GP? I think not.

[Depreciation]

To start off I would like to say FIRST has been the best program I have ever participated in. I have learned more during my years in it then I have in anyhting else I have ever done, all while having the most fun I have ever had. On the other hand there is one major, consistent problem I have seen. FIRST is a high school robotics competition, so why are there so many teams that seem to have more adult mentors than students? why are there so many teams that seem that whenever in their pits, in pictures, or during time outs, there adults are the ones working on the robots, and they have a number of the adults gathered around the robot with one or two high school students? Well these same teams are the ones that year after year have highly superior robots to any other team. In a competition that prides itself in its "gracious profesionalism" there should not be teams that year after year just completely dominate all the way to the win, but not even at just one regional but sometimes two or three in one year, I find that completely rediculous and definitely NOT GP.

I know im going to hear many argue that FIRST is not about winning, well just stop being so cliche and understand that everyone still desires to do well and no one appreciates working so hard just to have some NASA engineered robot come along every year and beat them without even a slight hope of winning. I understand that the glory of winning eventually fades, and in the end it really is the experience that matters, but it is still a competition. Students spend six hard weeks building and working on something that they want to see succeed just as much as the teams im speaking of do. Its not exactly a great experience or in any way encouraging to put all that effort into something, just to go to the competitions every year to see which team super power is there to dominate them this year.

I think there are many teams that need to think about this and change the way they're team is run, and for the ones who dont, go and horde up all those trophys and banners each year, but make sure you have plenty of fun, because no one else is.

[BigJ]

This has been discussed so many times. Please use the search function! Also, guessing by the name, no team number, and 1 post that you are an anonymous account. Those are not allowed.

Anyway, I am sure there are many robots, built by students AND mentors, maintain by students AND mentors, and driven by students that win competitions. It is so much more than "oh my god their mentors do everything".

Experience, teamwork, and determination all play a bigger role than "mentor bots", in my opinion.

Also, I realize you have not once in your post stated that your opinions are "GP", but I would hope that you keep to your own high standards, even when posting anonymously...

[s_forbes]

...but make sure you have plenty of fun, because no one else is.

Really? I see everyone having fun at every regional I go to...

[Lil' Lavery]

but make sure you have plenty of fun, because no one else is.

Oh woops, I guess I'll go tell 1712 that we had a miserable time in Philadelphia because we lost to 103 in the QFs. My mistake...

Seriously though, this post is a slap in the face of these successful teams. I suggest you actually speak to them, particularly the students. See how they feel. See what effect the programs have on them.
I also suggest you read around these forums for the threads about GP, mentor involvement, and FIRST in general.
I'll also link a post about my feelings on a part of this matter dealing with success and GP.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=716125&postcount=25

[Billfred]

To start off I would like to say FIRST has been the best program I have ever participated in. I have learned more during my years in it then I have in anyhting else I have ever done, all while having the most fun I have ever had.

Glad to hear it.

On the other hand there is one major, consistent problem I have seen. FIRST is a high school robotics competition, so why are there so many teams that seem to have more adult mentors than students?Careful, subjective measurements taken over sporadic periods of time rarely tell the whole story.

why are there so many teams that seem that whenever in their pits, in pictures, or during time outs, there adults are the ones working on the robots, and they have a number of the adults gathered around the robot with one or two high school students?Could be any number of reasons. Perhaps they've got more mechanical mentors and not as many mechanically-inclined students. Perhaps they've got students off in search of parts. Perhaps they just happen to have adults that know what they're doing, and are in the process of teaching the kids. I don't know, and you don't know.

Well these same teams are the ones that year after year have highly superior robots to any other team. In a competition that prides itself in its "gracious profesionalism" there should not be teams that year after year just completely dominate all the way to the win, but not even at just one regional but sometimes two or three in one year, I find that completely rediculous and definitely NOT GP.There is a reason it is known as the FIRST Robotics Competition. There is a competition, and I expect the other teams present to give it their best shot to succeed in it. If a team has the resources to compete at multiple events, good for them. I can only hope for the day that we're at that level, but you can bet I'll be working on that in the off-season.

I know im going to hear many argue that FIRST is not about winning, well just stop being so cliche and understand that everyone still desires to do well and no one appreciates working so hard just to have some NASA engineered robot come along every year and beat them without even a slight hope of winning. Dare I note that there are several NASA teams who have yet to bring home the gold this season? Neither 116 nor 118 have done so thus far. Even 359, a beautiful machine which dropped the jaw of every single member of Capital Robotics at Cheapeake, hasn't made it through the finals.

I understand that the glory of winning eventually fades, and in the end it really is the experience that matters, but it is still a competition.Then why is it an issue for folks to compete to the best of their ability?

Students spend six hard weeks building and working on something that they want to see succeed just as much as the teams im speaking of do. Its not exactly a great experience or in any way encouraging to put all that effort into something, just to go to the competitions every year to see which team super power is there to dominate them this year.I'm from 1618. We finished 46th of 60 at Chesapeake, 3-6-0. We got beat by some of the best teams in the field, and I know we were on a few pick lists. We didn't get picked, and it stung--but it lit a fire underneath our kids, new and old. Last season, we got lucky and slipped into the eighth alliance captain slot, only to get stomped in QF1-1 to the tune of 264-0. Didn't faze me one bit. Coincidentally, I'm also an alumnus of 1293, the team that finished next to last at Palmetto with only a single win to their credit for the whole 2008 season. I spoke with the head coach of their team at Palmetto, and he wasn't shaken up a bit. Nor was anyone else on the team, for that matter. Sometimes you have it, sometimes you don't. Ideally, you learn something from the experience either way.

I think there are many teams that need to think about this and change the way they're team is run, and for the ones who dont, go and horde up all those trophys and banners each year, but make sure you have plenty of fun, because no one else is.George Wallace, coach of 1902, once told me that FIRST is like pizza. You and I may like different toppings, but in the end it's still delicious pizza. I don't mind if a team walks away with their third/fourth/fifth/sixth blue banner in a season. Why? They've done something right that we haven't. If we keep learning from our mistakes, and from the mistakes and successes of others, then our day will come on the field--a process that is accelerated when we don't tell other teams to bring anything less than their A-game.

[AdamHeard]

Oh woops, I guess I'll go tell 1712 that we had a miserable time in Philadelphia because we lost to 103 in the QFs. My mistake...

Seriously though, this post is a slap in the face of these successful teams. I suggest you actually speak to them, particularly the students. See how they feel. See what effect the programs have on them.
I also suggest you read around these forums for the threads about GP, mentor involvement, and FIRST in general.
I'll also link a post about my feelings on a part of this matter dealing with success and GP.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=716125&postcount=25

True indeed...

When I first joined I had the usual immature jealousness of amazing teams that made me think similar things. But once I actually talked to students on these "mentor dominated" teams, I realized they are learning more and getting more from the experience than students on teams entirely run by kids.


So, aside from the point of the argument, get to know the students that work hard on those teams before you pass judgement.

[OZ_341]

OK well lets put the whole "message of FIRST" arguement aside for a moment and just look at the competitive aspect itself.

There are plenty of teams that arrive at competition with competitive robots that are built with limited resources and/or limited engineering help.

The game is usually designed so that you can't win purely by having the best machine. You must also be a cooperative team player and a good strategist.

A team that comes to mind is Team 563 in Philly. Always competitive with very limited funding and a few resourceful mentors. A great team. Another team that comes to mind is 284. (a truly great machine this year) It can be done.

If you need help improving there are teams that can and will help you get there.

[GUI]

First off, I don't see how a team being successful is un-GP. Some teams have worked hard to get the mentorship and community support that they have, and this support has helped them become very competitive. Just because a team has the experience and ability to build a dominating bot doesn't make them any less gracious or professional. You may be surprised, but I actually enjoy seeing robots like this because it shows what is possible and inspires new concepts to explore for next year. If you think that spending six weeks designing and building a robot isn't worth the effort because someone happens to have found a better way of doing it, you are completely missing the point of GP and FIRST.

Also, if you think that no one has fun because there are dominating robots out there, you haven't paid much attention. At every FIRST event I've been to, everyone appeared to be having a wonderful time, regardless of whether they were winning every match or their robot was barely moving.

[EricH]

I'm with the others--you won't find much support here.

I mentored a team with a grand total of 6 mentors (many of whom weren't always there). We had a lousy record in qualifying and weren't picked, yet the students had a load of fun, even with the mentors getting their hands on the robot from time to time.

I graduated from a team that had more mentors than students for some time. I still had a load of fun. And the mentors were doing about half the work on the robot, but the students were doing the other half. (I think I'm slightly overestimating the mentors' involvement.) Successful? Yes. Fun? YES!!!!

If you go and read those other threads (a search for "mentor-built" or "student-built" should turn up a few), you will find two things in common--they have a tendency to get locked, and nobody really cares other than the thread starter. One of the goals of FIRST is INSPIRATION, and around here, it seems like most people don't really care how the students are inspired.

And if there is a team there that truly is mentor-built, it just makes it that much sweeter when your student-built/combination-built robot beats them.

[sanddrag]

To start off I would like to say FIRST has been the best program I have ever participated in. I have learned more during my years in it then I have in anyhting else I have ever done, all while having the most fun I have ever had. I'm glad to hear this. It seems this competition has captured you as it has many of. After 7 years in it, I've yet to come across a better extracurricular activity.

On the other hand there is one major, consistent problem I have seen. FIRST is a high school robotics competition, so why are there so many teams that seem to have more adult mentors than students? why are there so many teams that seem that whenever in their pits, in pictures, or during time outs, there adults are the ones working on the robots, and they have a number of the adults gathered around the robot with one or two high school students? This has been discussed time and time again on these fori. The fact of the matter is, no one has the right to tell any team how it should be structured or who should be involved. Different teams have different ideologies. Some teams value students being 100% involved in every step of the process. Other teams value students observing skilled mentors take initiative. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. If a team feels at a disadvantage due to lack of skilled mentors, maybe they should get some more. This program is For Inspiration. How teams choose to inspire their students is left at their own discretion. Some teams inspire their students by having a high level of mentor involvement leading to a higher quality product. This is inspiring.

Well these same teams are the ones that year after year have highly superior robots to any other team. In a competition that prides itself in its "gracious profesionalism" there should not be teams that year after year just completely dominate all the way to the win, but not even at just one regional but sometimes two or three in one year, I find that completely rediculous and definitely NOT GP.
I don't follow the logic here. If I attempt to follow your logic slightly further, you are basically saying that this should not be a competition that can be won by skill, experience, and teamwork. You are saying it should turn into an exhibition, where everyone gets to show their stuff but no one is praised for it more than any other. The teams that put a lot of work into it would be no better off than the teams who slap it together in someone's dining room on the last day. I don't think this is inspirational at all and I don't see how it benefits the advancement of education or technology. And btw, I don't find it GP to call out a team about not being GP.

I know im going to hear many argue that FIRST is not about winning, well just stop being so cliche and understand that everyone still desires to do well and no one appreciates working so hard just to have some NASA engineered robot come along every year and beat them without even a slight hope of winning.First, FIRST is about winning. This is why we have competitions and not exhibitions. If you feel your team has trouble winning, maybe you should study why the winning teams are so successful, and make adjustments to your own team as you feel necessary. Second, gather all the facts before you make assumptions. Just because a team is sponsored by NASA or is a NASA house team even does not mean NASA engineers are designing the robot. Third, have you any idea how much NASA has contributed to the FIRST robotics program and the advancement of technology as a whole? I don't think you're going to get on anyone's good side here by hating on the NASA teams. Fourth, I spent 6 years on the average team that felt like it had no chance of beating the teams that had tens of thousands of dollars and a hundred machinists backing them. Then guess what, in the 6th year we got our act together and won a regional. It happens, you just have to try harder. The day that this program's awards are based purely on luck is the day I quit. In this competition, teams get honored for the excellence they display. Awards (judging based and performance based) are a pillar of the FIRST program. To take them away or award them at random would be quite detrimental.

I understand that the glory of winning eventually fades, and in the end it really is the experience that matters, but it is still a competition. Students spend six hard weeks building and working on something that they want to see succeed just as much as the teams im speaking of do. Its not exactly a great experience or in any way encouraging to put all that effort into something, just to go to the competitions every year to see which team super power is there to dominate them this year.
When I was a young high school student in FIRST, I felt completely the opposite way. I took one look at those robots and said "wow, I want to make mine look like that next year. How can I make this happen? I need to start now." Every year I saw the same teams win again and again made me work that much harder to reach their level. Eventually, we made it.


I think there are many teams that need to think about this and change the way they're team is run, and for the ones who dont, go and horde up all those trophys and banners each year, but make sure you have plenty of fun, because no one else is.
As stated earlier, it is not anyone's right to say how any team governs or structures itself. Hording trophies is not something that happens by magic. There are experienced and hard working people behind it. To suggest they ought to just give up and let someone else win is simply absurd. It's a battle for them every year too. Winning doesn't come easy to anyone.

In conclusion, I see your frustration not genuinely against the so-called "powerhouse" teams but perhaps deep inside, and perhaps against your own team. Sure there are things people aren't too fond of about the FRC program. But I challenge you to adapt. The rest of us have.

[Gdeaver]

It's the process of first that counts. Not the end result of winning a regional. Any student that goes through the First experience wins. Unfortunately, allot of students don't realize what we did to them until several years latter.

[Aren_Hill]

There are times i really really really like seeing these engineer managed bots go out there. why? because it gives me a higher tier to aim for, Another layer of competition. Also by seeing these robots i've been exposed to so many new concept ideas and mechanisms, also really really good design practices. I am proud to say we are a majority student built robot. I'd also like to proudly say that a student built robot is quite capable or tying the success or clearly beating these "engineer" bots (We've given 1114 there only elimination loss this year). I love having them because it adds a whole new level to the competition, and whole new platform to surge for.

Look on youtube for IRI 2006 matches, ours is the fridge that helped take down the world champs, finalists and regional winners out the wazoo, many of these teams would fall under your category, We came out on top it can be done.

If your ever at a competition with us come by and i'll show the drivtrain i myself designed

[Depreciation]

All im really hearing is the expected cliches, and that the students on these teams are learning..

If the students of these said teams are learning a bunch from all this well great! that doesnt mean the way they are doing it is right or dare I say GP, and yes like i said FIRST is still an extremely fun experience, im just pointing out a problem which I have found to be a hindrance to the experience.

"immature jealousness"? Your calling my opinion immature for thinking that teams that are supposedly being profesional and gracious but still put themselves at a very obvious and extreme advantage is unfair and not so profesional...

And as far as anonymous accounts not being allowed goes. I could tell you who I was, but it really wouldnt make a difference.

[Blue_Mist]

If you think not, does that mean you don't exist? (Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm in my sixth year of Latin and quod cognito, ergo sum!)

There's something special about seeing a robot or a team that inspires and depresses at the same time. Inspires for the obvious "Oh my goodness that is so awesome" and depresses for the "Our robot isn't performing that well." Whether you choose to be raised to the incredible FIRST high of inspiration or plunged into despair is up to you.

And of course, those winning teams are clearly doing something right. Change your own behavior, see what your team would willingly change. As for the adult/student ratio, perhaps mentors simply know more than the students and are helping them learn? I know, it's a completely crazy idea here in FIRST. 'now dump sarcasm on the last two sentences' Why isn't it Gracious and Professional for teams to be consistently good performers? Ask how they do what they do. Request their help, get to know their team and you would every other team at a competition.

Here ends my thoughts. A semi-rant? Can something be a semi-rant?

[Depreciation]

All im really hearing is the expected cliches, and that the students on these teams are learning..

If the students of these said teams are learning a bunch from all this well great! that doesnt mean the way they are doing it is right or dare I say GP, and yes like I said FIRST is still an extremely fun experience. Im just pointing out but a single problem which I have found to be a hindrance to the experience, im not attacking FIRST or the FIRST community in any way

"immature jealousness"? Your calling my opinion immature for thinking that teams that are supposedly being profesional and gracious but still put themselves at a very obvious and extreme advantage is unfair and not so profesional...

And as far as anonymous accounts not being allowed goes. I could tell you who I was, but it really wouldnt make a difference.

[AdamHeard]

All im really hearing is the expected cliches, and that the students on these teams are learning..

If the students of these said teams are learning a bunch from all this well great! that doesnt mean the way they are doing it is right or dare I say GP, and yes like I said FIRST is still an extremely fun experience. Im just pointing out but a single problem which I have found to be a hindrance to the experience, im not attacking FIRST or the FIRST community in any way

"immature jealousness"? Your calling my opinion immature for thinking that teams that are supposedly being profesional and gracious but still put themselves at a very obvious and extreme advantage is unfair and not so profesional...

And as far as anonymous accounts not being allowed goes. I could tell you who I was, but it really wouldnt make a difference.

Rather than worrying about bringing other teams down to your level, worry about what you can do to be competitive with those teams. You'll get a lot more out of FIRST that way.

I'm still note entirely sure what GP means, but If I had to pick teams that were GP, the teams you are describing are at the top of my list.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Been on both sides. They both have pros and cons. End of story.:cool:

All I know is students who were against mentor involvement at the start of the year are now planning to buy as many COTS as possible and send out most of the parts to outside machine shops next season. Significance? I'm not sure, but it seems like a lesson was learned somewhere.

[Lil' Lavery]

How are these teams not GP? Give us a concrete example.
Are they not GP because they run their team differently from you?
Are they not GP because they win?
Are they not GP because they follow a proven design process and use their past experiences to improve their future robots?

A vast majority of these teams are incredibly Gracious, and nobody can possibly question their professionalism. Just because a team wins does not mean they aren't GP.
In fact, it's clearly against the nature of gracious professionalism to attempt to drag them down to your level rather than rise up to theirs.

[sanddrag]

If the students of these said teams are learning a bunch from all this well great! that doesnt mean the way they are doing it is right This is the exact flaw in your argument. Neither you nor I nor anyone else have any say in what is "right" for a team.

[OZ_341]

Just for the record, our machine is 95% student built in a high school woodshop. We do seek and receive engineering help (an important part of FIRST learning) but our kids do it all from concept through build, with simple tooling.

It can be done in a variety of ways. But we don't look down on teams that do it differently than we do. You must find what works for your team.

[fredliu168]

Its not exactly a great experience or in any way encouraging to put all that effort into something, just to go to the competitions every year to see which team super power is there to dominate them this year.


I don't know about you, but from experience, this inspires students to work harder and do a better job the next year while learning lots.

Perhaps this is your first year doing FIRST. You should probably talk with "super power teams", and see how students feel on those teams. Chances are, they are really happy, not just because they did well, but because they learned a lot in the process.

[waialua359]

It must be frustrating when you dont experience success, well maybe, like other teams. It sends a strong message.
What are you going to do about it?
We've learned to embrace the challenge, work harder, than maybe the average team, and at least try to make gains here and there until, you experience some success.
If you only knew how much I and our group of mentors/teachers/volunteers put into this program. It went from an afterschool club, to a 6 week/competition weekend thing, to an all-year round program. We earned every sponsor/dollar for our team.
I, on the other hand, cant blame you, as we have been frustrated at times also.
I, will be the first to say, come out in the open, tell us your real story, and let the FIRST community help, where we can.
We are certainly not one of those "tier 1" level teams, but I'm sure we can offer something unique to share just like every team in FIRST.

[dgitz]

Ok, I think that enough criticism of the original message has taken place. I'm sure that most people who have been involved in FIRST for a while would disagree with the original message, but from my experience there are at least some people who have had this opinion from time to time. When I was in high school back in 1996-2000, my teammates sometimes had this opinion, and now as a mentor to a new team, I find my students (and other mentors) having the same opinion. I even see people not affiliated with FIRST at all that have seen a match or two, that have the opinion that the mighty-sponsored teams will stomp everyone. I find this a very disheartening opinion, and while it might not be true, its existence alone dictates that there is some element of truth to it. It's really a tough debate if you try to look at both sides of the issue. After all, it is a very technical competition for students, why should the teams that have the most technically sophisticated machine be berated for their success? Obviously they have done the work to get where they are.

I personally don't really have an answer to this, I just think that something should be done to help keep new teams from feeling discouraged. As a mentor, I view that it is my responsibility to my students to encourage them in their efforts at all times. As a veteran of 6 years, I am proud of FIRST and am always happy to talk about its benefits to students to other co/pending sponsors, mentors, other students, members of the community, anywhere really. If you look at the facts, FIRST is a fantastic opportunity for students, in many different fields, including science and technology. I would never want a team or person feel discouraged or depreciated because of a lack of technical/monetary/whatever resources, because that could deny a student their potential.

So I'm obviously being long-winded, and I'm sorry, but this is an important issue to me. So for those who accept it, I would challenge you and your teams (and my team as well, #2219) to go out of your way to encourage and foster teams. There are more than a few teams now who do a lot of things to help new teams, obviously 47 (this forum is sponsored by a team btw), 341, a ton of others. But there is always more that we can do.

[gblake]

Folks,

Subtract the sour-grapes tone that frustration allowed to creep into the original post, and I tend to agree with Mr/Ms Anonymous.

There are times when I walk through the pits and I see what appear to be eager students who are missing out on the adrenaline-packed, think-under-pressure, live-or-die-by-your-wits, make-your-own-luck experience of being a pit crew, because the adults are "in the way".

Regardless of anything else, I personally feel disappointed when I think that is happening; and there are many other mentors, that I know personally, who agree.

When mentors can guide/prep students in all the positive ways that have been mentioned in this thread, AND can step aside (but still give advice and assistance) so that the students can be in charge of their own destinies during the tournaments; then I think the mentors have done well AND have ensured the students did not miss out on the pit-crew part of the learning experience and inspiration. I feel that the same applies during the 6 week build season.

Even on teams in which the mentors outnumber the students, that doesn't have to mean that the students can not take the reins in the pits. Usually it is easy to tell who is in charge after a few minutes of watching who is handing tools to who, and watch who prioritizes how to spend the team's pit-time, and ....

The choice isn't between gleaming mentor-bots and disheveled student-bots. There is at least one more option: Well-mentored students who build and maintain their own gleaming (or at least not disheveled) bot. If a mentor is supposed to guide and advise, then students who have been guided and advised well-enough to be fully in charge of their own pit would seem to reflect well on a team's mentors...

This might be (is) an old topic; but that doesn't mean that it is no longer an important topic.

Blake - A mentor who has to force himself to step aside :)

[Chris Herold]

If a team is entirely student run, these students show certainly a great ability but still they fail the purpose of FIRST. FIRST's goal is it to inspire students and introduce them into real world applications of engineering and engineering processes. I don't know how this should work without mentors that are very active.
I think our team found a great balance though and our business plans and documents, as well as the robot, are nearly entirely student created. Our mentors are always helping though and I think only by working together! You cannot be afraid of one mentor doing a job a student could have done too.

I think by telling about missing GP, you mistake in the FIRST standards I have seen in the Northwest and I am pretty sure against them in the whole world!
And having fun? Why are there so many people describing they are FIRST addicts and have so many students written in threads like "You have overdosed on FIRST when..." I don't know but Seattle was definitely the loudest regional ever and I have to admit that I learned more and I mean more about everything during the robotics season than probably the last few years at school!

I am really grateful that I got to notice FIRST in the way, I could during my exchange year here in Seattle!

Best regards,
Chris
Team 1983 - The Skunkworks

[Lavapicker]

Wow, you took some hits on your comments on this one! Its a shame it had to be anonymous. I'm all with you on it however! For some teams this has become a glorified pinewood derby where the adults build the robot and the kids drive. We all see it so get your heads out of the sand everyone! What to do about it? There is no formula of what percentage has to be built by students and I don't think you could enforce one anyway. You just have to be satisfied that students on those teams are not going to get the same experience as yours. I can tesitfy that coming from a team with one single mentor for four years, a fantastic one by the way, and with a budget where some teams spend more on one wheel than we spend on the entire robot you can still build a robot that can do very well. If its about the students then the game is just a game and the process of learning that takes place is more important in the long run anyway. Yes, you will have losing years when kids rotate through and you have to start all over but who is the real loser? I'd say the students who are adult driven teams.

[waialua359]

If you want to hear about a real success story, considering what they have every year, talk to /\ /\ /\ /\ team 2024. He's under-telling the story that he has to overcome.
We love his team, for the mere fact, that they have a positive "winning" attitude no matter what the odds are, and I truly believe that the success they have gotten is due to pure desire and will.
Ask anyone at the SVR and Hawaii regional and they will say the same.

Visit them in Atlanta, and they will make your day!!!;)

[SU 39]

If you want to hear about a real success story, considering what they have every year, talk to /\ /\ /\ /\ team 2024. He's under-telling the story that he has to overcome.
We love his team, for the mere fact, that they have a positive "winning" attitude no matter what the odds are, and I truly believe that the success they have gotten is due to pure desire and will.
Ask anyone at the SVR and Hawaii regional and they will say the same.

Visit them in Atlanta, and they will make your day!!!;)

I can definitely attest to that. I had a GREAT TIME driving with these guys in the eliminations.
To add to that, I was talking to some of their members and I heard something about them not having the resources to be a FIRST team next year? I'm hoping the local Hawaiian teams can help them continue participating in FIRST.

