this topic.
David Hoff
19-03-2006, 19:03
We work as a team, win or lose as a team, and continue to grow and develop as a team. I would welcome the perspective of some of our current or alumni students on this topic.
I would completely agree with you Chris. Practically every part on our robot has been built by engineers and students, not just one or the other. We, the students, are ambitious and eager to do as much as we can, but we wouldn't learn the correct processes, techniques, or anything new without the guidance of the engineers and mentors.
Cyber Blue doesn't only use this concept for our manufacturing subteam. Our website, public relations, electronics, and other subteams are all collaborations of our students and mentors.
Dermot_135
19-03-2006, 19:07
100% Student Built Goodness!
With chocolate!
:yikes:
DonRotolo
19-03-2006, 19:15
I don't know about the rest of you but our robot was 100% built by team 226. Our team consists of students, parents, teachers, engineers, and alumni.
In most teams, usually you win or lose as a team not as a subset of the group. The one thing I hate more than anything is working on a team and having others in the team taking all the credit. As I say every year, so you built your robot with just students, yippee, woo hooo, you built it totally with engineers or mentors, fantastic, a mix of both..... super duper. I really, really, really don't care. At least in my business one of the key things that the executive director at GM always tells us is that the customer doesn't care about which brand of PLC or robot we use to build cars or whose specification we used to program the PLC's. The customer does however care about the end product not necessarily how we got there. Just a little food for thought.
Are there any other teams out there that built there robot as a TEAM???
Bravo Matt, you've got it right.
FIRST is not advanced shop class.
FIRST is not about the robot.
It doesn't matter who designed and built the robot.
Science and Technology can solve difficult problems, but not without people. FIRST is about training people to work as a TEAM to accomplish some (fiendishly difficult) task.
Students do most of the work at Team 1676, but that's just because we are lucky to have kids who understand how to make stuff, and a school with fairly decent facilities. Teams who send their robot design out for fabrication aren't any less of a team for doing that.
However I would prevail upon all adults involved in the program to step back and ask if a student could do the task. If so, let them. It's their mistake to make and their lesson to learn.
Don
KillerCows456
21-03-2006, 18:47
We are 100% Student built, we had no help from any one.
except the closest thing to an engineer we had was the auto shop teacher and we used his help in the machine shop. He was the supervisor that we used in order for us to use the power tools.
thatphotochick
21-03-2006, 19:09
all the work on the robot is about 90-95% done by students...some parts done more or less by the engineers. most of the engineers and mentors simply guide the students, and students have a say in everything. everything else..like animation, CAD, marketing, logistical work, even most programming..is done 100% by students, or at least close enough.
while I also believe, like most of you, that students should be as independent as possible, and try to design and build, design, and program most of the robot ourselves, but there gets to a point in some seasons where the mentors have to step in and say "alright, it's a week to the ship date, and we need to do this, this , and this". They are there to make sure we don't screw up, and to make sure we have a feasible bot at the competition. It is all about the level of "guiding". Our bot is mostly built and assemblied by the students, but unfortunately, we are not experienced enough to independently write our own code and machine certain parts (can be partially attributed to the lack of facilities), but the mentors are there so that we will be able to do that somewhere down the road. I mean certain stumbling blocks are always gonna be there every season, and the mentors should let us, the students, attempt to solve it by ourselves; but if its a week from the ship date, and the robot is still 4 different half-working parts, there just isn't time for this sort of "learning process". I guess what i'm trying to say is-- at the end of each season, sometimes, just trying our very best to create the robot by ourselves (the students) is all that we can do.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.