[David Brinza]

I'm still not entirely sure what GP means, but if I had to pick teams that were GP, the teams you are describing are at the top of my list.
I came across a post from November 2004 that describes GP as I've experienced in FIRST:
GP is so ingrained in the high school program and in FIRST in general, I keep forgetting that rookies and FLL teams may not have heard of it yet. The concept is simply that we are all on one big team. We help each other out whenever needed or asked, we answer questions about our strategy, design or software and gladly show off our robot to anyone interested. I know that this sounds rather farfetched with the sports mentality we are all brought up with but it does work. In the high school competition it goes as far as to force teams to play together as alliances when competing. This concept forces students and mentors to freely exchange ideas and thoughts for the greater good. It is why you can turn to this forum and get answers from people you will compete against and not worry that someone is giving you a wrong answer. I write here and answer questions because I want you and your students to succeed. If you beat our team, all the better, I know I had a hand in your success.

Essentially, GP embodies all the fundamentals of guidelines like the Boy Scout Law, etc. and in it's simplest form it means acting (everywhere and all the time) like your grandmother is watching. So when I say "Ask me anything" you know I mean it and if I don't have an answer I will defer to someone who will.
You are never alone in FIRST, just ask for help.

--Al Skierkiewicz (FRC111)
"Mentor-dominated" teams are more likely to meet these standards of GP than purely student-run teams. The "mentor-dominated" teams are more likely to share their talents, experience and knowledge because they want to see success for the FIRST program, not just their team.

Don't knock teams that have heavy mentor involvement, they may be the first to offer help when your team is really in need.

[Jack Murphy]

rise up to theirs

That's the gist. Sean, really like your reasoning. Let us remember that we're sometimes dealing with...

These folks are the absolutely aweSOME future of this program.

[theycallhimtom]

I think we have all seen a few teams where when the robot breaks the mentors are all over the robot with students standing 5 feet back. But measuring a team just by that situation is a little unfair. Many teams I know strive to be student built but when it comes down to the last weekend of build season or 30 minutes before the next match the mentors step in to help get things done. I think that its much better if the students are in there with the mentors, but its tough to do that.

I'm from a student built team and we have managed to be very competative even against the best teams. My first year of FIRST I thought that "mentor built" teams had an unfair advantage, but since then we have had two very solid years and that really changed my opinion. A student built team that is a few years old and puts in the time isn't really at a disadvantage in my opinion.

[Stephi Rae]

Chris already addressed some of 1983's situation, and he didn't even see the difference between our first and second years. We had one year with no mentors, just a coach who is amazing, and our second year we have at least 6 or 7 dedicated, amazing mentors. We won a regional both years. The first year we won with the #1 alliance as the 3rd pick, working with 254 and 1425. 254 is one of those NASA teams. We worked side by side with them, and they had just as much fun as we did. This year we captained the #3 seed alliance to win the MSR. This robot has had significant mentor input, and some of the parts were shipped out to sponsors, like the ladder being cut and holes made as well as carbon fiber claws manufactured. We are having the same amount of fun, in fact probably more fun. Yes, there might be a mentor or two in the pit to help with repairs, but students work on it as well. The mentors have more knowledge. They are necessary. You can learn by watching them do something too, so that you can try it next time.

I can definitely understand your frustration, in fact our team had some frustrations with the new mentor support at the beginning of the build season this year. There is an "ideal mentor-student medium" out there somewhere, but those sorts of things rarely happen in life. The best I can do is just worry about my own team and how we should function and conduct ourselves and how we can help the teams around us.

One last thing, is that when cliches such as these seem to pop up so often, there tends to be a reason behind it. They may be cliches, but I have seen them happen. They had to become cliches somehow, I guess.

[Frenchie]

It is always quite easy to infer that the team that just beat you is "mentor dominated".

Truth is, a mentor dominated team is usually a student abandoned team. Many times, the mentors are willing to teach but few students are willing to step up into leadership.

Also. Too often do I hear people that a team is "mentor dominated" without the slightest bit of evidence.

All I have to say is, if you find a great robot: sit down, enjoy the show and learn! Make sure you beat that team next year.

Who are you to decide how learning should take place? If you are into 100% student built robotics competitions, they exist (check out OCCRA).

Francois

[Lavapicker]

Thank you guys...I feel a group hug coming on....lets keep AJ out of it though???? Ok, Thats really not possible! Even in years we sucked we had a blast, well not right away though.
I could tell you stories of kids who are engineers today who were on our first years team in the 1056 days. Three sat with our team in Honolulu and said they were shocked how good we were doing because we never did that well back then....That hurts! You don't have to have a winning program to let FIRST have an amazing effect on kids.
Am I still on topic??? I've got to get back to work and input my 3rd quarter grades......

BTW, I was sitting next to the DJ when YMCA came on in Honolulu and he was in such shock he picked up his video camera to film it and said something like he's never seen 1500 nerdy kids dancing to their anthem.

[Uberbots]

All im really hearing is the expected cliches, and that the students on these teams are learning..

Likewise, you are denouncing successful teams with a cliche argument.

I strongly suggest that you look into the 'mentor vs. student ratio' argument, and realize that (with the exception of extreme cases) this argument usually stems from a person who feels bad because they did not perform well in a competition. I can understand this, ive been there, and it doesnt feel great for the first 20 minutes. But instead of saying "oh, such and such a team beat us because they have more mentors", i thought to myself "now, how can i help improve the team to do better next year?". You are right, this is a competition- but its about a lot more than a well built robot. teams who do well at the competition do so because of experience, teamwork, technical ability, sacrifice, and luck.

but hey, if youd rather mope and look down upon teams for having more resources, then be my guest.


i cant remember who said this but "if you are on a team who is completely student run, you are missing the point of FIRST" (it was either Dean or Woody)

[Dan Richardson]

All im really hearing is the expected cliches, and that the students on these teams are learning..

If the students of these said teams are learning a bunch from all this well great! that doesnt mean the way they are doing it is right or dare I say GP, and yes like I said FIRST is still an extremely fun experience. Im just pointing out but a single problem which I have found to be a hindrance to the experience, I'm not attacking FIRST or the FIRST community in any way

"immature jealousness"? Your calling my opinion immature for thinking that teams that are supposedly being professional and gracious but still put themselves at a very obvious and extreme advantage is unfair and not so professional...

And as far as anonymous accounts not being allowed goes. I could tell you who I was, but it really wouldn't make a difference.

Here is a cliche you won't hear all that often. FIRST isn't about learning, nor teaching for that matter.

Its not For Inspiration and Recognition of Science Teaching, its For Inspiration and Recognition Science and Technology. I argue that learning, is a byproduct of inspiration, and that inspiration goes a long way. That inspiration is what gets student to learn, whether by watching, doing, researching or going on to institutions of higher education. You wonder why super teams are perennial super teams? Its because students come and go, but inspired mentors are there for the long hall.

I will even go so far as to say that FIRST isn't even just about the students, macroscopically speaking it has very little to do with them. The point is to inspire the culture, not just students, but adults, college mentors, and innocent bystanders. Students are only students for 4 years, if they are inspired, they want to be active and to learn, if they are active and they learn, change happens, if change happens FIRST has succeeded.

You speak of NASA, I've never met a more inspired group of students, than the kids from Cocoa Beach ( Pink 233 ). They are as professional, humble, skilled, knowledgeable, and talented as any group of students out there. You know what I attribute that to? They've seen how its really supposed to be done, they've been inspired by it, they've learned from it, and they followed the amazing leadership they have over there. What happens four years down the road when someone makes the same comment and all those students are gone? I say the same exact thing because mentors, their constants, will still be doing what they do, and students will continue to be inspired by it.

Also, one last thing, teams don't win based on resources alone. Every year teams come from seemingly no where, with absolutely no resources, and they still manage to put together amazing, winning robots. Sitting there, and telling me that I have no shot, because our team doesn't have a single Mechanical Engineer, or because the only tools we have access to are a broken drill press and a beaten up band saw, is disheartening and nearly insulting. I'd like to think we will be able to compete every year, and we will fight as hard as we can to be as competitive as we can, but if you take a defeatist attitude about it, you've already lost.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

You sound jealous of these "all engineer teams"...

Why?

From the student's perspective it can't be all that fun having adults design your robot... even if you do win...

Even if the robot you designed wasn't the greatest you can still have the satisfaction of knowing "you made it."

If adults built it… and you won… than what satisfaction can you possibly have in wining?

[Cory]

i cant remember who said this but "if you are on a team who is completely student run, you are missing the point of FIRST" (it was either Dean or Woody)

That was Dave Lavery.

[Cody Carey]

Hmmm...

Well now, regardless of the discussion at hand, I see a lot of comments and phrases aimed solely at the aggravation of the other party involved. I'd like to point out that comments like these:

Rather than worrying about bringing other teams down to your level,Give us a concrete example.
drag them down to your level Do nothing but raise the general feeling of "rabbalry" in the room, either by giving the intended reader a sense or worthlessness, or making him/her feel segregated from the community. This causes more drippingly sarcastic and or blatently rude remarks, which inevitably lead to a shut down thread, and a lot of hard feelings. Even if they weren't entirely consciously meant as such, the intent is definitely there, and fairly apparent.

Comments such as the following, on the other hand actively promote a healthy, learning discussion... and encourage the intended reader to go look at the subject form a different angle. There is nothing rude or sarcastic about either of these.

It can be done in a variety of ways. But we don't look down on teams that do it differently than we do. You must find what works for your team.This is the exact flaw in your argument. Neither you nor I nor anyone else have any say in what is "right" for a team.


Now, on with the subject at hand.

I know exactly how frustrating it can be when you pour every waking hour, every last drop of design prowess, and a little more effort that you ever thought possible into YOUR robot... only to have it fail in the face of the most robust, complex, and cosmetically attractive thing you've ever seen on an omni-drive... That is just part of realizing just how much you have to learn. Without that what would you have to aspire to?
I believe that being on a team with limited engineering mentors, and a predominantly student run "government" helped me learn more about the entire real life processes of designing, fabrication, brainstorming, idea development, and social interaction then I would have if I'd been on a predominantly mentor run team. Notice I didn't mention "The exact and precise representation of a job in the field of Engineering". Which, while it can be introduced by a mentor run FIRST team, can only truly be taught by several long years of college and a few thousand dollars in borrowed money.

Having said that, I also wish we as a graduating class of team 306 had either :

A) Had one more year to finish honing our abilities in design and production, and produce a truly beautiful machine,

OR

B) Had more mentor help from the beginning so we would've delved deeper into the CAD and engineering processes.

In essence, We (the graduating class of any given year) Were just getting to the good stuff when we were shoved into the real world. As was said before in this thread (and the seemingly infinite threads before), The answer doesn't lie with an all student run team, or an Engineer-fest team... But somewhere in the middle. Moderation is key.


-Cody

[Depreciation]

Im glad im atleast seeing some form of agreement here, I really did not create this thread to just complain and look down on these teams. I created it because I really would like to just make my opinion known and hopefully make a difference. I understand that I dont know the details of how each team is run. I just hope that every mentor and student of every team is doing whatever they can to make sure they are running they're team as fairly as possible. So if you are one of these teams that repeatedly do well year after year, please just take a second look at how your team is run, and if you are absolutely sure it is being run as fairly as possible and you continue to succeed as before, then I sincerely congratulate you.

edit: so essentially im just saying that I feel there is a good amount of people that feel this way and everyone should be aware and try not to be one of the teams that anyone feels this way about.

[Lavapicker]

Its not For Inspiration and Recognition of Science Teaching, its For Inspiration and Recognition Science and Technology. I argue that learning, is a byproduct of inspiration, and that inspiration goes a long way. That inspiration is what gets student to learn, whether by watching, doing, researching or going on to institutions of higher education. You wonder why super teams are perennial super teams? Its because students come and go, but inspired mentors are there for the long hall.

I will even go so far as to say that FIRST isn't even just about the students, macroscopically speaking it has very little to do with them. The point is to inspire the culture, not just students, but adults, college mentors, and innocent bystanders. Students are only students for 4 years, if they are inspired, they want to be active and to learn, if they are active and they learn, change happens, if change happens FIRST has succeeded.

.

Wow, I hope that's not the sentiment of even a small percentage of the FIRST community. While mentors, sponsors and other adults definitely benefit, its all about the students! They are the future. It sounds like we need to redfine what the roles should be as I'm hearing a lot of things that disturb me. You can't justify mentors building the entire or even majority of the robot to me. A good mentor, ours, takes student input and helps THEM to make it happen. Case in point, one of our most talented students has been bugging me, the lead teacher and wannabe engineer, to make a ball knocker since day one. At the tournament he brought it up again and I told him we don't have the weight, the parts or time. Our engineer mentor listened to him and said "Ok, lets see how we make this happen." They identified and removed parts we were not using and experimented with different designs until they came up with a very effecient ball knocker. He guided him, as an experienced mentor does, to design, experiment and implement a system that helped us succeed. He didn't say great idea and then go to the side to build and mount it for him, as he easily could have done, and as a result that student will be a better engineer in the real world. We have too many students going into engineering that are book smart and tool/experience dumb. You don't learn these things by watching others do it! If mentors want to build the bots lets start a new competition they can compete in! Do you think students will learn as much by just watching that??? This is not a glorified pinewood derby - or it shouldn't be anyway. You're crazy if you think you are helping your students somehow by doing it all for them.

[MrForbes]

I don't know why anyone would want to skin a cat, but I hear there's more than one way to do it.

One thing I really enjoy about FIRST is all the different ways that different teams work, and succeed! I love talking to students and mentors of the have-not teams, as well as the have-alot teams, and all those in between.

It really doesn't seem to matter how you do it...just keep up the good work....

[waialua359]

I think you must be a great person, who is feeling frustrated. Again, the tough road is rising to the challenge, which is much tougher and easier said than done.
In our 9 years of existence, we are and will still be chasing the Poofs.:P

Prime example: When we were scouting as the 3 seed, a humble Hawaii rookie team came to our pit, looking to do a sales pitch on selecting their team. Instead, we honestly told them about a set of teams that we were looking at, which were other fellow Hawaii members and a California team.
I never felt so bad, after the disappointed look on their faces.
I promised myself to make sure we help them next year, if they will let us, not by making a better robot, as we are not the experts. But instead, share how we have improved over the years and to collaborate more with them.
They were a genuinely nice team diagonal to our pit.

That's what FIRST is all about!

Wait til you see us in Atlanta. I got my top ten list of things to do.
Its visiting the top ten teams that I am just in awe of that I havent seen yet.

[Lavapicker]

Glenn, you are too good and are a great example of what is good about FIRST and what mentors can be! Knowing the person you are, this will embarrass you but I have to say you are so deserving of the Chairmans Award in Honolulu as witnessed by your attitude toward that rookie team. You are amazing! I've known you for awhile now but I keep hearing stories like this about you. Keep up the good work! Thanks for showing us the way! See you folks in Atlanta...I hope we get to team up again

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Reading this thread, I have become extremely upset.
If you look at our teams record, we have real good engineers, and usually put up a decent robot.
HOWEVER.
In the past 3 years, we have only won 1 award. YES, 1 award.
On our team we have 15 students. These 15 students are expected to put together a robot. A chairmans. A woodie flowers. And do PR.
This is a very hard endeavor which i applaud our kids for doing. Our team was a world champion (Thanks to 111 and 469), and we have very little to show for it afterwards.
The fact that you are comparing teams who have students who are eager to learn, Sponsors who are willing to put out the money, and Engineers/mentors who are willing to put in the time, to not being Gracious and that they should be ashamed of themselves..How dare you?
This really upsets me, For giving kids who want to learn and want to have a fun experience while in high school, you find it wrong? Many teams have a hard time, yes, its true. But its not about the WIN, or about the GLORY, its about the way you run your team.
Our team always cheers for the teams who are likely to win (217,1114) Heck, we even cheer for our cross town rival 47, BUT, we are not spiteful to those teams. We want to see the fun experienced and being able to do that does not involve winning.
Compare it to a sports team. The Detroit lions have sucked for the past 20 years, And even though they don't win, people still like them and cheer for them.
Just take this into consideration.\

*edit* After taking time to read what was going on, ive decided that people can have their opinions. However, i still think it is wrong to complain about success of others.

[CraigHickman]

And as far as anonymous accounts not being allowed goes. I could tell you who I was, but it really wouldnt make a difference.

Oh, but it makes a HUGE difference when there's a face to a complaint. If I created an account to bring up an issue, it would be given a lot less weight than if I had brought it up myself.

Now here's my opinion on this:

I came from a 110% student run team. Want to know where that got me? Kicked off because of a stupid argument. It was stupid on BOTH sides. Here's why: We're high schoolers. We haven't had enough experience to get things right, and our cycle time is too quick to allow true systemic learning. WE MAKE MISTAKES. We haven't been here long enough to get it right the first time. So here's why the programs that are "unfairly" run by mentors are FAR superior: Longevity and consistency. When a team is "mentor run," it will be similar each year. This means a reliable, accurate, and more professional learning environment is present.

Also, if you let a student teach themselves, and teach other students, you end up with products like me: An inspired, ready to learn kid with some basic tools, all built on bad habits and unprofessional methods. If you want to learn how the real world operates, you learn from THE REAL WORLD. You get REAL engineers, REAL programmers, and REAL mentors to come in, and show you how it's done. Once you've got that idea, you're ready to move on and get into the world.

So what do we get when we have all students running a team and competing? A bunch of young hoodlums who know barely anything about how the world works trying to interact and change the world. If you want to make change, you have to know what you're trying to change.

I'm not going to harass you about your points; it's been done enough. However, I am going to say this: Start trading PM's with prominent mentors of those "all mentor" teams, and get a feel for how they work. I might as well throw a few names of programs I respect out there: PM these folks, I'm sure they'd be glad to answer questions. Try Cory, from 254, as a starter. I used to share the same opinion that you had. But then I actually SPOKE to the people on the team, and realized what they had going on, and I was floored. It's an awesome program.

Good luck with the issue at hand, and keep enjoying FIRST! You can only be a student in it for so long....

[FoleyEngineer]

I can understand where Mr. Anonymous is coming from. I felt that way my first year watching our team, and at our first competition when I saw well over 100 people from one of the mega-teams come down to receive an award for something or other I was flabbergasted! I remember seeing around 40 adult males (all of whom I assumed were engineers of course), and I was really jealous! Our team consisted of maybe 10 students, an engineer, a machinist at a few parent volunteers. We were majorly "outclassed" and our robot didn't appear to belong on the same field with them. Then when we heard what kind of funding they had and saw their tricked out trailers we realized how far behind we really were.

However... just like the posters on here have said, we visited those teams and looked at their drivetrains and wiring and control systems and we learned of some great new ways to improve. We also found that almost every team we talked to was more than willing to help us and explain how to do what they did. That sure sounds like Gracious Professionalism to me! And, if those top-tier teams are gracious, then what are you complaining about?

It's not like they won't open up the hood and they hide what's inside so that they can be assured of beating you again next year. It's more like they bring you in, answer all your questions, help you program, and leave you ready to build a robot twice as good the next year!

Well, the following year, we really improved - by listening and learning. Our team grew by maybe 5 students and more participation from some adults (though still only a couple engineers), and we not only went to the championship, but we went 9 and 0 in the qualifiers getting to be first in our division - eventually finishing as Newton finalists. The next couple years, we won Curie and numerous off-season events and various judges awards and sort of made it to "the next tier" of teams. We're still small - under 20 students (including all the part-timers) and our robot is still 90% student built, but we've matured and learned a TON in the past few years to become more competitive. We've also been thrilled to help out other teams who are just starting out and making the same mistakes (read KOP wheels?) that we originally made. Also, I've seen that strategy and driving ability also really help separate teams with similar bots. That's something that any team can learn. Heck, just watch all the Internet rebroadcasts of this year's events and you can learn a ton.

Bottom line is that it doesn't take a boatload of engineers to build a truly competitive robot, but instead, requires that you do your homework, read this forum like crazy, ask lots of questions, and build smart. Oh, and luck doesn't hurt either! :D

[Brandon Holley]

The original post has been attacked enough so I'll leave that be, however consider another real world scenario of anythign...

Companies, the millions that exist out there, all start from the same place. Sure some of them might buy smaller companies to make themselves bigger and more talented, but how is this that different from FIRST ?

Team 125 for example used to consist of over 100 team members, and we actually managed to win a national championship (yes they were still called nationals back then) in 2001. Since then the team has gone from huge, enthusiastic team, to a handful of kids, back up to a solid amount of people. There were some ok robots inbetween 2001 and 2007, and there were some bad ones.

Teams that are able to go out EVERY SINGLE YEAR and win intrigue me so much. I always wonder how they are able to pick a design that stands above the rest every year.

Winning a competition isn't everything, but some people find that it is a lot. It is a physical representation of your success, as opposed to the success everyone gets just for participating and learning. Don't you, when you do win sometime, want to say you beat the best, and you were the best team out there on that particular day?

Winning is awesome, but the cliche is there for a reason...learning, and these experiences, are what make FIRST different, and what make FIRST for everybody.

[Brandon Martus]

Duplicate/anonymous accounts will not be tolerated, and as an attempt to curb this, anybody caught doing so will get a warning and will be publicly acknowledged as the anonymous user.

We have a forum specifically for anonymous posts .. if you don't want the implications of your post to affect your team, you can post it in FIRST-A-Holics Anonymous (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=124) and a moderator will post it for you.

But anyway .. everybody, I'd like you to meet DanTod97 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/member.php?u=17210) of team 97 in Abington, MA.. or Depreciation, as he'd like to be known today, I guess.

[Pat Arnold]

Although many have disputed the concerns Depreciation raised when he started this thread, I believe the views he expresses are not uncommon. Heck, I felt similar frustration in my early FRC experiences. It's not unlike the love/hate relationship NASCAR fans have felt toward Jeff Gordan.

I'm human & want recognition for the tremendous effort my team invests each year. I get cranky when stronger, well known teams with seemingly endless resources (machining, design, mentors, $, whatever) win awards repeatedly, are universally known & respected and are not from my area of the country (thus winning limited trophies away from "the locals" who can't afford to travel & try again for a win at other regionals).

It may seem a bit pollyanna, but I've become a better person, stronger competitor/mentor & lost that bitter feeling when I finally realized...That's life, which is inherently unfair...now what am I going to do about it?

Suggestions given here such as getting to know members of the powerhouse teams, reading the white papers they share, learning what makes them so successful really work! Sure, they have resources you don't, but they also have problems that smaller, newer or less structured teams don't face.

Now I look for ways to emulate aspects of these teams. Meeting members has let me see behind the curtain & the great Wizard was really some tremendously hard working folks. I still want recognition for my team, but now I understand better how to help our students achieve it. By the way, I still get a huge sense of satisfaction when we can outplay their robots!

[dsmoker]

I have strong feelings on this topic and can speak from experience. For the past 5 years, my husband (an engineer) and I (a lawyer; I don't touch the robot!!) have been mentoring a small inner-city team. For 2 of those years (2006 and 2007) my husband was the only engineering mentor. We also have a very limited budget, and our team is comparatively small (about 20-30 kids). Yet in those two years, we were a regional finalist and regional winner. We also received the team spirit award and traveled to Atlanta for the first time, where we finished 15th in our division and were selected as a quarterfinalst.

How did we accomplish this with far less mentors and money than the "powerhouse" teams? As one earlier poster suggested, we strategized. We realized our limitations and worked within them, building a robot that did a subset of the game functions well, instead of doing them all poorly. Last year, for example, we hung a grand total of 1TUBE (and did that in autonomous in a practice round in Atlanta -- you should have seen the kids go nuts over that one). We were a defensive ramp bot (and a darn good one, not to brag). So there is a way to succeed.

As for mentors building the bot, I do know from talking to our students that they look around and often see mentors doing the work. It makes them appreciate all the more the opportunities for building and desiging that they have on our team. That being said, all their work is done under the guidance and supervision of our engineers (yes, we have a couple more this year, thank goodness). To me, that is the perfect blend of mentors and students, and it works well for our team. I know my husband was far more relaxed in the pits this year because he felt he had a drive team who really knew what they were doing and could handle most problems on their own.

Finally, in terms of GP, the "powerhouse" teams we have met along the way have been, for the most part, nothing but graciously professional to us, helping us to reach the achievements we have. Cyber Knights shipping our tools to Atlanta for us, Gaelhawks loaning us two mentors, Eagles giving us advice and a scouting program, Uberbots giving us valuable tips . . . I could go on. I don't resent or envy them for being strong teams; I hope we can continue to learn from them and someday join their ranks.

[E. Wood]

In this thread, and many other (Im more of a reader than a poster) I have noticed people are always talking about what FIRST is about and putting in thier own opinions. The truth is visit the first website. The mission statement is right there along with a quote from Dean Kamen. Ill post them below (i hate links).

"Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication and leadership."
---FIRST website

"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
----Dean Kamen


And now to address what this thread is about. I come from a team where the team is just not the students. Its everyone. Mentors, students, parents, college student mentors, board of eduaction members, sponsors and the list goes on an on and on. Everyone involved is important to the teams success. Winning or losing on the field has nothing to do with this success. The fact that a group of people from all different walks of life came together to accept the challenge makes a team successful by itself. Saying a team is mostly mentor run, and im sure my team has been accussed of this, just is not fair. Maybe it looks that way, but maybe the students have asked the mentors to do something for them. Maybe the students think they have more important things to do than work on the robot. Just ask the students on the team what they think and youll get your answer.

And as far as team being good year after year after year. This is going to happen no matter what you do. So watch these team, study them, and strive to be like them. This is what 1629 did and it works.

[DanTod97]

im getting the feeling of a "if you cant beat em, join em" attitude here, I disagree completely.

That attitude is just denying that change is an acceptable answer. As ive stated before, even though people seem to be ignoring it, I only created this thread to remind people this is a high school competetion and to request everyone just be aware of that and to be extra careful to make sure there team is run as a highschool team. No attack on any teams at all, I have nothing but love for FIRST and all of its teams, but that doesnt mean I think they are all perfect, unless they beleive they are, and I hope no team does. Just the fact that so many other threads like this exist enforces my feeling that this is an existing problem people choose to ignore and just join them instead.

Im going to stop repeating myself and hopefully be done with this topic, I think ive made my opinions clear and can only hope they will do some good.

[Lil' Lavery]

Something I meant to post earlier, but somehow forgot.
The counter-argument is that the points raised by the initial responses (first page or so) we're "cliché" and they've been stated before. The reason you've heard them before is because they have merit. While there is often a certain degree of idealism in these arguments, they have a valid point and are backed by solid logic, and often evidence.
Even though 116 is the NASA HQ team, 116 has never been entirely mentor driven (nor has 116 been entirely student driven). In 2003 116 finished dead last (63rd of 63) at the NASA/VCU Regional, behind a team that never uncrated their robot. 116 doesn't pretend that this was the most fun they've ever had, but they don't regret the experience either. In 2004 116 returned to the NASA/VCU regional and defeated eventual 2004 FIRST Champion Team 435 in the quarter-finals. Let me re-iterate that point. 116 went from placing last place to beating the FIRST Champions in the span of one year.
Even the best can be beat.
Every single "elite" or "superpower" FIRST team I have had the pleasure and privilege of inter-acting with has been extraordinarily gracious and professional. Following a successful and proven design process is not in any means unfair, but rather good engineering. Some have even made their design process and philosophy open to the public (1114 has even posted theirs on their website). Almost any will be willing to talk to you about theirs if you ask them.

[Billfred]

That attitude is just denying that change is an acceptable answer. As ive stated before, even though people seem to be ignoring it, I only created this thread to remind people this is a high school competetion and to request everyone just be aware of that and to be extra careful to make sure there team is run as a highschool team. This is where I point you to the comments of Dave Lavery, over here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=688857&postcount=23). There is no requirement for it to be a high school team. FRC is targeted at the high-school level, granted, but there is no requirement for it to be a high-school team. What of the Girl Scout teams, like the Space Cookies out in California? What of the 4-H teams, like Team THRUST and Exploding Bacon? What of the teams that happen to spend more of their time working with elementary and middle schoolers than actually building their own robot? What about teams like 1114, who've run corporate team-building activities for folks far older than the students of the team and done a great job of bringing that group together? If you're keeping it focused on high school students, zoom out a little bit and enjoy some of the scenery you're cropping out of the frame.

FIRST has aimed its goal at changing the culture. At no point has it said how teams are supposed to go about it.

[Cory]

im getting the feeling of a "if you cant beat em, join em" attitude here, I disagree completely.

That attitude is just denying that change is an acceptable answer. As ive stated before, even though people seem to be ignoring it, I only created this thread to remind people this is a high school competetion and to request everyone just be aware of that and to be extra careful to make sure there team is run as a highschool team. No attack on any teams at all, I have nothing but love for FIRST and all of its teams, but that doesnt mean I think they are all perfect, unless they beleive they are, and I hope no team does. Just the fact that so many other threads like this exist enforces my feeling that this is an existing problem people choose to ignore and just join them instead.

Im going to stop repeating myself and hopefully be done with this topic, I think ive made my opinions clear and can only hope they will do some good.

You're forgetting one small detail. FIRST has never said that teams should be run as a high school team.

In fact, they celebrate teams that are run as a business through the Entrepreneurship award. They celebrate engineers through the Engineering Inspiration award, and they celebrate mentors and engineers through the Woodie Flowers Award.

To me it is insulting to hear someone say so convincingly and so self righteously that the way other teams (my own included) are doing things is wrong, against the principles of FIRST, hurting the kids, and just plain unfair.

When FIRST becomes about being a high school science fair, maybe you'll be right. But the reason FIRST is great is because of the way it is. If you didn't have all these amazing engineers that FIRST students (heck, and mentors) look up to like Andy Baker, Paul Copioli, Raul Olivera, Dave Lavery, Al Skiekerkiewicz, Ken Patton, Dan Green, and countless others, where would this program be?

Some could contend having an all student team is just as "wrong" as having a mentor dominated team, but who cares?

The real point here is you have a team. Everything else is gravy. Whatever you choose to do with it from that point on is awesome, as long as the kids are getting inspired; and there's no way you can tell me the kids on the powerhouse teams who everyone thinks are engineer built (and often are surprisingly different than they may appear from the outside looking in after you get to know them) aren't being inspired.

How is that not a good thing?

[Jared Russell]

Every team has the right to run their build process in whatever way that they see fit.

That's part of the beauty of FIRST. As long as the people in charge are thinking about what is best for the kids, there are any number of ways to approach build.

Do students get interested in science and technology by working closely with a large number of engineering professionals? Absolutely.

Do kids get interested in science and technology by working on the machine with more freedom and less supervision? Absolutely.

Two different philosophies, and both of them work. The first shows students the power of engineering - what professionals can do. The result is amazing machines year after year. The second lets students get more of a feeling of accomplishment - which is just as important. The result is pride that will never go away. Both are important.

Engineer-dominated teams tend to win blue banners and get the "oohs" and "ahhs" from the crowd. Student-led teams have different sorts of achievement criteria - kids who have never made a moving machine before have conquered a challenge no less impressive than a team of veteran engineers who can help win a regional.

Now, Chief Delphi is populated by far more of the former type of team. We go on here and praise the technical achievements of corporate teams. While some of what gets built in FIRST is truly amazing, I do think that we all tend to forget about the remaining 90% of FIRST whose major accomplishment is just having a robot at competition.

Anyhow - in closing:

There is no one "right" way to run a FIRST team. Both engineer- and student-led approaches are valid and have their merits.

[DanTod97]

I understand FIRST encompasses many things, but I am speaking more specifically of the competition itself, which is why I say even though I see this problem with it, I still love FIRST as a whole. I have not heard one reason why teams cant do all these wonderful things for the students, while still being fair competitively.

[Donut]

Truth is, a mentor dominated team is usually a student abandoned team. Many times, the mentors are willing to teach but few students are willing to step up into leadership.

This statement, I think, sums up well the truth of most teams where you rarely see a student working on the robot. And this is the reality on our team, which in the past 2 years has become one of those teams with almost no students in the pits, so I'll use us as an example of perhaps why you see this happening.

I was a student on our team from 2004-2007, and this year was my first year mentoring on it. In my first years (04 & 05) the team had very strong student leadership and a pretty good amount of mentors involved (5 engineers with varying availability for each). The team built extremely competitive robots (we were top 8 seeds both years) and students on the team worked hard to gain more mentors and more sponsorship to help out for the future, so we'd be able to attend more competitions and try even more complex designs.
Then in 2006, the leadership graduated and a new set of students (myself included) stepped up to fill their shoes. But these students didn't have the dedication or the attitudes of the previous ones, and by the end of the year I was the only remaining member of that group of officers, as we found ourselves scrambling throughout the year to replace them as they one by one left the team. Since our team was primarily student led, the sudden shift in leadership quality meant alot of poorly trained new students and alot of time sitting around doing little. And this showed in our robot quality, as we performed much worse in qualifiers than before (going 3-5 if I remember correctly).
Now last year and this year our team has shifted to be more mentor run and the robot less student built. This is due to a combination of things. We now have more mentors (as a result of our efforts to recruit mentors years ago and students returning to mentor we have 15+ mentors), so automatically the mentors start to have more of an impact. Our school cut some of its tech classes (networking, drafting, and programming specifically), so there is less interest in the student body in technology. But mainly it is because the problems of 06 are still affecting us, not only because we are wary of making the team too student dependent should a similar situation occur again, but also because the new students we got that year learned from that leadership's good AND bad habits, and they still exhibit those habits today.

So our current team still has eager excited students, who put their heart and soul into the robot and making sure it gets done, but the majority of students don't put in as much effort as in the past. This has forced us to make mentors more involved to ensure the robot gets built and stays running. Yet this hasn't correlated with success; our 2 best performing robots were the ones built with our best student leadership. And this is because all mentors really do is ensure that you have a functioning robot; strategy, drivers, design, and scouting (key components to winning) can be enhanced by mentors but really require good students to come up with and implement them (I've noticed that engineer mentors actually tend to be really bad at driving advice :D ).

So next time you see a group of mentors huddled around a robot and no student in sight, don't be so quick to judge that the mentors are being over-bearing, and be glad that you have students on your team who are eager to do it themselves. It may be that they simply had to get involved to make sure that a robot was built, that all the eager students were in one area (maybe electrical) and no one wanted to do another portion (maybe programming). If you were a mentor, and you had the choice between building part of the robot yourself or no robot being built, which would you choose? Which inspires more, students watching as a robot is built, or students who show up with no bot at all?

[rick.oliver]

Every single "elite" or "superpower" FIRST team I have had the pleasure and privilege of inter-acting with has been extraordinarily gracious and professional. Following a successful and proven design process is not in any means unfair, but rather good engineering. Some have even made their design process and philosophy open to the public (1114 has even posted theirs on their website). Almost any will be willing to talk to you about theirs if you ask them.

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

For me, F.I.R.S.T. has been about helping all of us to rise to a higher level and achieve our potential. I saw this from the leaders and mentors on our team when I joined several years ago. Our mentors would willing help other teams rebuild on the spot and improve their machine. One year, we had a student help another team write their control code and got them running. I continue to see it from the "elite" and "superpowers" at every event we attend; we have been the beneficiary of some excellent help, including this year. This is what is different about F.I.R.S.T., this is gracious professionalism, do your best and help others do their best.

[Cory]

I understand FIRST encompasses many things, but I am speaking more specifically of the competition itself, which is why I say even though I see this problem with it, I still love FIRST as a whole. I have not heard one reason why teams cant do all these wonderful things for the students, while still being fair competitively.

The point here is it is NOT unfair competitively

Teams are allowed and encouraged to utilize engineers! If they weren't, there would be an open class of competition.

If students are building the robots all by themselves, then as Dave Lavery once said, they are not "getting it". It's their fault for putting themselves at a disadvantage competitively, and more importantly, not giving themselves the strongest opportunities to learn.

The little guy can compete with the big guy in FIRST. If you have enough know how, desire, and time, you can do anything. Blaming it on the powerhouse teams not letting their kids do anything is totally inaccurate, imo.

[Koko Ed]

The one thing that has always got me is everybody seems to have this idea of how a FIRST team is supposed to be. No where on the FIRST website or in any of their manuals is there such a thing. So why would people readily assume there is some pre determined model for a FIRST team to follow?
Let's look at the pinnacle of FIRST the Hall of Fame teams: Many of them are the un GP teams that you freely accuse of ruining FIRST (they win alot of award often. Even after they won the Chairman's award) which is ironic since they had earned the top honor in FIRST doing good works to improve FIRST as a whole. They seem similar in structure when you give them a quick glance but when you look more closely each team is very different from the other and no one team has the science of running a team down than the other Hall of Fame teams. In fact there are plenty of teams who are not in the Hall of Fame who are just as capable of running a top notch program and they can do it completely different from everyone else. There is no set formula to this. how else can you explain 1500 teams can come up with thousands of different solutions to the same problem? You don't think FIRST didn't intend this to happen?
Diverse thinking I think is also a goal FIRST aims for so everyone can see solutions form many angles and inspire others with that as well.

[Jared Russell]

You're forgetting one small detail. FIRST has never said that teams should be run as a high school team.

In fact, they celebrate teams that are run as a business through the Entrepreneurship award. They celebrate engineers through the Engineering Inspiration award, and they celebrate mentors and engineers through the Woodie Flowers Award.

To me it is insulting to hear someone say so convincingly and so self righteously that the way other teams (my own included) are doing things is wrong, against the principles of FIRST, hurting the kids, and just plain unfair.

When FIRST becomes about being a high school science fair, maybe you'll be right. But the reason FIRST is great is because of the way it is. If you didn't have all these amazing engineers that FIRST students (heck, and mentors) look up to like Andy Baker, Paul Copioli, Raul Olivera, Dave Lavery, Al Skiekerkiewicz, Ken Patton, Dan Green, and countless others, where would this program be?

Some could contend having an all student team is just as "wrong" as having a mentor dominated team, but who cares?

The real point here is you have a team. Everything else is gravy. Whatever you choose to do with it from that point on is awesome, as long as the kids are getting inspired; and there's no way you can tell me the kids on the powerhouse teams who everyone thinks are engineer built (and often are surprisingly different than they may appear from the outside looking in after you get to know them) aren't being inspired.

How is that not a good thing?

While I agree with most of your points, I think you do need to consider what a "superpower" team looks like from the outside looking in.

Essentially, all teams start the season with the same basic resources - a kit of parts, a game description, and six weeks.

Now imagine you're a kid on a small team with a limited budget and mentor resources. You work for 8 hours after school each day, plus weekends, and finally show up at competition with something made of your own blood, sweat, and tears. It probably is a little homemade looking, maybe it works okay most of the time, but it is your own small victory after six weeks of hell.

Then you look in the pit next to you and see a robot that looks like it was ordered out of a catalog.

As an adult, how would that make you feel? I sure would be jealous!

Now, as a high school aged-student, how would that make you feel? Are you telling me that a 16-18 year old has the emotional maturity to not feel bad - even a little - about his own showing when kids the same age are sitting next to a future FIRST championship winner?

Life isn't fair, and FIRST isn't either. That's a hard lesson for a kid to learn.

[Billfred]

Emphasis mine:I understand FIRST encompasses many things, but I am speaking more specifically of the competition itself, which is why I say even though I see this problem with it, I still love FIRST as a whole. I have not heard one reason why teams cant do all these wonderful things for the students, while still being fair competitively.

I'll issue an open challenge: I dare anyone to find a message from FIRST headquarters saying that FRC is meant to be fair. You're going to have teams that bring the knife to the gunfight no matter what happens, and despite the best efforts of a lot of great people. You will see those same people protest on these forums and elsewhere about any attempts by FIRST to limit their effectiveness by holding down the top teams (see any of the threads from 2005-2007 about fix-it windows), while any effort to bring the lowest teams up (such as the kitbot) is met by cheers all around.

It all goes back to trying to get everyone to bring their A-game.

[Leav]

My opinion is that teams should be run by students.

My opinion is that mentors should teach how to design, not teach by designing.

My opinion is that teams where the adults do the work are robbing the students of achievements. obviously this is highly dependent on the way the adults do the work, but it still is inferior to a team where the students do the work.

My opinion matters to my team because I am part of that team.

My opinion matters to FIRST because I am part of FIRST.

My opinion is relevant because I was once a student, and now I am a mentor - So I know both sides of the city.

-Leav

[Kims Robot]

Dan,

The mentor vs student debate has long raged since what I can remember in FIRST. So has the big team vs little team. I was on a team in high school that I felt was "too" mentor run at the time, so I stepped up, I asked the mentors if I could take a leadership role as a sophomore, I forced my way into every design, build and program that I could, and I tried to make sure that the other students on my team had the same experience. On my college team, we started out high school and college mentor peers for the first two years. After that, the college started to bring in a mechanical team that while drastically improving the design of the robot, didnt seem to involve the high school students as much. I fought tooth and nail but lost that battle (but am happy to see that they were able to spin it around a few years later).

Now I've had the amazing experience of being able to form my own team and run it however I wanted with some amazing sponsor support. We, like many others here, have tried to strike that amazing tight-rope walk of a mentor student balance. With an amazing sponsor, we are one of the well-off teams, but probably not really one of the power-house teams *yet*. Looking at some of the comments here, I realize we are probably one of the teams that some smaller teams might seem jealous of at times. We take 60+ people to every competition, go to 3 competitions a year, have crazy PC pit displays, etc etc. But we are in that weird in between. We did terrible at the FLR competition last year, but then vaulted into 5th at Boston and 8th in Championships. This year we were 27th at FLR, but 3rd in Philly. Its all been about learning for us. This year we wanted to learn strategy before the build. I wrote to mentors like Andy Baker, Paul C, Karthik, and several others to ask them how they did it, year after year, how did they build good robots for the strategy. ALL of them answered me with quite awe inspiring details.

I know the "if you cant beat them, join them" or "learn from them" attitude can feel frustrating when you are at the bottom... I remember my high school team, no matter how much sponsor/mentor support couldnt ever live up to the cross town rival team that we always seemed to be up against. Heck in my first two teams, and 7 years of FIRST, my teams NEVER received a SINGLE trophy. It was disheartening sometimes to sit at the competition and think the awards were going to be for us, but they werent. But we always jumped back in and tried harder. At the time teams were much further spread out, ChiefDelphi didnt really exist to the extent that it did, and it was much easier to be jealous of the teams than learn from them.

I dunno, in my eyes, FIRST is what you make of it. We are all going to have those pangs of jealousy here and there. But we cant let this be like sports, we cant say "oh that team gets the fancy uniforms, shiny busses and expensive meals so they do better". We ARE NOT SPORTS, lets not let that rivalry or jealousy stay in our hearts. Everyone is going to feel it time to time, I know I get that feeling at some point during every year, but I often just force myself to turn around and see how our team can do better. Its not worth trying to BE them, its not worth being JEALOUS of them, we are who we are, BUT we can be who WE want to be.

While it may be unfortunate to see mentors fixing a robot with students standing back, and I know how it feels to see that, Im not sure its always as bad as we think it is. I struggle with it a lot. If I had the choice between a two mentors and a student fixing something and being done in time for our next match to let our student drive team get out there and give it all they have for all the hard work our students have put in all year, or letting 3 students struggle with it and miss making it out for the match... I can honestly say I would probably pick the mentors. I know that our students designed EVERY part on that robot, and that in reality our pitcrew is really 6 students and 2-3 adults, but if it came down to it in the heat of battle, and you KNOW someone can fix something in time and the students cant, what would you do? The answer of course is always training the students well enough ahead of time, and that is what we always try to do (and Im thankful I havent ended up in the situation I expressed here), but the reality is that student interest varies from year to year. If there arent any students interested in mechanical, should I let the electrical students fail because it should be all student done?

Really every team's situation is different, and I see your frustrations, Ive been there many times, but I think its what we do with those frustrations that determines our success or failure in FIRST.

[Bongle]

I only created this thread to remind people this is a high school competetion and to request everyone just be aware of that and to be extra careful to make sure there team is run as a highschool team.

But that's the thing. It isn't just a high school competition. You must have high schoolers on your team, and high schools must drive the robot at the competition, but that is the sum total of the required high school involvement. It is a robotics competition that involves high schoolers.

I understand your argument though, as I've made it before I joined the dark "mentors are A-OK" side: Teams that utterly thrash the field each year result in a net lowering of engineering inspiration, because they discourage teams in their area. I no longer hold this opinion after having met several high school kids who take 1114 (our local unbeatable team) as an inspiration rather than a roadblock.

Those seemingly unbeatable teams aren't untouchable. Take the best robot this year: 1114. Nothing on it took (to my knowledge) extraordinary resources to manufacture. It's a bunch of bent metal on top of a 2 speed 6WD drive base. Nothing in its design is extraordinarily far-out. Other teams have roller claws, other teams have hybrid shooter-arms. 1114 just seems to have a process where they think about the problem, think of a solution, and then optimize, optimize, optimize.

[Cory]

While I agree with most of your points, I think you do need to consider what a "superpower" team looks like from the outside looking in.

Essentially, all teams start the season with the same basic resources - a kit of parts, a game description, and six weeks.

Now imagine you're a kid on a small team with a limited budget and mentor resources. You work for 8 hours after school each day, plus weekends, and finally show up at competition with something made of your own blood, sweat, and tears. It probably is a little homemade looking, maybe it works okay most of the time, but it is your own small victory after six weeks of hell.

Then you look in the pit next to you and see a robot that looks like it was ordered out of a catalog.

As an adult, how would that make you feel? I sure would be jealous!

Now, as a high school aged-student, how would that make you feel? Are you telling me that a 16-18 year old has the emotional maturity to not feel bad - even a little - about his own showing when kids the same age are sitting next to a future FIRST championship winner?

Life isn't fair, and FIRST isn't either. That's a hard lesson for a kid to learn.

It'd make me want to do whatever I could possibly do to make my team better, so that I could be at the same level.

When I was a freshman in high school, I was jealous of the so called mentor built teams. I didn't really like my current team. I thought that NASA built their robot, etc etc. I'm not real proud of myself for thinking that way, but I didn't know any better, and of course it's easier to attack others for the things they've earned than better your own situation.

I came to realize that those teams had the things they had because of hard work, dedication, and a desire to always be improving. I also came to realize that every person I looked up to in FIRST was an engineer or mentor for teams that appeared to be "mentor built".

Instead of limiting everyone who has worked hard for the things they have, the people who have less should ask them how they did it, so they can aspire to the same heights.

[DanTod97]

I feel like people havent read my latter posts and are speaking to me based on my first one which I realized might have come off as a little hostile which I did not intend. Im not sure why people keep reffering to me as being jealous? Im simply stating my opinions about a problem I see, my team does fine and im very proud of it. Saying im just jelous of these winning teams is just unecessary and doesnt help anything.

[waialua359]

While I agree with most of your points, I think you do need to consider what a "superpower" team looks like from the outside looking in.

Essentially, all teams start the season with the same basic resources - a kit of parts, a game description, and six weeks.

Now imagine you're a kid on a small team with a limited budget and mentor resources. You work for 8 hours after school each day, plus weekends, and finally show up at competition with something made of your own blood, sweat, and tears. It probably is a little homemade looking, maybe it works okay most of the time, but it is your own small victory after six weeks of hell.

Then you look in the pit next to you and see a robot that looks like it was ordered out of a catalog.

As an adult, how would that make you feel? I sure would be jealous!

Now, as a high school aged-student, how would that make you feel? Are you telling me that a 16-18 year old has the emotional maturity to not feel bad - even a little - about his own showing when kids the same age are sitting next to a future FIRST championship winner?

Life isn't fair, and FIRST isn't either. That's a hard lesson for a kid to learn.

This post has some merit. I would be lying if I said during our first several years, as lucky as we have been, that I wasn't jealous of those awesome robots from 100, 115, 254, 192, 368, etc. from the SVR regional. Our students and a few of the mentors were very very intimidated.
Everyone in the last several posts have offered positive solutions. It seems Dan that you feel that the solution of "joining" the group is not the solution.

Then I ask, what do you suggest teams do?
1. Dumb down everything so that we have a level playing field, no engineers whatsover?
2 Or embrace the challenge, hustle to find support, and step it up in order to "join the group"

We chose "step it up" and join the group attitude. We are far from it, but its our inspiring attitude. Just several years ago, we got a judges sheet showing the areas we needed to improve on the Chairman's Award. I was disheartened. More areas were "needed improvement" than the good areas. I had a few thoughts about just forgetting about enteriing already and let it be. Instead, we worked hard to build up our program the last several years. The feeling of winning the CA is priceless and will stay with us for years, knowing what we had to do earn it.
Now looking back at when we had the choice to step it up or dumb down everything, the proof is asking the students what has been more inspiring to them, as I have many students/former students still on the team the last several years.

They will ALL tell you, they like the program as it is now, and still want to strive it to be better.

[DanTod97]

My opinion is that teams should be run by students.

My opinion is that mentors should teach how to design, not teach by designing.

My opinion is that teams where the adults do the work are robbing the students of achievements. obviously this is highly dependent on the way the adults do the work, but it still is inferior to a team where the students do the work.

My opinion matters to my team because I am part of that team.

My opinion matters to FIRST because I am part of FIRST.

My opinion is relevant because I was once a student, and now I am a mentor - So I know both sides of the city.

-Leav

*claps*

[Vikesrock]

While I agree with most of your points, I think you do need to consider what a "superpower" team looks like from the outside looking in.

Essentially, all teams start the season with the same basic resources - a kit of parts, a game description, and six weeks.

Now imagine you're a kid on a small team with a limited budget and mentor resources. You work for 8 hours after school each day, plus weekends, and finally show up at competition with something made of your own blood, sweat, and tears. It probably is a little homemade looking, maybe it works okay most of the time, but it is your own small victory after six weeks of hell.

Then you look in the pit next to you and see a robot that looks like it was ordered out of a catalog.

As an adult, how would that make you feel? I sure would be jealous!

Now, as a high school aged-student, how would that make you feel? Are you telling me that a 16-18 year old has the emotional maturity to not feel bad - even a little - about his own showing when kids the same age are sitting next to a future FIRST championship winner?

Life isn't fair, and FIRST isn't either. That's a hard lesson for a kid to learn.

Here's a little story for you about my first FIRST experience. I first got hooked on FIRST through FLL. I joined in 6th grade during the Volcanic Panic challenge. Most of my team had played with Lego Mindstorms before and owned kits, but none had ever built a robot for a competition of any sort. We spent months building and programming our robot to complete the various missions. In our first competition run the robot shattered into pieces as I went to retrieve it after it drove astray. We put it back together and competed the rest of the day and ended up near the bottom of the pack, 40th out of 42 teams. Makes you wonder why I'm still here right?

We'll I'm still here because I saw an amazing robot built by the Rosemount Roboraiders that earned a perfect score in multiple runs. I was immensely impressed by their robot, their cool white jumpsuits, and their calm demeanor at the table. I was inspired to do better. I spent all summer researching Lego design and programming. I built and programmed countless robots of various designs. Each year after that I learned more and my team's performance improved. I never did manage to earn a perfect score in competition, but I sure learned a heck of a lot trying.

[Lil' Lavery]

My opinion is that teams should be run by students.

My opinion is that mentors should teach how to design, not teach by designing.

My opinion is that teams where the adults do the work are robbing the students of achievements. obviously this is highly dependent on the way the adults do the work, but it still is inferior to a team where the students do the work.

My opinion matters to my team because I am part of that team.

My opinion matters to FIRST because I am part of FIRST.

My opinion is relevant because I was once a student, and now I am a mentor - So I know both sides of the city.

-Leav

And your opinion is a fair one based on your experience. But is it also your opinion that all other teams should follow how you would run your team?

That has been my problem with DanTod/Depreciation's posts. I find teams where students do a majority of the work completely valid and one of the many possibilities of FIRST. As George Wallace has said, FIRST is like a pizza, and no matter what toppings you use, it's still a delicious pizza.

I have no problem with any FIRST member wanting students to have power on a team, I have a problem with those who think that the team's who do it differently are somehow wrong, unjust, unfair, ungracious, and/or missing the point of FIRST.

[ChuckDickerson]

The students vs. adults debate has been going on since the beginning of FIRST. It just won’t die. I care little to get in the middle of it and am mostly of the opinion that each team can run however they want to as long as students are inspired and learn something. I do however find it interesting when my students notice only adults working on robots in other pits at competition with no student in sight. Enough so to bring it to my attention and tell me that they are happy that they get to do all the work on our robot. Seems kind of hard to inspire the students if they are nowhere around. Our students really care little when they loose a match to a team that they know is mostly adult designed and built. They understand the point is not to win every match but the experience as a whole. Sometimes in the heat of competition even I tend to forget this and have had more than one student remind me that FIRST is more about the journey than the destination.

I am curious though how teams decide on adults vs. students on the field. Of course the drivers and robocoach/human player are required to be students but what do most teams use for the coach position? student or adult? We always give the option to the drive team. If they feel more comfortable with a more experienced adult behind them then we use an adult coach. If they feel more comfortable and less pressured with a fellow student behind them then student coach it is.

Also, what about the extra pit crew members allowed during eliminations. Do you usually use adults or students? I have seen both but for some reason feel the students are more inspired and maybe learn a little more being the ones on the field fixing their machines in those precious moments between elimination matches rather than sitting in the stands watching all the adult team members from a distance. Of course, that is just my opinion.

[Alan Anderson]

I feel like people havent read my latter posts...

And I feel like you haven't read our posts. It looks like you keep stating the same opinion, without supporting arguments, but you expect us to change our opinion to match yours. Your preferences for how best to run your team are certainly valid, and they are likely appropriate for your team. However, several people have pointed out that your wider view of "what FRC is supposed to be" is not supported by the facts.

I've tried to keep an open mind and listen to what you are saying. Unfortunately, it sounds to me like what you keep saying is that FRC is all about teams of high school students, and having adults as an active part of the team is unfair. I cannot accept that, because it is demonstrably false.

Try reading what everyone is trying to tell you, without prejudice. If you can't come up with a more effective way to defend your opinion than mere repetition, you might want to consider the possibility that your opinion ought to be reevaluated.

[GaryVoshol]

Is there Robot Envy? Certainly - everyone would love a slick-looking well-executing machine.

Is there Budget Envy? Who wouldn't want a $40,000+ budget that some teams have?

Is there Mentor Envy? Sure, but there are only so many Karthiks, Copiolis, Bakers and V-Neun's to go around.

But does this create despair? Not for me, and that's because of a very different mindset in FIRST - those that have help those that lack, those that can help those that can't. Rather than sink into despiration, we can choose to seek inspiration from those around us. And if we happen to beat a 33 or a 65 or a 47 in a match or two, that's icing on the cake.

As a parent, I'm very happy for the amount of hands-on activity my daughter and her teammates get. This team seems to have more direct student involvement than some other teams have. Yet we respect the contributions the mentors make. The students, and the non-engineering parents, realize that the ability to weild a screwdriver or power drill is important, but that doesn't drive the program. The ability to understand the engineering principles behind designs as explained by the mentors is worth even more. And as the students learn, they contribute their design ideas to the pool that becomes the robot. Not to mention the Chairmans, the fundraising, programming, and all the other sub-groups that make up a team.

It's my opinion that this team structure is the best for this team. Leav has his opinions. Other teams have their own opinions. The success of any of the programs cannot be determined by the robot performance on the field. The success will come much later, after inspired students go on to get degrees and they themselves begin designing or building or medicating or teaching or mentoring in their careers. The success of a now-17-year-old program will be felt many 17's of years later.

It may be a cliche, but inspiration comes in many flavors, and inspiring the students to change the culture is what this is all about.

[Joe G.]

I, like Leav, have seen both sides of this.

To put my view on this into one sentance: "Students make the decisions, mentors help make the decisions informed, students build as much as possible, but when it comes down to the monday before shipdate, who really cares if the guy with the drill is in high school or not" Read on for a description of why

(Warning: Epic description of FIRST experience follows.)

I started FIRST in 4th grade, with a rookie FLL team. I had owned a mindstorms set for a year and a half, so I had some idea what I was doing. However, we were unable to build an effective robot, due to starting the competition epically late, and various misinterpretations of the rules. We saw many other teams scoring very effectively, which inspired us to continue. We didn't score a single point throughout the competition, but I remember, as I left the gym, saying "I can't wait until next year." I was inspired, not through personal success, but through watching what is possible to do.

Over the next five years, I remained in FLL, doing better each year. Our team consisted of 5-7 kids each year, selected largely on how much, after seeing a past robot, they went "oh wow." We had no mentors, only two parents who knew little of engineering, and served mostly to help with team organization. However, at each competition, I began feeling a lot like you do. There were teams there who had MIT professors build there robot, with kids who clearly did not know basic information about their robot, who would win. I began thinking: Why should that be allowed. We, a group of 12-year olds, built a competitive robot by ourselves, why should they be able to do that? If we can do it ourselves, why not them? I still maintain that these teams did not act correctly, but read on.

We did very well in FLL, winning our state tournament in 2004, and making it to the 2005 world championship, where we placed 19th. At the time, we felt that this proved our feelings about student built robots to be valid. And to a certain extent this was true. But now, looking back on those years, I realize just how much of what I learned came from other teams. We would go to a pre-season competition, see something, say "cool, but that won't fit on our arm. What if we modify it in xxx way." Some of this came from the MIT teams mentioned above. So, without realizing it, we were inspired by mentors

In 2007, I entered FRC and FTC. Our team, from my point of view, had a little mentioned variant of a mentor-built problem, the senior-built problem. Everyone on CD jokes about freshmen in the quotes thread: "Freshman; go file something. NO! BAD FRESHMAN! GET AWAY FROM THE BLOWTORCH." However, as one of those rare freshmen who wanted to learn, I didn't want to clean our closet. I wanted to design a robot. I learned a lot that year, but wish I could have been more involved.

In september of that year, most members of my FLL team "graduated," and I went on to mentor a new FLL team, composed of the two remaining members from my former team, and a lot of rookies. Based on my experiences, I wanted to be a hands off mentor. I would try to lead the students to the solutions, without directly telling them. However, this team, like my former team, had a strict anti-mentor policy. If I lead them to something, it would usually get thrown out, because I had helped the idea along, or even just voiced my support of something that a student had come up with on their own. I was not allowed to attend all meetings, because I was not considered a member of the team. Needless to say, after 6 years of FLL as a student, I considered myself something of an expert on it. Having your opinion ignored for that very reason was quite disheartening. As a result, I am not planning on returning to this team next year, unless some changes are made.

(end of long story)

So from this, I began seeing the mentor point of view. The mentors want to teach. Sometimes they can get a bit over involved. Sometimes they can flat out overpower the students. But if the students learn, it is okay. I know it sounds cliche, but FIRST's goal is to inspire students. Nothing more. Without realizing it until, quite honestly, halfway through writing this post, I got my inspiration from seeing other successful FLL teams. Yes, building a robot that made it to Atlanta was inspiring. But I would never have stayed in FIRST if I had had just our zero-point FLL robot to go on for what can be done with technology.

The mentors, in my opinion, should function to facilitate inspiration. This can happen in any range of ways, from sitting in a corner as I had to, to building a robot for the students. I believe that mentors should try to get students to come up with ideas by teaching them to think, or giving incomplete answers. However, if a mentor finds themselves telling students what to do, I think they have gone a bit too far. I agree with those who say FIRST isn't a science fair, but it isn't a lecture hall either. I have had great learning experiences through being taught, but also through personal discovery.



However, as Lil' Lavery has said multiple times, this is very strictly my opinion on this. FIRST has deliberatly not told us how we should adress this. Although I have had poor experiences on both ends of the spectrum, I am sure that others have had great experiences. As long as the team works towards what FIRST does say that it is, than I have no problem.

[Leav]

And your opinion is a fair one based on your experience. But is it also your opinion that all other teams should follow how you would run your team?

ofcourse not... that's why I repeated "My Opinion is..." about 47 times..... :]





rocketperson44, I agree with you when you say that it possible to inspire in many ways - but My opinion is (zing ;) ) that they should be inspired that they can do things... not that a mentor can.








this is important:

Both ways work:
Inspiration by perspiration
or
Inspiration by observation

it's just that every single student would want to be inspired by doing and not by seeing someone else do things.

If you don't agree with me ask a student - i'll bet you a dozen krispy kreams they will tell you the same thing....


-Leav

[JaneYoung]

This is kind of an interesting thread to read but at the same time, I think about alumni of 418 (and other teams) whom I've had the opportunity to work with and to get to know and I'm so tickled with their educational choices/careers paths, I sometimes just giggle.

We are a team who makes it work.
We are a very proud team because of how we make it work.
We don't really worry about other teams and who has what or does what, we just focus on what we can do and on keeping it healthy and fun for everyone, especially the students. We had our postmortem last night that lasted for a while and afterwards, the mentors agreed that we will continue to talk on the bus to Atlanta but that our priority is to keep the experience a rewarding experience for the students, keep the fun alive, and help them live out their dreams in pursuing their goals.

That's kind of what I think about as I read these posts.

[thefro526]

I've corrected numerous members on my team about this issues too many times to count. I try to explain to them that just because you have a good looking robot it's professionally built. This year we have a decent looking robot and we have 3 mentors and no engineers but, we do have an awesome designer (*cough* me *cough*).

One of the things that I strive for on my team is consistency and improving on idea that already works. I've studied some of the greatest robots ever and I've noticed that many teams build upon what they know. Some examples are: Pink's Telescoping arm, Beachbots Single Jointed arm, 254's and 968's "west coast drive", 25's gear drive, 118's swerve, Wildstang's Swerve and many many more. These teams create a standard mechanism design that can be adapted to nearly any challenge. And it may appear on the outside that these robots are professionally designed, but when you look at the up close you realize they are just cases of using what you know and improving upon it. I'm just saying if you built a *insert cool mechanism here* every year you would look professional too.

I also would like to add that many people who say "Team XXX has engineers build their bot" or "We'd be good if we had a $XX,XXX budget" or "those kids haven't touched their robot" have never even spoken to anyone on these teams. I've noticed with many teams that have a lot of mentors, that the mentors work side by side with the students. So just because the mentors are working on it doesn't mean that the students don't, you can't assume anything until you ask. And yes, there are teams out there who don't see the robot until a few days before ship but, don't assume because someone is good that they have engineers build their 'bot.

And anyways who cares if someone builds a robot for a team. FIRST in itself is about inspiring, and these teams with "Engineer Built Robots", as people like to say, just inspire me to get to their level. And yes, I would like to have $XX,XXX dollars as a budget but, we do fine without it. And I will almost guarantee you that most of these kids on the teams with "Engineer Built Robots" are walking around with smiles and participating. I've found that there is no reason to bash a team better than you because there's no point. IMO, I think that those who say things about other teams without knowing how they run their team and built their robots is UN-GP.

[ManicMechanic]

DanTod97,
Not every program is the right fit for every person. If you have a deep philosophical difference with a program, there are basically 3 options:

1. Try to work with the leadership of the program to change the philosophy. This is probably not going to happen in FRC -- the involvement of mentors is such an important component, this issue has been addressed so many times, and the conclusion has come back again and again to keep things as they are.

2. Try to accommodate yourself to the program. Tell yourself, "I don't like A, but B and C are so good that I'll tolerate it."

3. If the philosophical is divide is so different that you can't reconcile it, find a different program that is a closer fit to your philosophy. There are many other robotics programs out there: BEST, Robofest, Vex (now independent from FIRST), and FTC, for starters. Last year's FTC (formerly FVC) Championship Inspire and Winning Alliance captain was entirely without adult mentorship. Even in Atlanta, the all-student team came without a single adult to pay the bills and carry the snacks.

Our team was offered a NASA scholarship for FRC 3 years ago, but we knew it wasn't the right fit for us. We explored FVC/FTC instead and have had 3 wonderful seasons.

[ttldomination]

Out team was like that earlier, out mentor was the main one with the ideas and he led the team. But then change came and now out team is student led. Ever since the change, the students are happier but we have not won a regional. Every since the change, the robot we have built have been more successful at their objectives than the previous ones.

I wouldn't say that it's mainly the mentors building. There are still teams out there with large number of students who perform amazingly. I feel the first comment was posted as an unfair way to pin a loss or frustration on a a great system. Many teams enjoy FIRST and what it stands for. Although there may have been only a few teams in the pits, there may have been many other students around. The pit is only supposed to have like 4-5 people max. You can't really have 50 people doing something in one pit.

I for one think it's great that mentors take part in this competition and i can't think about what this competition would produce if it wasn't for the mentors, engineers, and team parents that put effort into this competition.

[sebas2mil]

I would like to point out one situation that might strike one of the points DanTod was trying to make about the fact that during competition these teams are power houses well here it goes:

During the Florida Regional we were seated 5th and got picked by 233(after 5 years of having a team this is the first time that we were paired up with them) and we also picked 86

233 I believe is one of the power houses of FIRST and they deserve it given the fact that they have been in a lot of finals and also received recognition with things other than their robot but their program itself.
This year 233 has been a growing star from barely seeing them at the practice field on Thursday at Florida to being undefeated in Hawaii until they lost one match in the semis.

Well I'll get to the point during match 2 of the semi finals at Florida we ended up placing a ball at the last second that go us the win instead of the tie and allowed us to go to the finals and later on win the regional

what I'm trying to say is that no one team does it on their own, if we hadn't placed that ball up there maybe we would of tied and lost the regional which wouldn't of been the end of the world. the other alliance (79,801,348) was one of the toughest alliances there

Even 1114 who has been unstoppable with their 42-6-0 record this year has had help from their partners, during their first regional I don't think they could of done it without 1024 and it goes the other way for 1114

I believe that the strong teams that maybe be ran by NASA engineers are only as good as how you perceive them because after all they are man made and student driven so if you just think of it as "wow what a great machine" and sit there and analyze the parts and how the things are designed then you might get that spark to do something like that on your own as a high school student or college student

This is what I try to pass on to students when I mentor 1251 or LEGO league if you are intimidated by these teams and don't have anything better to do but call them unfair because they are winning and they have a great design then I'm sorry but you are jealous (my opinion )

Sebas

[EricH]

FYI: There is a spotlight somewhere on here about "your second year as a student is your first year as a mentor." So, if FIRST is for students only, then only freshmen are allowed on teams. This is not the case.

DanTod, the problem you see is not a problem necessarily. Remember, there is absolutely no rule about team makeup (other than drive team makeup) or who can work on the robot. Also, there may be factors such as a critical repair needing to be made and the students needing to be fed at the same time. There is nothing that can disqualify a team from competing based on makeup/who does the work.

I am with Leav, to a point. I am a mentor. I prefer to let the students do the work, but I will step in if something needs to be done. I was in the pit most of the time, but I was mainly observing. However, improvements sometimes need to be made. So, I step in with the students at least observing, if not actively participating in the changes. Would you disqualify a team because mentors help? I think not! Especially because that isn't what you said. Just some teams, the mentors seem to do the work, but do they really? As I said, there may be other factors.

I think that you should think about what others have said in this thread. There are many, many valid points on both sides of this issue.

[Joe G.]

Inspiration by perspiration
or
Inspiration by observation
it's just that every single student would want to be inspired by doing and not by seeing someone else do things.


Agreed. I'd rather run a race than watch someone run a race, but I'd also like someone to confirm that I'm running in the right direction.

[gurellia53]

Well, its pretty clear that a lot of people have strong opinions on this issue (6 pages in less than a day).

Most of the responses have disagreed with the original post and many have good reasons for this, but the fact is that dissent against these "mentor teams" exists. It obviously does not bother the people in charge of FIRST, but some members of smaller teams (mentors and students alike) lose respect for teams like this.

Its true that these teams can be more successful and more helpful at competitions, but that isn't enough to sway everyone's opinion. Calls for change by people like Depreciation can go ignored, but the truth is is that he is not the only one with this opinion.

There seems to be somewhat of a split in FIRST between people who agree and disagree with mentor-dominated teams. The reason that its not quite so apparent on CD is that everyone who is against these mentor-dominated teams is promptly told that they shouldn't criticize how other teams are run. Often times, this is worded harshly and this person no longer speaks their opinion on this subject. Is this really a good way to deal with people who have this opinion?

[waialua359]

Well, its pretty clear that a lot of people have strong opinions on this issue (6 pages in less than a day).

Most of the responses have disagreed with the original post and many have good reasons for this, but the fact is that dissent against these "mentor teams" exists. It obviously does not bother the people in charge of FIRST, but some members of smaller teams (mentors and students alike) lose respect for teams like this.

Its true that these teams can be more successful and more helpful at competitions, but that isn't enough to sway everyone's opinion. Calls for change by people like Depreciation can go ignored, but the truth is is that he is not the only one with this opinion.

There seems to be somewhat of a split in FIRST between people who agree and disagree with mentor-dominated teams. The reason that its not quite so apparent on CD is that everyone who is against these mentor-dominated teams is promptly told that they shouldn't criticize how other teams are run. Often times, this is worded harshly and this person no longer speaks their opinion on this subject. Is this really a good way to deal with people who have this opinion?


I dont think its a clear cut mentor vs student thing.
Our mentor (engineer) this year was the cheesy poofs website, 2005 robot photo where we tried to emulate and create our base from. :P

[Vikesrock]

Well, its pretty clear that a lot of people have strong opinions on this issue (6 pages in less than a day).

Most of the responses have disagreed with the original post and many have good reasons for this, but the fact is that dissent against these "mentor teams" exists. It obviously does not bother the people in charge of FIRST, but some members of smaller teams (mentors and students alike) lose respect for teams like this.

Its true that these teams can be more successful and more helpful at competitions, but that isn't enough to sway everyone's opinion. Calls for change by people like Depreciation can go ignored, but the truth is is that he is not the only one with this opinion.

There seems to be somewhat of a split in FIRST between people who agree and disagree with mentor-dominated teams. The reason that its not quite so apparent on CD is that everyone who is against these mentor-dominated teams is promptly told that they shouldn't criticize how other teams are run. Often times, this is worded harshly and this person no longer speaks their opinion on this subject. Is this really a good way to deal with people who have this opinion?


I saw a lot of specific examples and well phrased explanations behind virtually all of the opinions expressed in this thread. I didn't see many if any posts that were worded harshly towards Depreciation.

Unless someone has a good idea on how we should deal with this "split", explaining our views and the ideas behind the "mentor dominated" teams is the only way we can try and reconcile the difference.

I have already expressed my opinion here. There are many other competitions that are high school competitions. Perhaps if some people feel that strongly that their experience is being harmed by mentor dominated teams, then maybe FRC just isn't right for them. I love FRC and I don't like even suggesting that people leave it, but members of FIRST leadership have already expressed their thoughts on this issue, and change does not look to be on the horizon. Science and technology inspiration can come from many other programs as well and if things just aren't working in FRC maybe that is the best direction to go.

[AdamHeard]

straight from FIRST's mentor handbook;


I Do You Watch
I Do You Help
You Do I Help
You Do I Watch

[David55]

I have no desire to jump into this discussion (partially because I haven't decided what side I'm on yet), but I wanted to point something out to everyone who says "don't try to convince other teams that your opinion is the correct one".

IMO, if everything was left the way it is without attempts to initiate a change, we wouldn't get very far (this applies to FIRST and society in general). More participating members and teams means more insight and constructive criticism. If Leav thinks that the students in his team have a better experience as the actual working members on the team, he is entirely entitled to suggest and even try to convince other teams to adopt this system. If Sean believes his system provides the most inspiration and benefit to the students, it is great that he is trying to convince people to use it.

One more thing that bothers me: when people say that the "team" should decide what works best for it, that would be the ideal case if all teams were democratic and keen to changes. However, most teams developed these systems when they are founded and are often run the same way for many years, while the current students don't really have a say in it. Because the program is intended for high school students (the mentors and engineers are there to support the program), I think their opinions should be given considerable weight in such team decisions, which we all know does not happen (most important decisions are made by the mentors from what I have heard).

[Michael Corsetto]

When I started FIRST freshman year, I had a very one-sided view on how a FIRST team should be set up. My team's robot was student built, and I'm competing with it, so shouldn't my competitors be student built robots as well?

Needless to say, I didn't get it, as is evident by the 80-something posts before me, and countless other forums about this very topic.

As a freshman in college, I see the merit to both approaches to student inspiration, and every mix in the middle. Unfortunately, I think the side that favors student run teams has been blatantly attacked, and I think it has been overlooked by the CD community at large. Dave Lavery said (correct me if I am misquoting) that teams run by students with robots built by students are "missing the point". So how can the many members of CD, whom I have nothing but respect for, find it so easy to invalidate DanTod's posts when during the Kickoff, which I assume a majority of people here (including myself) watched, the very same thing happened, just to the other "side" of the argument?

I'm going to say how I, personally, myself, felt about what Dave said during the Kickoff. I was frustrated, angry and disappointed. After 4 years of being on a student run, student built team, putting in hours upon hours of hard work into our teams robot year after year, being told that the entire time I was "missing the point"?

To make it very clear though, I have the utmost respect for Dave Lavery, and every other student, mentor, parent, volunteer and sponsor that make FIRST possible. It really is the greatest thing happened to me in high school and I am nothing but in debt the great organization FIRST is.

Mike C.

[Woody1458]

I just hope that the people who post in contradiction to this thread understand that everyone is allowed their opinion. I happen to agree with him. I believe that adult interaction with the robot is way above what should be allowed. I don't think this is the students fault, the team structures fault, or even the adults fault! People naturally want to be involved. The thing is that adult who want to get involved get involved because quite simply they are the adults. It takes incredible restraint for an engineering adult to not take control of engineering, something that he/she must do, in my opinion. The one time I really understood the importance of this was this season. I was working with our engineering mentor on our elevator's spool when we decided to make a food run, of which I went with. When i got back a half hour later and found him sitting in a chair doing nothing. At first I wondered why he hadn't finished it without me, then I realized that He wasn't really working on the spool, he was working on me. Thats when I realized how much the teams with (sorry to be frank) irresponsible adults, are losing. I walk by pits, and see adults bouncing ideas off each other, making calls, being innovative, and acting on those decisions over and over again. I think this is a real hit to the purpose of FIRST and something that students really should sit down and talk to with their mentors. Remember! They work for you, not the other way around!

[Woody1458]

When I started FIRST freshman year, I had a very one-sided view on how a FIRST team should be set up. My team's robot was student built, and I'm competing with it, so shouldn't my competitors be student built robots as well?

Needless to say, I didn't get it, as is evident by the 80-something posts before me, and countless other forums about this very topic.

As a freshman in college, I see the merit to both approaches to student inspiration, and every mix in the middle. Unfortunately, I think the side that favors student run teams has been blatantly attacked, and I think it has been overlooked by the CD community at large. Dave Lavery said (correct me if I am misquoting) that teams run by students with robots built by students are "missing the point". So how can the many members of CD, whom I have nothing but respect for, find it so easy to invalidate DanTod's posts when during the Kickoff, which I assume a majority of people here (including myself) watched, the very same thing happened, just to the other "side" of the argument?

I'm going to say how I, personally, myself, felt about what Dave said during the Kickoff. I was frustrated, angry and disappointed. After 4 years of being on a student run, student built team, putting in hours upon hours of hard work into our teams robot year after year, being told that the entire time I was "missing the point"?

To make it very clear though, I have the utmost respect for Dave Lavery, and every other student, mentor, parent, volunteer and sponsor that make FIRST possible. It really is the greatest thing happened to me in high school and I am nothing but in debt the great organization FIRST is.

Mike C.

I thought the exact same thing when I heard that at kickoff (I think it was Woody btw). I think student run teams are getting the point! FIRST is here in order to train our youth on how to run and advance the engineering world, when we run the world there will be no elders doing things for us. So I say make tools off limits for adults, and make the design phase student only. Please understand the difference between engineering and designing. Where Designing is deciding to use Akerman steering, and a launching robot. Engineering is what materials and methods to do these things.

[DanTod97]

I just hope that the people who post in contradiction to this thread understand that everyone is allowed their opinion.

Exactly, the only reason I keep posting at all is because people seem to keep attacking my opinion and the fact that I decided to state it, im not trying to start and argument and im not going to get involved in one.

[Jared Russell]

The reality of the situation is that FIRST as an organization has taken sides on this issue.

Dave Lavery's comments during kickoffs are the most recent example. He completely alienated over half of FIRST by saying that. I understand the lesson that Woody and Dean originally wanted to teach, but thousands of other lessons have emerged beyond their dreams.

To categorically say that some of the unique things kids learn on student-dominated teams are any less important to inspiring students is, frankly, insulting.

[adman]

The original post was about super teams that are just here to
win.

I can tell you that the best feeling we had at Cleveland was that
our partner team 2048 won right along with us despite they were only
a 2nd year team working with very few mentors.

Its the best when we all win.:)

[Cory]

I thought the exact same thing when I heard that at kickoff (I think it was Woody btw). I think student run teams are getting the point! FIRST is here in order to train our youth on how to run and advance the engineering world, when we run the world there will be no elders doing things for us. So I say make tools off limits for adults, and make the design phase student only. Please understand the difference between engineering and designing. Where Designing is deciding to use Akerman steering, and a launching robot. Engineering is what materials and methods to do these things.

It was Dave.

Design is a fundamental component of engineering.

Again, everyone is talking about the competition. While people are quick to point out that it's not about the robots to the teams who are ultra competitive, it's interesting that the same situation is happening here.

To you I also say it is not about the robot. Thus if it is not about the robot, it doesn't matter how other teams conduct their business, so long as they do it within the rules, and they find it inspiring.

If it was about the robots, and FIRST was all about making a competition for high school students to determine which students could make the best robot then yes, adult involvement would be something to worry about. We have clearly established that it is NOT about the robots though.

I'd like to point out a few years ago that Dean flat out said "FIRST is not fair". It's up to the teams who feel that way to do something to better themselves, or take their time and money elsewhere.

The reality of the situation is that FIRST as an organization has taken sides on this issue.

Dave Lavery's comments during kickoffs are the most recent example. He completely alienated over half of FIRST by saying that. I understand the lesson that Woody and Dean originally wanted to teach, but thousands of other lessons have emerged beyond their dreams.

To categorically say that some of the unique things kids learn on student-dominated teams are any less important to inspiring students is, frankly, insulting.

I'd like to see the numbers backing your statement that half of FIRST was alienated. I for one applaud Dave's statement, and I have seen both sides of the equation.

For the record, if you were to go back and watch the video again, I believe Dave said something to the effect of "Hey, it's awesome that these students are capable of doing what they do--but imagine how much more they'd be able to do, and how much more they'd learn if they worked with professional engineers who have mountains of knowledge to share.

To categorically say that Dave's claims are inaccurate is exactly what you just said you were against.

[Kate00]

I'm going to say how I, personally, myself, felt about what Dave said during the Kickoff. I was frustrated, angry and disappointed. After 4 years of being on a student run, student built team, putting in hours upon hours of hard work into our teams robot year after year, being told that the entire time I was "missing the point"?


FIRST is here in order to train our youth on how to run and advance the engineering world.

From the FIRST website, http://usfirst.org/who/default.aspx?id=34:

Mission

Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication and leadership.

The point of FRC is to expose students to science and technology professionals. That is what differentiates it from other programs like it. I believe two years ago at kickoff, someone said something along the lines of "There are hundreds of high school programs out there that stick students in a corner and tell them to build a robot. There is only one that sticks students AND adult mentors in a corner to build a robot, and that is FRC." (forgive me, I'm paraphrasing from a vague memory here.)

You had a great experience, you were inspired, I'm sure Mr. Lavery was not trying to take that away from you. Instead, what I think he was trying to say was that sure, you can do cool things as a student built, run etc team, but what you can learn from working with mentors is so much more, and is what this program is about, as it is clearly stated in all their promotional materials and in everything they as an organization do.

The people at FIRST are those who determine what the program is supposed to be about. They have made it crystal clear that FRC teams are supposed to have students and mentors working together to build a robot. Unless the message we are given from on high changes, I see no reason for teams with mentors to stop what they're doing.

If you disagree with this philosophy, FRC is obviously not the competition for you. There are plenty of other competitions out there that share your philosophy. It has been made clear that FRC is not one of them.

[Adam Y.]

While I agree with most of your points, I think you do need to consider what a "superpower" team looks like from the outside looking in.

Essentially, all teams start the season with the same basic resources - a kit of parts, a game description, and six weeks.

Now imagine you're a kid on a small team with a limited budget and mentor resources. You work for 8 hours after school each day, plus weekends, and finally show up at competition with something made of your own blood, sweat, and tears. It probably is a little homemade looking, maybe it works okay most of the time, but it is your own small victory after six weeks of hell.

Then you look in the pit next to you and see a robot that looks like it was ordered out of a catalog.

As an adult, how would that make you feel? I sure would be jealous!

Now, as a high school aged-student, how would that make you feel? Are you telling me that a 16-18 year old has the emotional maturity to not feel bad - even a little - about his own showing when kids the same age are sitting next to a future FIRST championship winner?

Life isn't fair, and FIRST isn't either. That's a hard lesson for a kid to learn.
I was never actually jealous of any of the fancy engineering teams. The only time I was jealous was the year I left college and saw the new kit. The gearboxes were made out of metal.I thought the exact same thing when I heard that at kickoff (I think it was Woody btw). I think student run teams are getting the point! FIRST is here in order to train our youth on how to run and advance the engineering world, when we run the world there will be no elders doing things for us. So I say make tools off limits for adults, and make the design phase student only. Please understand the difference between engineering and designing. Where Designing is deciding to use Akerman steering, and a launching robot. Engineering is what materials and methods to do these things.Unfortunately, that's not how real life works. In real life you are forced to work with the elders because it's the law. You legally can not call yourself an engineer unless you A) Pass a test and B) Work underneath someone who is an engineer which would be your elder by a number of years.

[JaneYoung]

If we think about this in a glass half full way - let's look at the spectacular growth of FIRST in less than 20 years in several programs, with more growth on the way. The growth is being managed now by mentors who are committed to the program(s) and the students. These mentors range from engineers to college students to teachers to NEMs. I felt the comments made at the Kick Off addressed the intrinsic need to retain the engineers we have and to recruit more engineers into the program(s). I support this stance because I see teams/FIRST weakened over time by lack of the sound foundation that engineers bring to the program if we don't continue to recruit them as we grow. Teachers, NEMs, college students can keep the program(s) going and do excellent jobs but the engineers are vital to the program, the mission, the goals - short term and long term.

[Woody1458]

I'd like to point out a few years ago that Dean flat out said "FIRST is not fair". It's up to the teams who feel that way to do something to better themselves, or take their time and money elsewhere.

Something I was trying to describe in my posts was that its not that robot dominance that I care about, its that fact that students are very often cheated out of the experience the deserve by overanxious adults. I don't blame these adults however. It is an undeniable fact that people want to get involved. Its the whole boy/girl argument on a large scale. These adults are scary to kids. Very often the engineering mentors, from what I hear, are not parents or teachers. They are possibly alumni or sponsor employees. These folks how really have no long term experience with teaching kids don't understand what it takes to push us to our full capabilities. They just do it themselves. While they are happy to take a kid along for the ride, I seldom see adults make an extra effort to involve the kids. It especially never happens when the condition of the robot is at stake. I think it is totally appropriate for an adult to do it the students way even if its the wrong way. Because the fact is that you never understand that something doesn't work until you see why it doesn't work. Being told that a way is wrong make have them do it the right way once, but later in life when something like a job is a stake that will never have seen the "wrong" way fail so they will do it that way and face the consequences. Im not trying to say that there is only one way a team can be run, but I think FIRST is neither the place nor the time for adult control.

[Steve W]

I am one that agrees with Dave. Dave said that teams run without working WITH Engineers are losing out. He did not say that they can't learn but that they are not getting full benefit of the program. He did not say that the Engineers had to fully design and or build the robot but that the TEAM would work hand in hand to create and build a robot.

Quite frankly, if the teams don't want the mentors then just ask them to leave. When they do and take their sponsorship money with them you will just need to work a bit harder at fund raising. When they do go I don't want to hear the "they have all these engineers designing and building their robot" comments about teams that do embrace their mentors. I don't want to hear that team XXXX only wins because of money or engineers.

I am one that believes in a partnership, students and mentors, not students telling mentors what their roles are. When I am at work I work with others as a team. I have 33 years and some have 10. That does not mean that I get my way or that the thoughts and ideas of the others are shot down. To get the best results we need to work as a team and when we do, EVERYONE wins.

One other thing, mentors do not want to see the team fail. Not because something can't be learned but because failure can cause a negative view. Not just with students on the team but with parents, possible team members and sponsors. All of those mentioned are important to the success of the team.

[Woody1458]

In real life you are forced to work with the elders because it's the law. You legally can not call yourself an engineer unless you A) Pass a test and B) Work underneath someone who is an engineer which would be your elder by a number of years.

What I was saying there is that what FIRST is preparing us for is BEING the elders.

[Woody1458]

Quite frankly, if the teams don't want the mentors then just ask them to leave.

This is one of the problems I am trying to bring up. That to students (speaking as one) its not that easy. They are adults, thats like going to work and asking your boss to leave because he is making it too hard for you too work. I know that this situation is nothing like that, but as a student it is. We are raised as kids to listen to our coaches, to listen to our teachers, and such(not that this is a bad thing, just that thats how other things kids are familiar to work). That if their is a problem we must change, we must leave. Im saying that in FIRST it should be the other way around.

[Karthik]

The reality of the situation is that FIRST as an organization has taken sides on this issue.

Dave Lavery's comments during kickoffs are the most recent example. He completely alienated over half of FIRST by saying that. I understand the lesson that Woody and Dean originally wanted to teach, but thousands of other lessons have emerged beyond their dreams.

To categorically say that some of the unique things kids learn on student-dominated teams are any less important to inspiring students is, frankly, insulting.

You need to be careful about taking quotes out of context. During Dave's speech at kickoff, he was re-iterating the value of having mentors involved with a FIRST team. He was stressing the fact that FIRST is not just about students learning engineering principles, we have a much bigger mission here. "To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes."

I really believe that every FIRST team needs to examine this mission statement in detail. We're talking about changing the world! There's no way we're going to create an international culture change without involving strong adult role models. By working day in and day out with talented mentors, students learn the value of their professions and aspire to be like these amazing men and women. You can't teach someone to be an engineer in 6 weeks, but you sure can inspire them and instill the desire in them to become one. That's what FIRST is all about. Remember, go back to the mission statement.

Yes, there's plenty to be gained by being on a 100% student run team. But, there are plenty of avenues for those types of lessons. What makes FIRST unique from virtually every other extra-curricular program out there is the mentor involvement. If you choose to run your team with only students, more power to you, but you are missing out on one of the most unique opportunities you will ever have. This is the point that Dave was making.

[Jared Russell]

I'd like to see the numbers backing your statement that half of FIRST was alienated. I for one applaud Dave's statement, and I have seen both sides of the equation.

For the record, if you were to go back and watch the video again, I believe Dave said something to the effect of "Hey, it's awesome that these students are capable of doing what they do--but imagine how much more they'd be able to do, and how much more they'd learn if they worked with professional engineers who have mountains of knowledge to share.

To categorically say that Dave's claims are inaccurate is exactly what you just said you were against.

Look at the responses to that comment from various others on this page. I'm not the only one who was offended. Or walk around the pits in Philadelphia or Chesapeake and tell me who you see working on most of the robots. It doesn't even matter if it was just one team that was offended by his comments. If you're coming back to kickoff, you obviously did something right, agree? Your kids got enough out of it to want to do it again. Why would you discourage that at all? At our local kickoff, a student-run team with a couple of teachers was sitting right in front of me. They looked like they had just been punched in the stomach when Dave said what he did.

And I've seen both sides of the equation too. From 2000-2002, Miss Daisy was built at an engineering facility. Our kids would go work there for a couple hours (I was one of them), but probably 80% of that machine was built by our mentors. From an engineering standpoint, what did I get out of that experience? Not much.

In 2003 we decided we had had enough, changed sponsorship, and teamed up with the local vo-tech high school to make something with more student involvement. We won a Chairman's Award, won Galileo, and haven't looked back.

Now, we are NOT 100% student built. We have several engineers (of which I am one) who help the kids all along the way. I agree with you that if money and resources were no object, an engineer-student partnership is the most effective sort of team. But when I walk by a pit with four engineers and no kids, I think they have swung too far the other way.

[Akash Rastogi]

By working day in and day out with talented mentors, students learn the value of their professions and aspire to be like these amazing men and women. You can't teach someone to be an engineer in 6 weeks, but you sure can inspire them and instill the desire in them to become one. That's what FIRST is all about. Remember, go back to the mission statement.


Not to mention that a lot of mentors always say that they learn a lot from their students as well. Its really a great balance most of the time. Mentors get out of this program almost the same amount as the students do and I'm sure many of the mentors on here can agree with me on that. For example, I've read how adults learn new things about team work, communication, making friendships, and just being better people overall.

-Akash

[Michael Corsetto]

After reading a few responses to my post, I can sum up what I understand in three simple statements:
Completely mentor built robots are ok.
A mix of mentor and student built robots are ok.
Completely student built robots are not ok.

Is there something I'm missing? If so, what is it? I used to think all three methods were acceptable, but it seems to not be the case anymore.

Mike C.

[Woody1458]

One thing Im noticing in a lot of the adult supporters posts is that they seem to imagine adults to be infallible. Something I just cant believe to be true. While there are great ones (look at every Woodie Flowers award winner ever) even they have flaws. My point is that a common flaw is that they want to build robots, not engineers. I think the ultimate mentor is one that can say "I think I am doing to much, and need to step back to allow student to be more involved". Anyone can watch Westcoast Choppers and see adults build things, but FIRST is great because it encourages kids to do the building and adults to do the watching. I like that, I think I found a new signature.

[Cory]

Look at the responses to that comment from various others on this page. I'm not the only one who was offended. Or walk around the pits in Philadelphia or Chesapeake and tell me who you see working on most of the robots. It doesn't even matter if it was just one team that was offended by his comments. If you're coming back to kickoff, you obviously did something right, agree? Your kids got enough out of it to want to do it again. Why would you discourage that at all? At our local kickoff, a student-run team with a couple of teachers was sitting right in front of me. They looked like they had just been punched in the stomach when Dave said what he did.

And I've seen both sides of the equation too. From 2000-2002, Miss Daisy was built at an engineering facility. Our kids would go work there for a couple hours (I was one of them), but probably 80% of that machine was built by our mentors. From an engineering standpoint, what did I get out of that experience? Not much.

In 2003 we decided we had had enough, changed sponsorship, and teamed up with the local vo-tech high school to make something with more student involvement. We won a Chairman's Award, won Galileo, and haven't looked back.

Now, we are NOT 100% student built. We have several engineers (of which I am one) who help the kids all along the way. I agree with you that if money and resources were no object, an engineer-student partnership is the most effective sort of team. But when I walk by a pit with four engineers and no kids, I think they have swung too far the other way.

Dave never said that mentors have to do all the work. Dave said that teams who have NO mentors are missing out--this is undeniably true. It is my opinion that he was not trying to discourage any teams by devaluing their efforts.

[EricH]

What I was saying there is that what FIRST is preparing us for is BEING the elders.You still have to work under them, correct?

Yes, FIRST may be preparing us to be the elders. They also recognize that, at this point, we aren't. Right now, the mentors are the elders we work under. The teams without mentors are at a disadvantage already, because they don't have the elders. The teams with mentors have those elders.

However, what has been described sounds like (on the surface) a case of mentors not being mentors. Without further information (like if DanTod talked with the students on the team, or other relevant context), we don't know what the real situation is. Based on what is described in the original post, we have mentors who are not following the advice given by Rich Kressly:A mentor, by definition, provides a nuturing environment and, over time, makes themselves progressively unnecessary.If so, then the team may wish to look at their method of work.

Speaking of Rich Kressly, teams that are competition-driven for performance should really look at this thread he started on Awards, Bandsaws, and Perspective (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60430).

And Rex--I think you've got it wrong. The mix is OK, yes. But completely mentor-built robots is OK in some books and not in others, as may be seen in this thread. Completely student-built is OK, but they don't get the full benefit of FIRST.

[Jared Russell]

You need to be careful about taking quotes out of context. During Dave's speech at kickoff, he was re-iterating the value of having mentors involved with a FIRST team. He was stressing the fact that FIRST is not just about students learning engineering principles, we have a much bigger mission here. "To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes."

I really believe that every FIRST team needs to examine this mission statement in detail. We're talking about changing the world! There's no way we're going to create an international culture change without involving strong adult role models. By working day in and day out with talented mentors, students learn the value of their professions and aspire to be like these amazing men and women. You can't teach someone to be an engineer in 6 weeks, but you sure can inspire them and instill the desire in them to become one. That's what FIRST is all about. Remember, go back to the mission statement.

Yes, there's plenty to be gained by being on a 100% student run team. But, there are plenty of avenues for those types of lessons. What makes FIRST unique from virtually every other extra-curricular program out there is the mentor involvement. If you choose to run your team with only students, more power to you, but you are missing out on one of the most unique opportunities you will ever have. This is the point that Dave was making.

I do understand the point Dave was making. But teams without a lot of engineering mentorship usually aren't that way by choice. Engineers who are willing to devote 6+ weeks of their year to helping kids are, sadly, in the minority.

Telling an inner-city team that they don't "get it" because they don't have engineers does no one good.

The rest of his comments were more appropriately worded, and make many valid points about what is unique about FIRST if you have the resources.

[Karthik]

After reading a few responses to my post, I can sum up what I understand in three simple statements:
Completely mentor built robots are ok.
A mix of mentor and student built robots are ok.
Completely student built robots are not ok.

Is there something I'm missing? If so, what is it? I used to think all three methods were acceptable, but it seems to not be the case anymore.

Mike C.

It's not that completely student built robots are not ok, it's just that they've blocked off an entire avenue towards inspiration and learning. Teams are free to operate however they wish and see fit. We're just pointing out an amazing opportunity that is being turned down.

I do understand the point Dave was making. But teams without a lot of engineering mentorship usually aren't that way by choice. Engineers who are willing to devote 6+ weeks of their year to helping kids are, sadly, in the minority.

Telling an inner-city team that they don't "get it" because they don't have engineers does no one good.

Again, I don't remember the exact words of the speech, but if I recall correctly, I think Dave said something along the lines of "Teams who choose to go about this without mentors..." I'll dig up the transcript.

Edit:// Found the transcript. (Parts bolded for emphasis)

DEAN MENTIONED ALREADY IF YOU THINK THE PROGRAM IS ABOUT ROBOTS YOU'RE MISSING PART OF THE MESSAGE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF TEAMS OUT THERE, AND I KNOW I'LL HEAR BACK FROM THEM ABOUT THIS, THERE ARE A LOT OF TEAMS OUT THERE WHO ARE BUILT SOLELY OF STUDENTS AS A STUDENT-BUILT, STUDENT-RUN, STUDENT-ORGANIZED TEAM FROM END TO END TO THE PROCESS.
I CONGRATULATE THEM WHAT THEY'RE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH AND DO.
THEY'RE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE WITH NO PROBLEM AT ALL.
DO THE TASK WE'RE SETTING OUT FOR THEM.
IF YOU THINK THE TASK IS ABOUT BUILDING A ROBOT.
MY CHALLENGE TO THE TEAMS IS, PART OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET YOU EXPOSED TO REAL WORLD TECHNOLOGIES PRACTICES, PEOPLE WHO ARE PROFESSIONALS.
IF YOU'RE DOING THIS WITH YOUR TEAM YOU'RE ABLE TO BUILD THE ROBOT AND ABLE TO COMPETE AND BE ABLE TO BE A PARTICIPANT IN THE PROGRAM BUT I THINK YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN ENGINEERING ON YOUR TEAM OR TWO OR THREE OR FOUR BECAUSE YOU AREN'T TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPOSE YOUR TEAM AND YOUR STUDENTS TO REAL WORLD ENGINEERING PRACTICES TO LEARN TO BE INSPIRED BY THE PROFESSIONALS TO WHICH YOU HAVE ACCESS.
SO IS THIS A HARD PROBLEM?
YES.
IT'S SUPPOSED HARD.
WE'RE MAKING IT HARD BECAUSE WE WANT YOU TO BE ENCOURAGED TO GO OUT AND GET PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING HELP FOR YOUR TEAMS TO HELP SOLVE THIS STUFF.
THAT'S HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE MOST BENEFIT OUT OF THE ENTIRE PROGRAM.

[Steve W]

After reading a few responses to my post, I can sum up what I understand in three simple statements:
Completely mentor built robots are ok.
A mix of mentor and student built robots are ok.
Completely student built robots are not ok.

Is there something I'm missing? If so, what is it? I used to think all three methods were acceptable, but it seems to not be the case anymore.

Mike C.

I think that you are twisting things a bit. Mentor bots are OK but not ideal. If students learn and become inspired great, if not then it is no good. Mixed bots are the best scenario as the students are working side by side with engineers, how can you lose. Student bots are OK as the students will learn or crash and burn (also a learning experience). This is not as good as mixed bots as there is no real engineering experience being taught by engineers.

I guess my thought is why do you go to school? To learn from those that have learned. There are good and bad teachers as there are good and bad engineers. What would a school be without teachers and were would FIRST be without engineers?

[DanTod97]

It's not that completely student built robots are not ok, it's just that they've blocked off an entire avenue towards inspiration and learning.

If completely student built robots are blocking off an entire avenue towards inspiration and learning, how is it not true that completely mentor built robots are as well.

[DanTod97]

What would a school be without teachers and were would FIRST be without engineers?

And what would a school be with teachers who did all the work?

[Jared Russell]

Dave never said that mentors have to do all the work. Dave said that teams who have NO mentors are missing out--this is undeniably true. It is my opinion that he was not trying to discourage any teams by devaluing their efforts.

Ok, I do agree with this.

I sincerely do not think he was trying to devalue anyone's team, but it did come across that way to some people.

And I am 100% behind you - and everyone here - in that every team should have mentors to help guide the way if possible.

254 is one of the teams blessed with a cadre of amazing volunteers. My team is another. But many teams - and especially newer teams - simply aren't there yet.

[Billfred]

If completely student built robots are blocking off an entire avenue towards inspiration and learning, how is it not true that completely mentor built robots are as well.Nobody ever said otherwise. However, I would note that an all-engineer robot would still facilitate some interaction between students and engineers (the students have to know how to operate it), albeit perhaps at a less-than-desirable level. Technically, then, all-engineer robots aren't completely blocking off entire avenues for inspiration--they're just mostly blocking it off.

(That's me playing devil's advocate--I'm all for a blend.)

[Woody1458]

I'm just noticing that a large number of the pro-adult posts seem to be made by adults, and nearly all pro-student posts are made by students. No opinion behind this one just a comment.

[DanTod97]

Nobody ever said otherwise.

I disagree.

and again, if student built robots are blocking out most of it then how are mentor built robots not likewaise

[Karthik]

If completely student built robots are blocking off an entire avenue towards inspiration and learning, how is it not true that completely mentor built robots are as well.

Agreed. But, I've yet to find a team that is 100% mentor built, have you? Of course there needs to be a mix. If there's a team who has their robot built entirely by mentors with no students around to be inspired, I would say they are definitely missing out on something. FIRST works best when there are healthy partnerships formed between mentors, students, school(s) and communities.

[Jared Russell]

Again, I don't remember the exact words of the speech, but if I recall correctly, I think Dave said something along the lines of "Teams who choose to go about this without mentors..." I'll dig up the transcript.

Edit:// Found the transcript. (Parts bolded for emphasis)

Where does Dave differentiate between choice and circumstance here?

I think it is clear in hindsight that he MEANT these comments to be addressed to teams run by students by choice, but a poorer team watching kickoff would have no reason to believe that these weren't targeted at them.

Anyhow - I've had enough of this. Time for dinner :)

Here's the short version: What Dave meant was well intended, but I and some others were a little taken aback by it. That is all.

[Cory]

254 is one of the teams blessed with a cadre of amazing volunteers. My team is another. But many teams - and especially newer teams - simply aren't there yet.

I'd like to take this opportunity to note that appearances can be deceiving.

254 does not have a single engineer. We have a third year physics teacher, and four college engineering students. None of us are over the age of 26.

While our team may appear to have tons of engineers, I'd be willing to bet that we have fewer mentors than the average FRC team.

Just another reason why you can't judge a book based on it's cover.

[EricH]

I disagree.

and again, if student built robots are blocking out most of it then how are mentor built robots not likewaiseAgain, nobody said otherwise. This means that there is not disagreement on this point. Unless you can find some?

[Akash Rastogi]

I disagree.

and again, if student built robots are blocking out most of it then how are mentor built robots not likewaise

Just also notice how Billfred said
"(That's me playing devil's advocate--I'm all for a blend.)" (emphasis mine)

[Billfred]

Where does Dave differentiate between choice and circumstance here?

I think it is clear in hindsight that he MEANT these comments to be addressed to teams run by students by choice, but a poorer team watching kickoff would have no reason to believe that these weren't targeted at them.

Anyhow - I've had enough of this. Time for dinner :)

Here's the short version: What Dave meant was well intended, but I and some others were a little taken aback by it. That is all.
He doesn't. However, I would venture that a team that lacks mentors by circumstance is probably aware that they are mentor-deficient and is at least attempting to make inroads on the problem to whatever degree of intensity they choose. (Otherwise, they'd get lumped into the "choice" category.)

[Vikesrock]

I'm just noticing that a large number of the pro-adult posts seem to be made by adults, and nearly all pro-student posts are made by students. No opinion behind this one just a comment.

A very large number of the pro adult posts also appear to have come from those with the title "College Student" or those with the title "Mentor" that are actually college students as well. Many if not all of these college students were highschoolers in the program before they went to college and so I would say that they should be lumped together with the "students". That balances things out quite a bit.

[Woody1458]

I'd like to take this opportunity to note that appearances can be deceiving.

254 does not have a single engineer. We have a third year physics teacher, and four college engineering students. None of us are over the age of 26.

While our team may appear to have tons of engineers, I'd be willing to bet that we have fewer mentors than the average FRC team.

Just another reason why you can't judge a book based on it's cover.

Not to dwell on the subject, but since about 3-4 weeks of your season are spent designing (I think you told me that at SVR), how many engineers does 968 have?

[Karthik]

Where does Dave differentiate between choice and circumstance here?

I think it is clear in hindsight that he MEANT these comments to be addressed to teams run by students by choice, but a poorer team watching kickoff would have no reason to believe that these weren't targeted at them.

Anyhow - I've had enough of this. Time for dinner :)

Here's the short version: What Dave meant was well intended, but I and some others were a little taken aback by it. That is all.

I thought it was differentiated here:

"TO BE INSPIRED BY THE PROFESSIONALS TO WHICH YOU HAVE ACCESS."

But, I see where you're coming from.

[EricH]

Not to dwell on the subject, but since about 3-4 weeks of your season are spent designing (I think you told me that at SVR), how many engineers does 968 have?6-8, all or almost all either in college or barely out of it, IIRC.

[waialua359]

Cory's example of what their team is comprised of is a perfect example of how amazing this team can year after year, be successful, despite drastic changes in leadership back from when Mr. Jason Morella was the lead teacher to Cory and EJ folks. Heck, EJ was just a student when we all first started going to SVR in 2000.
Look at Travis at 968. I was talking to him about a robot from 115 back in 2001 and he looked at me and said he was the driver THAT year for the team.
These former students, now college students, is the perfect example of how a FIRST team has impacted students to the point where they have come full-circle.
Our team has a 4 year former Robotics student who is now our main welder mentor. He makes the most beautiful welds. Check out our bot! Even our teacher who taught him says he cant do better. :D

[Adam Y.]

And what would a school be with teachers who did all the work?
This is engineering that we are talking about. In a significant number of cases you are going to dumb down the concepts to the point where it doesn't help at all. On top of that Dave was right. You truly loose out on learning about science and technology without an engineering mentor. I'm in college and it still manages to amaze me the things that I am learning.

[MrForbes]

I think it is totally appropriate for an adult to do it the students way even if its the wrong way. Because the fact is that you never understand that something doesn't work until you see why it doesn't work. Being told that a way is wrong make have them do it the right way once, but later in life when something like a job is a stake that will never have seen the "wrong" way fail so they will do it that way and face the consequences.

This is where there's a fine balancing act by the mentors....how much should you allow the students to fail, so they learn things on their own? How much should you teach by telling the students that the design won't work based on your own past experiences and engineering knowledge?

I know that this year I let several things slide that I had suggested the students do to the robot, and the robot quit working several times because those things weren't done. Seems to me the students were more disappointed about the poor robot performance, than they would have been about having me do that stuff to the robot. I don't know how your own students would react to this situation, though.

It's tough for the mentors to know how much to do....on top of that, building robots is about the most fun engineering work there is, so keeping our hands off is a serious challenge!

On a more positive note, I think this year went very well for our team as far as dividing up the workload, and our students having a very good feel for what they could accomplish on their own, and what they could use help with. I know I learned a lot from the students too, I was very fortunate to be able to help them bring their very good ideas to life by helping quite a bit with the engineering of the robot.

[gblake]

Folks,

Whether the original author realized it or not, making a point about students vs mentors in the pits (and extrapolating backwards from that point into the build season) was the core of the original comment. Let's please temporarily forget that the author muddied up the water by extrapolating forward from the pit situation to winning/losing on the field.

With that in mind, would someone please explain to me which of the two possibilities I list below describes the "better" FIRST scenario.

Option 1) Mentors draw on experience to do X; and students learn by watching and asking questions.
Option 2) Mentors teach students how to do X; students do X with support and guidance from mentors.

If you choose option 2 (and I predict most of us will), and then if you reread the post that started this thread; I'm curious if, in the process, you become more sympathetic to that original author's feelings about pits where mentors appear to be doing most, if not all of the work.

For the life of me I can't think of one good reason why the mentors shouldn't bust their humps teaching (through mentoring) a teams' students as much as the students can/will absorb before/during a build season and tournaments; and then, at the tournament continue to support the students, but let them hold the reins.

Notice that I didn't say doing something else is bad. I did attempt to express that I can't think of any reason why intentionally striving to do something else is better (please remember option 1 and 2 above).

Blake
PS: If someone wants to point out a significantly different third option, I'm listening. Don't let me fall into the trap of viewing this through the lens of a false dichotomy.

[Cory]

Not to dwell on the subject, but since about 3-4 weeks of your season are spent designing (I think you told me that at SVR), how many engineers does 968 have?

Zero. They have a handful of college students as well.

[EricH]

Folks,

Whether the original author realized it or not, making a point about students vs mentors in the pits (and extrapolating backwards from that point into the build season) was the core of the original comment. Let's please temporarily forget that the author muddied up the water by extrapolating forward from the pit situation to winning/losing on the field.

With that in mind, would someone please explain to me which of the two possibilities I list below describes the "better" FIRST scenario.
Option 1) Mentors draw on experience to do X; and students learn by watching and asking questions.
Option 2) Mentors teach students how to do X; students do X with support and guidance from mentors.[...]
PS: If someone wants to point out a significantly different third option, I'm listening. Don't let me fall into the trap of viewing this through the lens of a false dichotomy.Option 3): Students do all the work with little to no mentor input.

Personally, option 2 is better and best. Working with my college-level Aero Design team, this is what we use to teach freshmen. The older students show the younger once or twice. They then check to see if the job is done right. If not, they explain why.

I can see why the OP didn't like what he saw, but what we don't know is:
a) Did he talk to the students on those teams?
b) Was their pit the way it was described for the entire competition (i.e. was this only temporary)?
c) (muddy water zone) Did those teams win awards, do well in matches, etc?

Consider a) and b) a direct question to the OP. I will explain why I asked upon an answer.

[Michael Corsetto]

Thank you Karthik and Steve W. for clarifying what Dave meant. This is one of the reasons why I love CD, there are mature adults, from another country, willing to clarify the questions that I have, as well as give supporting evidence for their argument.

I'm starting to see what Dave meant now, how if they are available, mentors are an amazing resource and should not be turned away. I think coming from a team that got fairly random sponsorship from companies/organizations that had no engineering help to offer, finding mentors was difficult. I know there is a function on usfirst.org that allows teams to post if they would like to be mentored, but I can't comment as to if it is helpful or not. If anyone has first hand experience with this resource please post about it, I'd like to know about it.

Along with what Dave said, is it fair to assume that entirely mentor built robots are missing the point as well? Because I've seen this method of running a team described as being entirely in accordance to FIRST's mission, and personally, I don't agree, knowing what Dave said as well as reading FIRST's mission from usfirst.org.

This is probably one of the more controlled mentor/student threads I've read, thank you everyone for keeping your comments positive and productive.

Mike C.

PS. I would like to hear the opinions of students from majority to completely mentor build teams, as most of the high school students posting on this thread come from student based teams. Just another vantage point I'd like to learn more about.

[lukevanoort]

I don't really care one way or another. I can see arguments for both methods (entirely student-run, and entirely mentor-run), but I think they are moot arguments. Before I say why I think they are moot arguments, I'll say what the arguments I can come up with each are:

I feel that students would miss out on some things with entirely mentor run teams. If the mentors make the design decisions, and all the students do is build it, then the students are missing out on learning a valuable skill - how to collaborate with others in the design of something (software, drive systems, transmissions, whatever). Students just learn machining. While machining is a valuable skill, as KenWittlief once said, FIRST isn't advanced shop class. Thus, I think students on entirely mentor-run teams miss out. I also don't think many, if any, teams are operated this way.

Entirely student-run teams instead miss out on learning from experienced and knowledgeable engineers. Just like in school, it is hard to learn about engineering when you lack a teacher. On the other hand, they gain the valuable skill of making use of (limited) resources to figure something out independently.

Now, back to my point. Both of the above arguments prove nothing, and are effectively meaningless. This is because both are predicated on the idea that FIRST is solely about learning engineering. FIRST is really about changing the culture to one where science and technology are celebrated, and making careers in engineering and science cooler than careers in sports and entertainment. Put simply, FIRST is about inspiring a populace. Personally, I think having the mentors teach students to design the robot, and then having the students do the actual design work results in the most inspiration; however, this is just my opinion, and as long as a team is inspiring, I couldn't care less how they do it. Whatever method they choose, the team is living up to the vision of FIRST and fulfilling its goals.

Now, I'm going to briefly mention a different issue that has been brought up in this thread. People often say FIRST isn't about the robot, and I disagree to a certain degree. The robot is a powerful tool of inspiration. Many of us have seen little kids look at a FIRST robot in awe/amazement/wonder/etc., and I highly doubt those kids would be just as amazed by a bunch of people standing around with lots of knowledge and great teamwork skills. Using the robot to achieve an ends - inspiration - is a very important part of FIRST, and to do that you need a robot. I didn't say a successful robot, just a robot. Our 2007 robot didn't win any awards, and it didn't play in any elimination matches. However, I don't think any of the kids who have watched in amazement as it whizzed around at demonstrations scoring tubes really cared how it did on the field. For that moment, technology was awesome, and those who built the robot were even cooler. Add up little inspirations like that and, regardless of how a robot does on the field, the robot is successful.

[Jim E]

I'm all for teaching the students my knowledge of robotics. At every opportunity I try to get them to do the dirty work but they have to be taught to do the job correct. This requires hands-on from the mentors.

Our robot designs have consistently been from the engineering work performed by mentors, and consistently built by both students and mentors. Asking students to figure out complex equations for 'WORK' may be asking a bit much given their school schedules and knowledge. They are right there though when it comes to fabricating parts, wiring electronics, and programming the robot.

Some may see mentors in the pits fixing problems, but more often than not, mentors are trying to determine the root cause of failure to derive efficient repairs to prevent future failures.

There is nothing in FIRST that mandates that students are responsible for robot designs. This is a TEAM effort. To expect a HS student to perform complex mathematic scenarios taught in Post-HS courses is ludicrous. The Team mentors should do everything possible to explain design decisions to the students and teach them the concepts of the design.

Team Mentors should keep in mind that we are there to inspire the students, not dictate to them. Share you calculations and concerns with the team members. One of the students may just blindside you with brilliance when it comes to a simple solution.

My personal observations are the teams that consistently win regionals are the teams with the best organizational structure. They all take their roles on the team serious and specialize in certain feilds of study.

Lastly, Mentors like to play with robots too. We willingly give up our free time to perform a service to the team. All we ask in return is a little play time:)

[SL8]

I don't really care one way or another. I can see arguments for both methods (entirely student-run, and entirely mentor-run), but I think they are moot arguments. Before I say why I think they are moot arguments, I'll say what the arguments I can come up with each are:

I feel that students would miss out on some things with entirely mentor run teams. If the mentors make the design decisions, and all the students do is build it, then the students are missing out on learning a valuable skill - how to collaborate with others in the design of something (software, drive systems, transmissions, whatever). Students just learn machining. While machining is a valuable skill, as KenWittlief once said, FIRST isn't advanced shop class. Thus, I think students on entirely mentor-run teams miss out. I also don't think many, if any, teams are operated this way.

Entirely student-run teams instead miss out on learning from experienced and knowledgeable engineers. Just like in school, it is hard to learn about engineering when you lack a teacher. On the other hand, they gain the valuable skill of making use of (limited) resources to figure something out independently.

Now, back to my point. Both of the above arguments prove nothing, and are effectively meaningless. This is because both are predicated on the idea that FIRST is solely about learning engineering. FIRST is really about changing the culture to one where science and technology are celebrated, and making careers in engineering and science cooler than careers in sports and entertainment. Put simply, FIRST is about inspiring a populace. Personally, I think having the mentors teach students to design the robot, and then having the students do the actual design work results in the most inspiration; however, this is just my opinion, and as long as a team is inspiring, I couldn't care less how they do it. Whatever method they choose, the team is living up to the vision of FIRST and fulfilling its goals.

Now, I'm going to briefly mention a different issue that has been brought up in this thread. People often say FIRST isn't about the robot, and I disagree to a certain degree. The robot is a powerful tool of inspiration. Many of us have seen little kids look at a FIRST robot in awe/amazement/wonder/etc., and I highly doubt those kids would be just as amazed by a bunch of people standing around with lots of knowledge and great teamwork skills. Using the robot to achieve an ends - inspiration - is a very important part of FIRST, and to do that you need a robot. I didn't say a successful robot, just a robot. Our 2007 robot didn't win any awards, and it didn't play in any elimination matches. However, I don't think any of the kids who have watched in amazement as it whizzed around at demonstrations scoring tubes really care how it did on the field. For that moment, technology was awesome, and those who built the robot are even cooler. Add up little inspirations like that and, regardless of how a robot does on the field, the robot is successful.

I wrote out such a nice paper, but then I read your post and said," I just have to say I agree with him.":)
But seriously I (almost) completely agree with you.Unfortunately, I don't have time to write out my only disagreement.
Well said.

[E. Wood]

As I posted earlier in this thread, The mission statement of First is to change the world. Last time i checked the world included high school students, younger students, as well as adults (aka mentors). There are a lot of people out there that dont respect what engineers do or that just dont know. While FIRST's goal is to inspire young people, it will be much easier to do that if we also inspire all the older people as well. Its their support that keeps FIRST going, allowing FIRST to continue to inspire.

[gblake]

To expect a HS student to perform complex mathematic scenarios taught in Post-HS courses is ludicrous.A colleague once told a co-op that it is easy to teach anyone (who has an ability and desire to learn) PHD-level subjects; so long as the material taught is kept "narrow" enough.

He then did exactly that by teaching the co-op the specific parts of some complex sonar material that the co-op needed to do his job.

I was both impressed and enlightened.

Blake

[MrForbes]

To expect a HS student to perform complex mathematic scenarios taught in Post-HS courses is ludicrous.

that's funny, because on our team, the students do all the math, because they still remember how!

[Richard Wallace]

When I was eight my dad showed me how to play chess. He didn't have much experience teaching chess, but he was an educator and he did one very important thing right -- he refused to let me win. It took me a few years to get good enough to beat him.

I expressed my opinion (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=533020&highlight=hammond#post533020) about teams with strong mentor-based leadership in one of the earlier threads on this topic. I'll excerpt a part of that here:... while it is true that many of 71's student members don't work on the robot, it is also true that many do. The standard they are held to is a very high one -- to work on the BEAST it seems you don't have to be a professional, but you do have to behave and perform like one. While this model of teamwork may not be the best for every team, it sure seems to work for 71. It is hard to argue with success, and 71's success is an inspiration not only to its own students but to all of the FIRST community.

Most older mentors (and some enlightened younger ones ;) ) want the pre-college students on our teams to challenge our ideas. I would always prefer to build a robot the way my team's students want it built. The only time that mentor intervention is justified (for me) is as an emergency measure, to head-off failure to compete.

I like e e cummings' poem about the dynamic between youth and age. I liked it three decades ago when I was armed with enthusiasm and arrogance, and I like it now that my tools more worn and my judgement tempered by hard lessons. old age sticks

old age sticks
up Keep
Off
signs)&

youth yanks them
down(old
age
cries No


Tres)&(pas)
youth laughs
(sing
old age

scolds Forbid
den Stop
Must
n't Don't


&)youth goes
right on
gr
owing old

[=Martin=Taylor=]

There is nothing in FIRST that mandates that students are responsible for robot designs. This is a TEAM effort. To expect a HS student to perform complex mathematic scenarios taught in Post-HS courses is ludicrous. The Team mentors should do everything possible to explain design decisions to the students and teach them the concepts of the design.

Wait.... You mean other teams use MATH to design their robots!!!?? :eek:

[Colin]

Do the math!

[Andy Baker]

There are many thought spinning in my head at this time. I will try to communicate them clearly.

I will pose observations from 2 points of view:
1. as an engineering mentor on a well funded, high resource team
2. as a volunteer inspector at FRC events since 2001

1. I've witnessed FIRST since 1992. I can honestly say that there is a higher percentage of student involvement in the design and building of these robots now than there was in the beginnings of FIRST. FIRST was not started as a high school robotics design competition. It was (and still is) a competition for teams of mentors and students to work together, using a robotics competition as a tool to change the culture. Back in 1994, the XCats won the Chairman's Award for explaining how their team empowered the students by mandating that the adults and students worked together on each task (instead of just adults). 10 years ago, it was unique to see a student-empowered team. Now, it is commonplace. Students are doing more... but they are still being mentored by technical professionals. Mentors are getting better at inspiring by empowering while still inspiring by doing.

I recall my second year as a full-time mentor on team 45, when I was amazed by the student leadership shown by Daniel Lehrbaum on team 192. He was doing things that inspired me as a young engineer. This taught me to empower kids on my team more, letting them do more and show their skills. Now, the students on team 45 run the show... doing things that we would not have imagined they could do 10 years ago. But still, we mentors are involved, doing our best to inspire.

2. The second viewpoint is from that of a volunteer robot inspector at FRC events. I've probably done this role 16-20 times since 2001. I greatly enjoy the interaction I get with the students. These days, it is commonplace for students to be the only ones to converse with the inspectors as we go through the technical aspects of the robot. Most of the time, the students know all of the ins and outs of the robots. Actually, it gets very clear, very quickly, regarding who the lead students are in this case.

In years past, back in 01, 02, 03, students performed worse during inspections. Back then, a higher percentage of students seemed to know less about their robot. Now, there are some teams who still struggle at this, and mentors need to help get them through inspections, but this is a rarity (and it also shows us inspectors that the team had minimal student empowerment).

So... from these two perspectives, I can attest that things have changed in FIRST. While mentors are still involved, more students are doing more technical work on a higher percentage of teams.

While it is frustrating to many to see only adults working on a robot, it seems to happen less and less, in my opinion. Adults are still there, mentoring, while the students are right along side them, as the XCats told us how to do it back in 94. While I don't think it is bad for mentors to be working on a robot, I think it is better for them to include a student in the process.

Often, I walk into our robotics shop and challenge myself... "what are you going to do to inspire today?" Maybe it will be designing... maybe it will be teaching... maybe it will be only listening to a teammate's story. I love the fact that there are no restrictions on what a mentor can do for a FIRST team (well, except drive the robot). Yes, we do need reminders once in a while.

While I don't agree with Dan's original post that it is non-gracious for engineers to do so much, it is good to have this discussion publicly. We all learn.

Andy B.

[Woody1458]

I'm all for teaching the students my knowledge of robotics. At every opportunity I try to get them to do the dirty work but they have to be taught to do the job correct. This requires hands-on from the mentors.
Does it? In school did the teachers right your reports, or did they just tell you how and give general rules?
Our robot designs have consistently been from the engineering work performed by mentors, and consistently built by both students and mentors. Asking students to figure out complex equations for 'WORK' may be asking a bit much given their school schedules and knowledge. They are right there though when it comes to fabricating parts, wiring electronics, and programming the robot.
Design is my favorite part! I couldn't imagine having that taken away because the adults believe me incapable of doing it. Not to mention one of the qualities most sought after in America is creativity and design. We keep out-sourcing our fabrication but our think teams stay here. I also don't like the idea of being "right there" it seems like you are just doing it for them again, maybe some times telling them what to do. Look at my sig for an idea of what I'm saying
Some may see mentors in the pits fixing problems, but more often than not, mentors are trying to determine the root cause of failure to derive efficient repairs to prevent future failures.


2/2 It seems that your mentors keep taking my favorite jobs! Can you not trust the students to figure it out? Or at least bounce ideas off your students so they understand how thought process works in speed engineering. Were not as dumb as you may think, chances are we think of something you guys don't
There is nothing in FIRST that mandates that students are responsible for robot designs. This is a TEAM effort. To expect a HS student to perform complex mathematic scenarios taught in Post-HS courses is ludicrous. The Team mentors should do everything possible to explain design decisions to the students and teach them the concepts of the design.


No, To define a HS students mental capacity based on his/her age then set limits for him/her is ludicrous. Students only designed our robot this year (hurdler) with nothing more then trig functions, some work/energy formulas I learned in Honors physics, and deductive reasoning no where outside the reach of any HS student especially since we have no seniors.
Team Mentors should keep in mind that we are there to inspire the students, not dictate to them. Share you calculations and concerns with the team members. One of the students may just blindside you with brilliance when it comes to a simple solution.


How I would rewrite this sentance

Team students should keep in mind that we are there to learn from the Mentors, not dictate to them. Share you calculations and concerns with the team mentors. One of the mentors may just blindside you with brilliance when it comes to a simple solution.
:P


My personal observations are the teams that consistently win regionals are the teams with the best organizational structure. They all take their roles on the team serious and specialize in certain feilds of study.

Lastly, Mentors like to play with robots too. We willingly give up our free time to perform a service to the team. All we ask in return is a little play time:)

You can have your play time, after us. You've had your education let us have ours. Jim I'm sorry to be so frank but pretty much everything you described in the way you team is run is what I work so hard to keep from happening to my team.

[Alan Anderson]

Anyone can watch Westcoast Choppers and see adults build things, but FIRST is great because it encourages kids to do the building and adults to do the watching.

Um, no. FIRST encourages mentors to show students what engineering is and how rewarding it can be. FIRST encourages teams to establish ways for students to be inspired by what is possible.

FIRST does not, either explicitly or implicitly, "encourage kids to do the building".

Telling an inner-city team that they don't "get it" because they don't have engineers does no one good.

It's the teams who choose not to have engineers as an important resource, and who are proud of that choice, who "don't get it."

If completely student built robots are blocking off an entire avenue towards inspiration and learning, how is it not true that completely mentor built robots are as well.

Oh, that's easy. The I in FIRST stands for Inspiration. Are you not inspired by a well-designed, well-engineered, well-built, effective, game-winning machine?

Come to think of it, you probably are not. Based on your stated dislike of powerhouse, dominating, game-winning teams, I suspect that you'd be likely to resent a competitive robot that you didn't build yourself. If so, I would have to say that you "don't get it". This isn't supposed to be about building robots and winning competitions. It's about being inspired by robots and successes, whether or not you built them or won with them yourself.

[DanTod97]

Very constructive woody, couldnt have said it better myself.

[Karthik]

Jim I'm sorry to be so frank but pretty much everything you described in the way you team is run is what I work so hard to keep from happening to my team.

This year at the Florida Regional, Jim's team was selected as the winner of the Regional Chairman's Award.

The Chairman's Award represents the spirit of FIRST. It honors the team that, in the judges’ estimation, best represents a model for other teams to emulate, and which embodies the goals and purpose of FIRST.

It's too bad that what you see as negatives, are what FIRST celebrates and encourages. I'm not saying you need to change your ways, but perhaps take some time to think about the model presented by Team 1523.

[DanTod97]

Um, no. FIRST encourages mentors to show students what engineering is and how rewarding it can be. FIRST encourages teams to establish ways for students to be inspired by what is possible.

But its not at all about actualy learning how to do it?



Oh, that's easy. The I in FIRST stands for Inspiration. Are you not inspired by a well-designed, well-engineered, well-built, effective, game-winning machine?

Of course I am, we decided that those two subjects are completely seperate though (montor built robots and winning robots), and I beleive there are ways you can inspire someone with an excelent robot. (more in other thread if you want to continue that)

[E. Wood]

On the note of learning i would like to point something out. As a college student, i do a lot of watching and alot of learning. As a matter of fact this summer I have an internship with an engineering company, which involves just following engineers around and watching them work and doing a little bit of work myself. This summer I will learn many things just by watching and some things by doing. My point is that while it may not be ideal, students can learn just by watching. Ideally, a student will watch first and do second. Think about it. In school the teachers always shows you how to do it first and then sets you lose to try it on your own.

[DanTod97]

It's too bad that what you see as negatives, are what FIRST celebrates and encourages. I'm not saying you need to change your ways, but perhaps take some time to think about the model presented by Team 1523.

I dont think he was attacking the entire way the team is run, just the specific things Jim described, which specifically had to do with the way mentors treat the build-time

[DanTod97]

On the note of learning i would like to point something out. As a college student, i do a lot of watching and alot of learning. As a matter of fact this summer I have an internship with an engineering company, which involves just following engineers around and watching them work and doing a little bit of work myself. This summer I will learn many things just by watching and some things by doing. My point is that while it may not be ideal, students can learn just by watching. Ideally, a student will watch first and do second. Think about it. In school the teachers always shows you how to do it first and then sets you lose to try it on your own.

Well as long as that "doing" part actually gets fully in there one way or another.

[Woody1458]

posters remorse

[James Mullenax]

I have been with team 1629 since the team has been started... i was reading over these comments and i will agree... just because you see what is going on in the most hecktic times at the comps DOES NOT mean that the robots are completly mentor built. this just means that the mentors can fix the problem quicker because they are more experianced... if your arm, shooter, claw etc. breaks between a match you only have a few mins to get it up and running again... its a compitition no one likes to lose but i dont believe anyone has gone undefeated forever we all lose which means no team is COMPLETELY dominate no matter who works on the robot for instance (not saying they are mentor built just avery good robot!) we competed against team 1024 a GREAT robot they won i think 3 regionals BUT our alliance did beat them in our first match again EVERY TEAM IS BEATABLE ITS A LEARNING EXPERIANCE

[Vikesrock]

Mr Anderson I have had respect for your posts in the past, and I do believe you a great man. However the idea that your local school has a FIRST team so that you and your adult buddies can build robots and show them to students is absolutely ridiculous. There are plenty of engineering competitions out there designed towards adult involvement. Innovate or Die, ROBOGAMES http://robogames.net/ to name a few. Go join one of them and allow us to participate in one of the few HS targeted competitions available. Do you honestly think wining these competitions has anything to do with anything? If FIRST could give us a pill that taught us engineering and inspired us in science I'm sure they would save their money and just do that. If there are any students reading this thread who have a team that works like this talk to your mentors! There is a better, more fun way! You don't have to sit back and do nothing. I can tell you its more exciting to see your design fail then to see your mentor's work. There is a better way.

I recommend you talk to some of the students that have been Technokats before you tell Mr. Anderson what is right and wrong. I am sure that if you PM Kyle Love or Eric Schnabel (sn Schnabel) or any of the other Technokats active on CD they will be happy to talk to you about their experiences with the team.

I have never met anyone, mentor or student from 45, but I really hope to run across a few of both in future.

[E. Wood]

The "doing" part can be many different things. It does not have to be the actual building of the robot or fixing the robot at competition even though once agian this is ideal. The 'doing' part really is just using the knowledge you have gained through the experince.

[EricH]

I dont think he was attacking the entire way the team is run, just the specific things Jim described, which specifically had to do with the way mentors treat the build-time
Which is part of how the team is run...

I'm actually inclined to agree with both.

Jim is right--it's not reasonable to expect a high school student to do college-level or post-grad work. That said, there are high schoolers who do college-level work. So Woody has a point there...and I myself have designed a system using basic trig.

But Woody seems to be describing a team without any mentors. Jim is describing a team with many. (Note: this is an assumption based on the respective posts.) So which is right? Both.

The ideal team is a balance between the two. Students who don't know the concept/math/whatever that the mentors do are taught what the mentors know and then apply that knowledge. My first introduction to integral calculus came before I learned about differential calculus. One of the programmers taught me the basic method while he worked out a problem.

I defintietly agree with this statement, though:Team students should keep in mind that we are there to learn from the Mentors, not dictate to them. Share you calculations and concerns with the team mentors. One of the mentors may just blindside you with brilliance when it comes to a simple solution. Mentors should also remember: we are there to teach, not to dictate. Share your calculations with students and answer any questions they have. Students can have brilliant solutions too. Be ready to learn from them.

I remember a case where I came up with a solution to a problem, but a mentor simplified the solution. I also did a design for another mentor who had built a prototype but didn't know how to do it in Inventor. So it can go both ways.

In ideal reality, there should be no mentor/student debate. It should be that a team builds the robot, a team made up of both students and mentors, equal treatment and authority. Unfortunately, reality isn't ideal, so we have this debate.

[Andy Baker]

You can have your play time, after us. You've had your education let us have ours. Jim I'm sorry to be so frank but pretty much everything you described in the way you team is run is what I work so hard to keep from happening to my team.

I dont think he was attacking the entire way the team is run, just the specific things Jim described, which specifically had to do with the way mentors treat the build-time

Mr Anderson I have had respect for your posts in the past, and I do believe you a great man. However the idea that your local school has a FIRST team so that you and your adult buddies can build robots and show them to students is absolutely ridiculous. There are plenty of engineering competitions out there designed towards adult involvement. Innovate or Die, ROBOGAMES http://robogames.net/ to name a few. Go join one of them and allow us to participate in one of the few HS targeted competitions available. Do you honestly think wining these competitions has anything to do with anything? If FIRST could give us a pill that taught us engineering and inspired us in science I'm sure they would save their money and just do that. If there are any students reading this thread who have a team that works like this talk to your mentors! There is a better, more fun way! You don't have to sit back and do nothing. I can tell you its more exciting to see your design fail then to see your mentor's work. There is a better way.

Now just stop. Alan is indeed a great man, and one of my heroes. I suggest you do 3 things at this point:

1. Realize who you are talking to. You are already insulted 1523 (a Regional CA team from this year), and now a 17-year FIRST team who has done a thing here and there for FIRST.
2. Go back and read this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20776): Pay special attention to posts #7 and #10, and then read from there. My reply on that thread will probably be overshadowed by Alan's reply here, as he is more of a tactful and articulate than I am.
3. Re-read this thread, and start listening to what others are trying to say to you.

I'll tell you this... if you think that FIRST mentors should shut up, step back, or go away, you are in the minority.

Heed well your words.

Andy Baker

[James Mullenax]

woody1458... just because a mentor wnats to build an excellent robot doesnt want to DESTROY the competition. 99% of the time the students come up with the design and the mentors help make it work "using the experiance they have" i will agree i believe that you are in no position to be "attacking" the ways other teams produce a robot if a mentor helps biult it so what the students had to strive to get mentor and sponsor help to make these team possible

[DanTod97]

I have been with team 1629 since the team has been started... i was reading over these comments and i will agree... just because you see what is going on in the most hecktic times at the comps DOES NOT mean that the robots are completly mentor built. this just means that the mentors can fix the problem quicker because they are more experianced... if your arm, shooter, claw etc. breaks between a match you only have a few mins to get it up and running again... its a compitition no one likes to lose but i dont believe anyone has gone undefeated forever we all lose which means no team is COMPLETELY dominate no matter who works on the robot for instance (not saying they are mentor built just avery good robot!) we competed against team 1024 a GREAT robot they won i think 3 regionals BUT our alliance did beat them in our first match again EVERY TEAM IS BEATABLE ITS A LEARNING EXPERIANCE

Well I feel if they built it, they would most likely be able to fix it just as quickly with an equal amount of mentor help as before. I also feel these are the moments that are the most fun and where the thick of these great experiences are found. I also understand that there are many scenarios and good reason mentors may be the only ones working on the robot at a specific time, I was just using it as an example, perhaps not the best one.

[Woody1458]

I am sorry. I have overstepped in the way I have phrased my posts. I do not wish to offend anyone, or say that there is a right or wrong way to do something as involved as run a FIRST robotics team. While I do stick to my opinions, I regret the sharp and sometimes insulting terms with witch I have described them. I hope that my words have not detracted your opinion of me my team, or my opinions. Again I am sorry.

[E. Wood]

It should be that a team builds the robot, a team made up of both students and mentors, equal treatment and authority.


I agree completely. If only the world was perfect.

[AdamHeard]

I've been through seasons where I didn't have a choice; I had to do the work without mentor help. I've also been through seasons with plentiful mentors that really knew what was going on.

Fact is, I'd take the mentor help as much as I can.

Look at the base that 294 and 687 used for 2007. That was designed off season by a mentor from each team with input from me. I discussed with them what I liked concept wise, and they did the details. Once they got it done with me watching, I quickly learned and made it my own; I designed better wheels for it and a 3 motor gearbox. After that, I fully designed an awesome (I really think it's warranted) 6WD that 294 made as a prototype and as their season base for this year.

If I had just set out on my own to build an awesome base, I wouldn't of got there nearly as fast. But the fact that I knew nothing in terms of actual detailed CAD design 2.5 years ago, and can now turn around and teach a student on the teams I mentor how to do the same thing, really says something about the process.

[Jared Russell]

Um, no. FIRST encourages mentors to show students what engineering is and how rewarding it can be. FIRST encourages teams to establish ways for students to be inspired by what is possible.


Is the reward of seeing your own sweat and blood operate on the field not as inspiring as seeing someone else's succeed?

Oh, that's easy. The I in FIRST stands for Inspiration. Are you not inspired by a well-designed, well-engineered, well-built, effective, game-winning machine?


Of course I am inspired, but watching engineers succeed in a design challenge should be expected. That's why they are engineers. The Inspiration part can come from closing the gap, in seeing that "hey, I can be an engineer too".

I want to make it clear that my opinion is not the one of the original poster. I have tremendous respect for teams like the Technokats, and I believe that they are one of the few true model FIRST teams.

I'm just trying to say that there is no one single path to success in FIRST, and that while a team without engineers is missing out on a big part of the experience, a team (with some engineering guidance) that lets the kids make some of their own mistakes has just as valid an approach.

[MrForbes]

I finally got a student to teach me the very basics of Inventor, and I cadded the crate this year! woot!

[James Mullenax]

Originally Posted by EricH
"It should be that a team builds the robot, a team made up of both students and mentors, equal treatment and authority."

Couldn't have said it better myself... To reiterate what was said thats the ideal situation in a perfect world!! again thats not the only ways its done but what makes a differance the students a learning(mentors for that matter too) EVERYONE has a GREAT time and the TEAM wins!!!!!

[DanTod97]

I want to make it clear that my opinion is not the one of the original poster. I have tremendous respect for teams like the Technokats, and I believe that they are one of the few true model FIRST teams.

well it sure sounds like what im trying to say...

[Jared Russell]

well it sure sounds like what im trying to say...

You seemed to say that mentor-run teams are wrong.

I say that student-oriented teams are right, too.

Maybe it's just semantics, but there is a difference :)

[DanTod97]

Now just stop. Alan is indeed a great man, and one of my heroes. I suggest you do 3 things at this point:

1. Realize who you are talking to. You are already insulted 1523 (a Regional CA team from this year), and now a 17-year FIRST team who has done a thing here and there for FIRST.
2. Go back and read this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20776): Pay special attention to posts #7 and #10, and then read from there. My reply on that thread will probably be overshadowed by Alan's reply here, as he is more of a tactful and articulate than I am.
3. Re-read this thread, and start listening to what others are trying to say to you.

I'll tell you this... if you think that FIRST mentors should shut up, step back, or go away, you are in the minority.

Heed well your words.

Andy Baker

If any of whats being said here is taken as an insult then people are being way too defensive or are looking to get offended, feeling of moral superiority? Im going to go with the first one.

[DanTod97]

You seemed to say that mentor-run teams are wrong.


Originally, yes, but if youve read my more recent posts, I realized it was two separate issues I was confronting.

[James Mullenax]

If any of whats being said here is taken as an insult then people are being way too defensive or are looking to get offended, feeling of moral superiority? Im going to go with the first one.

Well ALOT f kids Take FIRST with the upmost pride... you being one of them or you wouldnt get soo defencive...

If you WOULD go back and read what you have posted you will understand how some team can take what you say as offensive its not them with the problem it sounds like...

[DanTod97]

Well ALOT f kids Take FIRST with the upmost pride... you being one of them or you wouldnt get soo defencive...

If you WOULD go back and read what you have posted you will understand how some team can take what you say as offensive its not them with the problem it sounds like...

So they arent able to accept the idea that they're team might not be run 100% perfectly?

[Jared Russell]

I think it's time that we should all go to bed now...

Summary of this thread:

Student: Student-run teams work.
Mentor: Mentor-run teams work, too.

Then 10 pages of arguing even though at the core I don't think anyone really disagrees here.

That said,

BED TIME!

[Travis Hoffman]

I agree completely. If only the world was perfect.

It isn't, but that doesn't mean teams of all configurations can't incessantly strive to seek that perfect equilibrium where adults and students get to "play with robots" and equally benefit from the experience.

I'm sure most mentors would love to have more eager and dedicated students to learn and work alongside them, as I am also sure most students would love to have more technical mentors to guide them along and accelerate their understanding and proper application of the engineering design process. Individual teams are challenged to find creative ways to push their programs toward this balance. So many lament how absolutely hard it is for them to "motivate students" or "get more mentors". But there's always a way. As someone said in a thread earlier today, "Nothing is Impossible!!!" Let me append to that the cautionary ".....unless you never bother to try."

Because for all you polarized opposites out there, how are you student-only students going to REALLY know how having more of those icky design and build time-stealing mentors will affect YOUR team.....how are you mentors-mainly mentors going to know how dealing with more of those pesky students who DON'T want to merely sit back and watch - who want to DO more - will affect YOUR team unless you actually GIVE THEM A CHANCE?

Don't knock it until you've tried it. See how "the other side" operates. Keep an open mind and LISTEN. You may be surprised at what you discover.

[James Mullenax]

So they arent able to accept the idea that they're team might not be run 100% perfectly?

Well it seems that you cant admit that you team may not be perfect either...

NO team is perfect not yours not mine not anyones... we are all just trying to be the best we can be and have fun in the process!

[DanTod97]

BED TIME!

Agreed.

[E. Wood]

I think it's time that we should all go to bed now...

Summary of this thread:

Student: Student-run teams work.
Mentor: Mentor-run teams work, too.

Then 10 pages of arguing even though at the core I don't think anyone really disagrees here.

That said,

BED TIME!
I agree.

Im tired and my bed.... well its calling me. Calculus III is never fun with less that 8 hours of sleep :) .

[DanTod97]

Well it seems that you cant admit that you team may not be perfect either...


I never said anything of the sort, I never got offended, I hardly even consider this an argument rather than a discussion.

[s_forbes]

oof. This thread is like a car wreck, I don't want to look, but...


Really this is one of those issues that is best worked out as a compromise of the two extremes. The students don't learn much about how projects are engineered in real life if they just build robots on their own. In fact, they don't learn too much of anything. (this part failed! I guess it just wasn't strong enough...) You need the mentors there to tell how things work, and why they work that way! It's difficult to learn from just experience when the knowledge you are trying to absorb is so incredibly vast.

On the other side of things, having mentors build the whole robot without keeping the kids in the loop doesn't teach anything either. I doubt there are any teams that actually take this route, but obviously it doesn't do much inspiring if the kids don't get to play.

You need a mix of these extremes, though how you mix them depends on the team. I'm a fan of the 'kids get ideas, mentors suggest design philosophies, kids implement them, kids get design reviewed/criticized, repeat' strategy. This year has run incredibly smoothly for our team. We get ideas, the mentors advise, the kids get building, and the process repeats. I don't think we could have had a better build season. It actually ran so well that I don't think a mentor ever had to even touch the robot in the pits during the competitions; the students had it all under control!

I finally got a student to teach me the very basics of Inventor, and I cadded the crate this year! woot!

That's coming from team 1726's one and only mechanical mentor!

[James Mullenax]

I think it's time that we should all go to bed now...

BED TIME!

AMEN to that my bed is also calling me...

Goodnight TO ALL

[waialua359]

Bed time?
I just got home from work!
No more issues now with our arm shaft.
Ready for Atlanta.

I guess the best solution is to agree to disagree. :P

[EricH]

I agree with the bed time. I should really be thinking about doing that right now...

I also think that we will need to agree to disagree. The best way to get a balanced opinion is to try both methods. I don't think that'll happen for a while.

[Bharat Nain]

I know I will be analyzed and called-on for this post but I am going to post it anyway. Instead of arguing any points, I will simply provide my experience on team 25 where mentors are involved in running the team. I do understand your point about mentors taking too much control on some teams and not letting the students work. I have seen it happen and every team has their issues. However, it is part of the challenge to overcome such obstacles and learn to find a balance. Not everyone will be happy but someone has to be the bigger person and step down or up as needed.

Our high school does not have a metal workshop or any machining capabilities. We have tried to find ways to get machinery but it has been unsuccessful as of yet. Therefore, we worked hard to find a sponsor long time ago and attract other tradesmen into our team. We actually had to work to get these people interested and it was no free lunch. At our sponsors place, the students are not allowed to touch any machinery due to liability issues. Therefore, all the machining is done by the tradesmen who take their precious and valuable time usually outside of their normal working day. This is not particularly fun for them and if the students could do it without them, I am sure they would gladly let them. They also have a family and other things to take care off.

When I was a student, there were times I was at the shop and there was nothing for me to do except observe the tradesmen cut parts or weld something. At this moment, I never felt as if I was being deprived of any important experience. If anything, I was inspired and delighted to work with them. The important thing to me was not working on the robot (to an extent). Being around people with a strong engineering background provides many other benefits. By talking to them, I learned about the reasons why they did certain things and how they did it. They would also teach me why they aspire to certain qualities. For example, the wiring on our robot is extremely strict. We spend the extra bucks to buy good quality stuff that will never fail on us. You might think that we do this only for competition. However, these tradesmen do the same for every single project of theirs. The important thing here is to learn the fact that they care about doing high quality work and producing a high quality product. If I was on a student only team, I would use whatever was most popular. I am not criticizing or judging any student only teams, but rather I am trying to point out that I learned something about the thought process that involves making a high quality product in the real world. The most important thing I learned being around BMS tradesmen is their thought process behind everything. This is what really matters and this is what really got me to stick to robotics. It is an honor and a privilege to work with these guys. The learning experience is second to none and I would not trade it for being on any other FIRST team in the whole world.

This is not to say that students do not work on the robot. If you ask students of our build crew this year, they will tell you that they can put together our base together in less than 1 hour if the parts are cut. This is because they have done it so many times during the build season that they really do know what they are doing. Is this important to me? No, not the slightest bit. I have no doubt in my mind that if they simply hung around our engineering mentors, they would learn a lot. The BMS tradesmen have always been very particular about providing our students with the best possible experience. Year after year, they try to give the students work that they would enjoy. When I returned as an alumni, they would not let me do the things I used to enjoy. Instead, they would make sure I teach what I learned to some of the upcoming members.

Our standards to work on the robot are also very high. We try to let as many students as possible get their hands in the grease but if they do not qualify, they are not allowed. Why? Because quality matters and this is a part of the real world training. The students know they have to earn and work their way up. When we build the robot, our objective is to build the very best and the students know this. Therefore, they know they have to work for it. And they very well do.

The guidance provided by our mentors is probably one of the most invaluable thing out there. For example, at the beginning of build season when all the ideas are taken into account, it is up to the tradesmen to decide on the best design. Sometimes, we start of testing multiple things. If we were simply students doing this,, we would probably end up testing too many ideas that would never work. This is a good learning experience but I'd rather hear it from someone with experience that an idea would not work as opposed to have to go through the pain of figuring it out. Our team always likes to remain competitive like many others and some years it is our game and other years it is not.

In short, we work extremely hard with our tradesmen to build a good robot and remain competitive. So why is this important? If you are the team next to us jealous that our robot looks like it was bought out of a catalog, then you are completely mistaken. The students were involved. The awards we win every year and not for the purpose of boasting to the rest of the world about how great we are. Because of these awards, we are able to gain a ton of support from our school, board of education, town, and now the state. We are also able to get the word out to many media sources and corporate sponsors. So why is this good? Because we are established enough to handle all of this. Few short years ago we established RPM (Raider Parent Mentors) who are in charge of NEMO kind of stuff. When are have the success to make an impact, RPM is ready and armed to use the potential force and turn it into kinetic force. I am not going to go in depth on this but to paraphrase, this is how our team gets the word of FIRST out. 10 years ago, no one would have had a clue that a robotics team existed in our town. Today, 2008, a huge portion of the community has heard about us from one source or another and they are mighty proud of it. Winning has only helped our cause and we have used it wisely. I am not saying this to boast but rather to illustrate an important point. Mentors are an important portion of our team. Without them, it would be INCREDIBLY hard to keep this going year after year. This is what Dave was talking about at kickoff. This is a part of changing our culture and mentors are the ones who are making something happen for us. Because of an established mentor group, our team can provide the very best experience for all our students. They are not spoon fed but they are extremely well directed. It only helps us to keep the inspiration flowing year after year after year. More students want to join our team every year and it is getting hard to handle. This would not be possible without mentor intervention.

So back to the original point, I do understand what you are saying about too much mentor intervention. I hope you understand that this is a tiny issue when you look at the big picture. There is always a way to work things out and the important thing is to improve the quality of the experience for the students, mentors and the community. This is about making an impact. This is not about winning an award or two. If your team has not won an award, do things that would make your team happy. Do things that would make your team productive enough to make an impact. Don't worry about the teams who did horrible or did too good or have a catalogued robot every single year. If you want a better robot, work for it. There are tons of resources and even a student run team can use examples from past years. The important question is - is your team willing to work together hard enough to build that robot? The important skill is not building the robot itself because I strongly assure you that it can be learned. There are too many examples in FIRST to prove that. The important issue is the team organization, working together, ethics, morale, impact, etc etc.

With this, I will end. I hope you can think beyond these petty issues and look at the bigger picture. They are way more important things you can do with your time and energy than argue in this thread. If you want a competitive robot, find a way to build one. If you want a sponsor, work hard to find one. There are always answers. It might take some time and things will not always be pleasant. They have never been for us either. However, you will only be happy when you have done your absolute best. Good luck and keep the big picture in mind.

[Ben Mitchell]

(Who cares that it's an anonymous account?)

From a personal perspective, I'd rather have a student dominated team than one with a lot of hands-on mentors.

I think students learn more by doing things themselves, and in addition, can be proud of what they have done. I think some teams go a little overboard with adult mentors.

My personal philosophy is that adults should be there to teach. I do not use a tool unless it is to show a student how to use it. If I am ever to run a FIRST team, that will be a rule for all adults.

Some teams have large budgets, some teams have very limited resources. That is not something that can be controlled. The playing field is not level. Even with the best strategy in the world, teams that can have every part of the robot designed by professionals and CNCed to a tenth of a millimeter have an advantage over a low-budget team working in the high school wood shop, fundraising each year to make funds for next year's entry fee.

That being said, my advice would be to get what you can out of the program: what you get out is what you put in. After competition, dismantle your robot and build a new one to do something else - practice building and programming and wiring things up. That's how students learn, and that, at least, is my objective. I would rather have a student built, low budget robot that students can honestly, truly say that they have worked hard on and built, than have a “high-quality” robot that goes to three regionals and wins matches, yet was put together by adults who were interacting minimally with students. It reminds me of student work that was obviously done by the parent who then tries to tell their child that they should be proud of the project as if the child did the work.

Ownership is more important than anything - if students own something, they can be proud of it, no matter what it looks like or how it functions. If the students don't own it, than the project is a charade. A big, expensive homework assignment getting turned in for a grade rather than being done for the sake of learning. If the students are capable of doing it themselves, they should be. If they are not, then a mentor should teach them so they can do it next time, or if that is not possible, then teach them so they understand, so that in the hypothetical situation where they would need to do that process, they would. Getting the students involved in any capacity is what the program, from a broad perspective, is about.

The program is not about kids building robots.

The mentors versus students argument is so dependent on circumstances and individuals that it's impossible to come at it with anything beyond a personal philosophy of how you want things run.

I would not say that the students who have a lot of support and mentors dominating the team are learning more, though they have the potential to. If adults have dirty hands at the end of the day and students are not involved, or are involved only in the periphery, then I would say that something is not right and that team should take a step back and reevaluate their priorities. I think students gain a lot more by doing it themselves: the worst case scenario is failure, and if mentors act like a safety net, that won't happen. That is my philosophy.

Sure, some teams have the advantages of a massive budget or a team of designers, and having those teams in the same competition as teams scavenging parts out of the junk heap makes the competition, taken at face value, very uneven. I think the biggest point that the original poster was striking here is the disparity between team resources. Part of this is alleviated by material and money restrictions, but those are easily bypassed – the result is an uneven playing field, in which resources play a larger part in determining the outcome of the season than designing and engineering.

However, that is the nature of this competition. This isn’t a question of GP – there is no GP. GP is an invented term with a subjective definition. It isn’t real – it exists only as an overarching construct that people can use to guide their actions and their mentalities. GP only applies to you and no one else. This goes for everyone. It shouldn't be used as a shield or a weapon. This also goes for everyone. It is a threadbare and tattered banner that need not be waved around so casually. In my opinion it shouldn't be waved at all. Telling people what they are doing is or is not GP is like arguing over religion. Completely pointless.

That being said, the nature of the competition will not change, and trying to change it is like trying to change the course of a river with a grapefruit spoon and a bucket. Concentrate on making the most of what you have and learning for it's own sake. Try and pick up some scholarship money too. There is no solution to the issues that were aired in the original post.

As another note to this whole mentor and student thing: mentors are important to teach students how to do things Mentors are hugely important to help students learn...by teaching them. Although I feel that students should do the majority of the design and work on the robot, they need some guiding light or they will get lost. What I am against is a team of mentors making decisions that override the wishes and ideas of the students. That contradicts my philosophy of "ownership." I've been in that situation some years ago and it wasn't a good experience for me as a student.

Successful teams aren't just successful because they have resources. A lot of them, in fact probably most of them, would be successful and do what they are doing even without something like the chairman's award to shoot for. It's not right to look at successful teams as products of their sponsorship or mentors. Teams need mentors in some form or another - even if they aren't real-life engineers. Some of the best mentors I've had in FIRST didn't belong to companies or hold engineering degrees. Some teams can't machine things, as noted above. In which case the robot would need to be built without student hands, but there’s a lot more going on than the robot.

I wouldn't get hung up on the competition.

At least that is my perspective.

[Alan Anderson]

...the idea that your local school has a FIRST team so that you and your adult buddies can build robots and show them to students is absolutely ridiculous.

That idea is indeed ridiculous. It's also a good example of a straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

There are plenty of engineering competitions out there designed towards adult involvement.

FRC is one of them. Didn't you know?

To inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering, and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

[JaneYoung]

Well, I left this thread and CD last night after reading a couple of the wise posts by Karthik, thinking things were moving along well.
Boy, what a surprise.

There are many attitudes that can be displayed by a FIRST member, a FIRST team. Arrogance seems to have tied itself closely to this thread in some of the posts. Usually with arrogance, there is ignorance.

Andy Baker linked us all to one thread in his post, highlighting just one example of the impact that FRC 45 has made on the development of FIRST - inspiring everyone with the innovative engineering and the can-do attitude of Gracious Professionalism. Andy could continue to link us to threads highlighting FRC 45's impact on FIRST and then he could create new threads. He won't but he could.
--
Regarding what is wrong with anonymous posting - it can create distrust and doubt = dis-ease. The ChiefDelphi community is built on trust, support, and integrity - just as many FIRST teams are because of their team members' contributions.

[DanTod97]

(Who cares that it's an anonymous account?)

Apparently brandon here cares, because its not anonymous anymore.

[GaryVoshol]

254 is one of the teams blessed with a cadre of amazing volunteers. My team is another. But many teams - and especially newer teams - simply aren't there yet.Another post has pointed out that 254 specifically does not have a plethora of engineers. I'd suggest that any team that does, find one of the have-nots and loan them an engineer or two, for a Saturday afternoon or the whole season if need be.

Whether the original author realized it or not, making a point about students vs mentors in the pits (and extrapolating backwards from that point into the build season) was the core of the original comment. Let's please temporarily forget that the author muddied up the water by extrapolating forward from the pit situation to winning/losing on the field.The first time I ever saw a FIRST pit was in Houston, when FLL was allocated a crowded corner of the Astro Dome. Coming from FLL, where students are supposed to do all the work, and seeing a pit with 6 individuals, the 2 students holding up the robot so the 4 mentors could work on whatever was broken - let's just say I was less than impressed. I have since come to realize that may have been an isolated event at competition. Not isolated in that I've never seen it again. But isolated in that it happens at competitions. Time constraints often dictate that the best person must work on the robot to get it fixed, and we've only got 20 minutes before we have to be headed to the Queue. That doesn't mean the students never worked on the robot and only watched or held parts for 6-1/2 weeks. While there may be such a team around, I'd guess that even the most mentor-oriented teams don't fall into a 100%/0% built ratio.

Someone mentioned design as being a favorite part. In my opinion, students absolutely must be involved in the first aspect of design - concepts. A team needs to use all the minds available to come up with all the ideas possible. Students and mentors alike need to be part of brainstorming sessions. Decide what part of the game is most important. Define what you want the robot to be able to do.

Then go on to the next part of design - figure out how to build it. Here, mentoring might be most important. Mentors have a history of knowing what has worked in the past and what hasn't. Teams can save weeks of useless effort wandering aimlessly toward an unknown design goal. It doesn't have to be a mentor's idea - a student might come up with, "Remember how Team X did it at Y Regional two years ago?" The concepts a team wishes to execute have to be based in solid engineering principles, or you'll have a bucket of parts that keep falling off. Mentors most often, not always but most often, have the experience that will help guide the team in the correct direction.

One of the most satisfying times for Team 1025's parent and engineering mentors was a weekend afternoon midway through build season. We sat in chairs in a semi-circle as students in several groups worked on multiple projects, for the robot, pit and Chairmans. We were happy to let them run without intervention for a couple of hours at least. 9 of those 14 students will be graduating this year, so maybe next year there won't be an opportunity like that. The team may need more hands-on mentoring by showing rather than mentoring by monitoring. But for that day, it clicked. Oh yes, one of the groups was working on our unique arm/tower design that was designed by one of the mentors.

[IndySam]

I've been thinking about this thread for a while and the recent comments about team 45 have inspired me to comment.

We have some powerhouse teams here in Indiana and after my first year I had the same feeling as the original poster, especially about teams like 45 and 71. I was a bit frustrated when I saw their resources and designs and I knew that there was no way that students could have built these robots.

Once I was exposed to the adults and students in these programs I realized how wrong I was. These teams inspired their students to do great work, even if adults were doing a great deal of the design work, the benefits to the students on these teams were obvious, especially when you spend time and talk with the students.

People like Andy Baker and Alan Anderson have taught and inspired me how to work with and teach our students and if you have seen the progress team 829 has made you will see that direct effect.

Four years ago I had the attitude of having the students do everything was the correct way to go. Now I know you let the students do what they are capable of and teach them how to do more. Sometime by helping them do it and many times by doing it and having them watch.

One of the things successful teams do is manage their resources well. There are years when you have students that are great at design and some seasons you don't A good mentor will adjust how much of the work he does depending on the students capabilities. Some years a mentor will help a student refine their design and some years the same mentor is doing all the design but using that design to help teach his next crop of student designers. The same goes for electrical programming mechanical and team administration.

Lastly about the GP of these powerhouse teams. You really learn about GP when you are at a regional and a Big All comes to your pit because he noticed you had electrical problems and wanted to see if he could help, when you are at the championship and a Alan A come to see if you need programming help because he saw you had questions on CD. When a Paul C shares a great tip about improving your drive team without being asked, when a member from a 234 hears you need an expensive part and they give it to you without hesitation.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

When I was in high school, we kicked the mentors away from the robot design. We wanted to be a 100% student built team. We built a couple of decent robots, and won a few awards. When I was in high school I hated "engineer built" robots, so I know exactly how you feel. I was there.

When I went to college and started "mentoring" teams (a new team, and my old team under new management) I met some people who have forgotten more than I will ever know. This was a huge reality check and ego shock.

I can attest that mentoring is probably the most important aspect of this program. Even as a "mentor", I am still being mentored by engineers who work with the team.

Now, most of the students who I was with in high school have graduated the program and never looked back. They go to competitions on Saturday and complain to me about mentors on other teams working on the robots, just as we did when we were students.

And now it is clear to me that we didn't really "get it". Dave was correct. Very correct.

For all of you who think that "student run" is the best way to go.. why don't you put your ego aside and try talking to a professional engineer. Invite them to your build sessions. Ask questions. Sometimes what they say may seem backwards to you, but believe me what you say seems backwards to them. You NEED engineers' help! I cannot stress this point enough.

[Joe Matt]

For all of you who think that "student run" is the best way to go.. why don't you put your ego aside and try talking to a professional engineer. Invite them to your build sessions. Ask questions. Sometimes what they say may seem backwards to you, but believe me what you say seems backwards to them. You NEED engineers' help! I cannot stress this point enough.

I totally, 100%, "I'll buy you a beer when you are 21 for saying that", agree with you. I'd post this on a giant poster, and march around the Georgia Dome plaza with it.

BUT, I think that what many people (including myself), see is that the OP was talking more about teams where the "mentors" huddle around the robot and shout at the students to get tools (at best); where this is their train set, and even though it had juniors name on it while under the tree, it's really for daddy.

I think what we need is what you described. A team where students work with mentors, both taking a back and front seats at the appropreate times, to create a robot, and so both can learn from eachother. That's what FIRST is. Not a robot that is scraped together by a bunch of teens, and not a rocket science bot that only a engineer for 15 years could have built and dreamed up.

To quote one of my brothers, "Moderation in all that you do."

/me tosses $.02 into the pond

[DanTod97]

For all of you who think that "student run" is the best way to go.. why don't you put your ego aside and try talking to a professional engineer. Invite them to your build sessions. Ask questions. Sometimes what they say may seem backwards to you, but believe me what you say seems backwards to them. You NEED engineers' help! I cannot stress this point enough.

So Im on an ego trip because I have a different veiw of what method is best for learning...

You also seem to just say that you changed opinions when you became a mentor. Thats alright, but I hope you dont consider your opinion more valid just because of the fact that you are a mentor now, because as you said before, alot of students still felt as you did.

[JVN]

I won't tell you how to run your team, and I hope you won't presume to tell us how to run ours.
What would give anyone the right to do something like that?

It is great to be proud of the way you do things, but to imply that everyone should match your way of thinking, is ludicrous.

To offer an opinion is fine, to demand that others adhere to your opinion is laughable.

Why should we care what your opinion is?
Why should you care what my opinion is?

This is an agree to disagree issue; anything else is silly.

-John

[Billfred]

You also seem to just say that you changed opinions when you became a mentor. Thats alright, but I hope you dont consider your opinion more valid just because of the fact that you are a mentor now, because as you said before, alot of students still felt as you did.Alternate theory: Tom realized what he was missing in an all-student arrangement when he stepped outside his normal stomping grounds and the experience has made him better for it (in addition to changing his tune, which he is now humming for the group).

Experience is a wonderful thing. From my own experience, I can tell you that the best way to learn from folks to gain that experience is time. (The second-best way, as my signature indicates, is to have a lot of Amtrak points saved up...but that goes back to time.)

[Molten]

I have to agree with the original post to an extent. Often times, mentors do over step their bounds and do more of the work that the students should be doing. I am not saying that the mentors/coaches should sit around and do nothing. It is just my personal opinion that the students should do most of the work. And yes, that is an opinion. So, please don't go on quoting me about my opinion. To all of you out there, just think about whether or not you are overstepping your bounds. I'm not saying that you should change anything. Just keep in mind that it is possible and try not to do it. Granted, everyone's bounds are different. For instance, one mentors bounds might be not milling the parts, while another's might be just not controlling their robot themself. I am not saying that this is happening, I just think it is a serious possibility that all coaches/mentors ought to keep in mind.

[DanTod97]

Why should we care what your opinion is?
Why should you care what my opinion is?


I feel like that should be part of trying to be GP. And i never demanded anyone feel the same way as I do about anything.

[dez250]

I am not going to comment directly to this conversation, but would like to put out a challenge directly to both Dan and Woody.

Dan, your team, 97, if history repeats itself, is supported by MIT. I am going to challenge you on a time you have free, to visit and have a conversation with a bright professor there in room 3-435. He is insightful and i believe would be able to answer some questions and ideas you have on this topic.


Woody, the challenge i have for you is based off of a post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=674020&postcount=27), from you, earlier in the year.

A little disappointed with our brain trust this year (I can only say that because I am design team head), we only came up with 2 plausible ideas, and are full-size prototyping one right now. Should have a robot mapped out (hopefully CAD'ed) by this friday.

From how it sounds, is that your team is all student based and run, with a direct lack of adult engineering support. I challenge you for over the summer to find an [even just one] engineer to support your team. Beyond this I suggest that you take your current students and new mentor(s) and redesign your 2008 robot to see what areas you can improve on. This work will help mold your team to know how to interact with adults for 2009 and to a point where you will see what insight an engineer can assist with.

[JVN]

I feel like that should be part of trying to be GP. And i never demanded anyone feel the same way as I do about anything.

I am reminded of the phrase:
"A vote says more about the voter than the candidate."
An opinion says more about it's holder, than about reality.

GP mandates that I listen to your opinion, not that I give it any credibility. Credibility is not free. It is the burden of the opinion holder to give it credibility.

Everyone must make their own decisions about who's opinions to give credibility, just as I have.

True maturity is when you find a differing opinion, and you can accept it, even if it does not change yours.
Live and let live, my friend.

-John

PS - You're not the only one who has had unique perspectives on FIRST.

[DanTod97]

GP mandates that I listen to your opinion, not that I give it any credibility. Credibility is not free. It is the burden of the opinion holder to give it credibility.

So you dont consider the opinion that students can learn from building WITH mentors help, and not mentors help alone a credible opinion? I dont think that opinion is too unique.

[JesseK]

True maturity is when you find a differing opinion, and you can accept it, even if it does not change yours.
Live and let live, my friend.

-John

PS - You're not the only one who has had unique perspectives on FIRST.
I think everyone has (or will have to) faced this particular challenge at some point.



====

My opinion on the two matters concerning mentors and the competitive levels of competition: learning & experience curves are exponential. If you want to take a group of students and let them fumble around when the curve is flat, then you're more than welcome to. However, if you inject them with the knowledge & experience of a few mentors and let the students learn by teaching and by example then those students will be much further along in their learning than they would have been without the mentors. It then becomes apparent why teams that follow this process are very successful on and off the field: they're much further along in the curves. Go figure, this is one of the main FIRST principles that is repeatedly emphasized at kick-off.

Not only does this apply in the build season, but it also applies on the competition fields. Allowing an adult mentor as a coach gives the students an opportunity to learn from someone who is leading by example rather than leading by lecture. My personal opinion on field coaches (I am one so maybe it's biased) is that if an adult isn't the coach then you better have a very mature student as the coach. If you want to actually be high-caliber competitive at the competitions, you will need someone who can handle the pressure and thought processes that need to occur to be successful, as well as be proactive in the preparation of strategies for the matches. The first step to a student being able to coach well is that he/she must want to coach and not to drive...unfortunately many students simply do not understand the difference (and most will never read this post either...)

[DanTod97]

I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that if a student does not have anyone to teach them they will learn. What I am arguing is that If that teacher does most of the work for them, that they will not. (or atleast not as much)

[Dave Flowerday]

Nit-pick: lots of people on this thread keep talking about "learning". I'm all for the students learning through this program, but that is not a goal of FIRST (really!). If you don't believe me, please cite a specific source from FIRST that says anything about FIRST's objective being to "teach". I'm pretty sure it's not there. As others have pointed out, FIRST's material only talks about inspiration.

Oh, and I'd like to repeat Karthik's call for anyone to name me a robot that is 100% mentor-built. I don't think they exist, but I could be wrong. I'm willing to bet, though, that a lot of people hold that misconception about my team (and BTW, if you do think that about 111, take some time and browse our gallery (http://www.wildstang.org/gallery2) - you'll see plenty of pictures of both students and mentors constructing/working on/repairing our robot).

[Weis]

There are some teams that were at the Great Lakes Regional who were yelling at some of us for standing for our team. Now I am a member of Purdue FIRST Programs so I was there to help and root for three teams. These people behind us were irate that we would stand. That wasn't GP but, it got worse because they kept muttering under their breath at us and doing the little *cough* *downinfrontwecan'tseebecausewehavenoteamspirit* *cough*. That all needs to stop.

[Vikesrock]

I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that if a student does not have anyone to teach them they will learn. What I am arguing is that If that teacher does most of the work for them, that they will not. (or atleast not as much)

I am going to ask some potentially really stupid questions here, but I think they need to be asked.

1. Do you think there are any teams where mentors do 100% of the work for the entire build and competition and students just drive it?
2. If so, is this observation based on seeing this team at competition or have you talked to their students or gone to their build sites?

If you got through #1 and #2 and you have a team that you have talked to or observed during build and competition that is 100% mentor built then maybe you need to speak privately with that team as they are far from the norm in FIRST.

[JesseK]

On the other side of things, having mentors build the whole robot without keeping the kids in the loop doesn't teach anything either. I doubt there are any teams that actually take this route, but obviously it doesn't do much inspiring if the kids don't get to play.

I've only been in FIRST for a grand total of 4 years (incl. this build season), but what I have noticed is that most students that drive mentor-only built bots is that the students have no feel for the mechanical limitations of the bot. Therefore that type of team rarely does very well. Those kinds of teams do exist *cough* one our rookie team neighbors at VCU *cough*, but you rarely hear about them.

Time constraints often dictate that the best person must work on the robot to get it fixed, and we've only got 20 minutes before we have to be headed to the Queue. That doesn't mean the students never worked on the robot and only watched or held parts for 6-1/2 weeks. While there may be such a team around, I'd guess that even the most mentor-oriented teams don't fall into a 100%/0% built ratio.
A co-worker commented on a photo of our pits this year at VCU and the fact that there were 2 students and 3 mentors working on the bot...why weren't there more students? He didn't accept the explanation I gave him, which is exactly in line with what you've stated here.

I found a photo for him and quieted him though; during the build season on the Saturday right before ship date we have a photo of 9 pairs of hands working on the bot. It wasn't an intentional or posed photo...it just so happened that there were 9 different things that could be done in parallel at that given moment. 7 of the 9 people were students, and it wound up that one of the mentors was just holding something in place (hate to say this, but many mentors are also physically stronger than most students...).

[Weis]

I've seen some robots that I'm sure highschoolers could not have built by themselves. I don't know from talking to their mentors but I have eyes and they seem to be fairly reliable at this point. As for *all* of the work... that I can't say for sure but I would say that their mentors did some serious work.

[AdamHeard]

I've seen some robots that I'm sure highschoolers could not have built by themselves. I don't know from talking to their mentors but I have eyes and they seem to be fairly reliable at this point. As for *all* of the work... that I can't say for sure but I would say that their mentors did some serious work.

Wow, you seriously underestimate what a high schooler can do with a good mentor to help and guide them. Also, isn't that part of the point? For high schoolers to do things they "could not have" by themselves?


I really don't get this argument in general..... I wasn't a student that long ago and I definitely would not have liked working without help from engineers. I don't get it, is it a pride thing? A jealousy thing? Self taught can only go so far, an engineer will be able to teach you so much more and inspire you even more so.

[DanTod97]

Oh, and I'd like to repeat Karthik's call for anyone to name me a robot that is 100% mentor-built. I don't think they exist, but I could be wrong.

I dont think 100% student built robots exist either, but if they do, it would be alot more impresive to me then a 100% mentor built robot.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that if a student does not have anyone to teach them they will learn. What I am arguing is that If that teacher does most of the work for them, that they will not. (or atleast not as much)
And I say what does that matter? If the students in question are inspired to pursue a career in science or technology, then hasn't the program fulfilled its goals? Remember, the competition is a means to a end.

[Vikesrock]

I've seen some robots that I'm sure highschoolers could not have built by themselves. I don't know from talking to their mentors but I have eyes and they seem to be fairly reliable at this point. As for *all* of the work... that I can't say for sure but I would say that their mentors did some serious work.

Appearances can be deceiving. The 254/968 bots look like they were designed and built by a team of NASA engineers (not at all the case as stated previously in this thread) while many robots that have teams of mentors look like garbage.

Your eyes observing a robot are not a reliable indicator of that team's makeup or organization.

[Weis]

[QUOTE=AdamHeard;730544]Wow, you seriously underestimate what a high schooler can do with a good mentor to help and guide them. Also, isn't that part of the point? For high schoolers to do things they "could not have" by themselves? QUOTE]

I'm not saying that if high schoolers receive help it's bad. There are some robots though that make me wonder how much work the high schoolers really did or if they even helped with the design at all.

[JaneYoung]

I dont think 100% student built robots exist either, but if they do, it would be alot more impresive to me then a 100% mentor built robot.

You would really like the BEST program.
It isn't 100% but it is closer to your vision of a robot build/competition.

A wise person once said there are many different trees in the forest. FIRST may not be the tree that fits what you envision, BEST might be a closer fit. I don't think there is BEST in MA - but hey, you could make it grow.

[AdamHeard]

Weis, why not go talk to one of those students that was active on the team about it?

We can speculate all we want, but nothing can replace actually talking to those teams.

I dont think 100% student built robots exist either, but if they do, it would be alot more impresive to me then a 100% mentor built robot.

there are plenty of 100% student built robots. There would have to be as I have run into many teams with no mentors and just a teacher/advisor who really can't doesn't help with the robot.

Now, I've worked with teams like these; despite winning the coveted DanTod97 impression award, they were generally very unhappy with their FIRST experience and weren't very much, if at all.

Now, I've also worked with kids on 294 (and formerly was one) who worked alongside real engineers (students still did most of the design, not without mentor help though), and were introduced to lots of actual industry at Northrop Grumman. Through the team students have been given internships at NG, and this has lead many to pursue math, science and engineering as a career path.

So, please, please tell me why the students on this team are less impressive?

[Vikesrock]

I dont think 100% student built robots exist either, but if they do, it would be alot more impresive to me then a 100% mentor built robot.

I saw one right next door to me in the pits at MN. It was decent, but definitely not impressive. The students were also not having a very good time as their software didn't work right and they had gotten it from another local team that wrote their own custom libraries (likely because they didn't have a software mentor to help them write their own code).

[DanTod97]

And I say what does that matter? If the students in question are inspired to pursue a career in science or technology, then hasn't the program fulfilled its goals? Remember, the competition is a means to a end.

So FIRST is only allowed to have the one single effect of inspiration? Wouldnt it be great if learning was integrated with the inspiration so they have a head start for their aspiring careers?

[DanTod97]

I saw one right next door to me in the pits at MN. It was decent, but definitely not impressive. The students were also not having a very good time as their software didn't work right and they had gotten it from another local team that wrote their own custom libraries (likely because they didn't have a software mentor to help them write their own code).

Thats a pretty negative attitude. But yes of course they could have done better with mentor help, which is why I said before "I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that if a student does not have anyone to teach them they will learn."

[Weis]

Weis, why not go talk to one of those students that was active on the team about it?

We can speculate all we want, but nothing can replace actually talking to those teams.


Because a student on the team is not going to tell me that their mentors did all of the work. Might the conversation go...
Weis says, "Excuse me guy, did you have mentors build your whole robot?"
To which Brandon McStudentson replies, "Not all of it, Dave put on that zip tie and Fidel but on that screw."
surprised Weis says, "Oh, my mistake"

Don't be naive or offended. I was just making a point.

[JesseK]

Nit-pick: lots of people on this thread keep talking about "learning". I'm all for the students learning through this program, but that is not a goal of FIRST (really!). If you don't believe me, please cite a specific source from FIRST that says anything about FIRST's objective being to "teach". I'm pretty sure it's not there. As others have pointed out, FIRST's material only talks about inspiration.

This is a valid point, so I'll (respectfully) nit-pick back. In my opinion, I believe that learning and inspiration in the realm of FIRST come full circle to each other, at least during the build season.

I do believe mentors can be inspired by students just as much as the other way around. The more students learn the higher chance they'll have in inspiring their mentors and other students because there will inherently be more avenues to take on the way to doing so. I (and I don't think I'm alone here) would really love to see a student-driven idea on a bot much more than I'd like to see a mentor-based idea, even if the student's idea is mentor designed and cooperatively built. This coincides with building student self-confidence (which stems from inspiration) which leads to students trusting their own ideas and creativity. However, if the students have learned more already by having mentors teach (and/or inspire) them, then there is a much greater chance that a student-driven idea will have greater success in a bot on the competition field. Many of the interviews with Woody or Dean have stated some of these exact words, so while learning may not be an "official" cited goal of FIRST I do believe it is a goal nonetheless.

And on a more fun note... the more students know, the less likely their ideas will fight the universe or require the *poof* from a magic wand.

[AdamHeard]

Because a student on the team is not going to tell me that their mentors did all of the work. Might the conversation go...
Weis says, "Excuse me guy, did you have mentors build your whole robot?"
To which Brandon McStudentson replies, "Not all of it, Dave put on that zip tie and Fidel but on that screw."
surprised Weis says, "Oh, my mistake"

Don't be naive or offended. I was just making a point.

Wow.... If that wasn't completely made up, I don't know what is....

EVERY single powerhouse team I at one time suspected of being mentor (I'll be the first to admit I was immature, jealous and naive once. Well, at 19 can't say I'm not anymore, but I'm better) built had proven me wrong.

I went to their pit, to their team, wherever and talked to them for a bit. Sure, at first you may not get the student that worked his $@#$@#$@# off who is a bit bitter and claim students did nothing.... but you will ALLWAYS be able to find the student(s) on these teams that can tell you everything about the robot 'cause they worked their $@#$@#$@# off alongside engineers to build the best and learn the most. Also, coming up and asking that is a far to accusational tone to get a positive response.

I can't make it to championships this year because of class, but how about at championships 2009 or IRI this season you and me take a walk around the pits and talk to some teams? I'll buy you a dozen krispie kremes/cases of dew for each team that is mentor built and you can buy me one for each 25 that aren't. I'll still end up with more donuts and dew.

[jacob07]

I dont think 100% student built robots exist either, but if they do, it would be alot more impresive to me then a 100% mentor built robot.

Our robot isn't 100% student built, but its close to 95%. The only thing that the students didn't work on were the newer kids learning how to weld, use our mill, and the lathe. But after they learned, they were able to do most of the work. Also bending some of the 1" sq. tubing, in that instance, most of them weren't strong enough to do it. Thats just my team though

[Brandon Martus]

This thread has grown very quickly .. let's let people read all the posts .. gather their thoughts, think about it, and then we'll unlock it later this weekend or Monday morning.

Let's keep the discussion of this topic in this thread .. so please do not create another thread to talk about student vs mentor built robots.

Moderators: unlock no earlier than Sunday, please.