Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I think the best argument against extending the season is this:

If it were extended, there are two options each team must choose.

1. Meet as often as possible/keep their regular build schedule that they used in the 6 week season but extend it for however many weeks possible. This would give that team the maximum competetive advantage and you can be sure that teams like 469 and 1114 will use this option.
2. Meet less frequently to avoid burnout. I spoke with our teacher advisor and asked him what he would do if the build season were extended. His response was "we'd meet three days less a week" (we currently meet 6 days a week). His logic was that we would need to help students, mentors and himself avoid burnout and lowering grades, and it is completely valid logic.

So in the end, if you're a team worried about mentor or student burnout maybe your team [or portions of your team - like your school administration] aren't quite as invested in the competitive aspect of FRC, you'll end up meeting less frequently or be forced back into a 6 week season.

We are currently forced into a 6 week hard limited build season with maybe 1 or 2 build nights after bag. We have to meet off site if we want to meet more frequently. Again, this is because our sponsoring teacher isn't terribly invested in the competitive aspect of the season. He knows that we can make an eliminations worthy robot with our current build schedule and does not see a huge increase in the impact of the program on students when the team wins or when they don't. So we are simply unable to meet as often as some of the students and mentors would like after bag.

Maybe this is an isolated case but I suspect it effects some other teams as well. It may not be their teachers but it could be their head mentor, their schools, their administration, their sponsor, their funding, the willingness of their students, their students parents, etc... that stops a team from meeting as much as their most dedicated members (who might be any of the aforementioned groups capable of blocking meetings!) may wish, and it is out of the control of those members.

I don't think we want to be increasing the gap between the elite teams and 'the pack'.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

174's Current build schedule:

We have split the team between "crews", and each crew meets at different days throughout the week. The days we have for work is Tuesday, Thursday and Friday after-school, 2:30pm till 8pm or later depending on the need. Saturday work sessions are from 9am till 4pm or later depending. We meet all of these days throughout the entire build season. We also have a group of students and mentors who work of site. These students/mentors work very long nights, typically around 11pm, on Tuesdays, Thursdays and other days the extra work is needed.

How we would deal with open build:

Rinse and repeat, only skipping a few days before our competition weeks. While we could deal with the additional school work hours, the off-site team (which is the biggest core of our build students and mentors) will be beyond burnt out.

We have already had a team discussion about mentor burn out before this thread was started, and I can say that I am very scared for our mentor sustainability if additional build time was given. That said, we can adapt - there are problems with our system as it is and working to fix it.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

1124's current build schedule:

We meet Monday-Thursday 6:30-9, Saturday 8-5, Sunday 12-5
This schedule runs from kickoff until we're done competing. The only changes happen when our school is on break (when we meet more often and for longer) and the Wed-Thurs after bag/ship day (which we take off to recover). Team members show up as they're needed and are pretty much free to make their own schedules and can choose their own time commitment; most members are there 3-4 days a week, but can be there more or less at their own discretion.

If we had an open build season, what would change? Probably nothing, or very little. We're already at the ceiling of the required commitment, and our existing schedule already burns us out (you should have seen me after CTR this year - I was an exhausted mess, but I digress). If anything, our stress levels would drop significantly. Not having to build a second robot would reduce budgetary and emotional strain. We'd get more practice time with the actual robot.

Now, I don't know if an open build holds all the answers, but I see some problems it would reduce (however, not being a mentor, I can't speak to all the unintended side effects that might arise, nor how it would affect mentors specifically). But with strict regard to 1124's meeting schedule, I think not much would change from the way it is now.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

Well, apparently not everyone is "burned out"...

A) You're still surfing Chief Delphi

B) 90+ teams have signed up for IRI

While the title of the thread is relating the six week build period to mentor burnout, I think Jim's posts have really helped me refocus my opinions on the six week build period to consider the teams with lower performing machines... many of whom are not on CD.

I'll go so far as to say that whether the build period is six weeks, or 52 weeks, some teams will continue to put in more time than others, and some mentors will continue to feel "burned out".

But if we look at how altering the six week build period might give higher performing teams more time to mentor and assist lower performing teams, and focus on making everyone better... well, the best antidote to burnout is success!

Jason

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I have one question for EVERYBODY who is advocating an open build season. And I do mean EVERYBODY. Let's see who can answer it before they get to the answer.

Let's assume for a minute, that an FRC build season allows everyone an equal time to build their robot (give or take a few hours due to time zones, etc), as it is set up now. I think we can agree on that--setting aside the practice robots, which of course any team can build in the time between bag and ship, or build during build and play with in that timeframe. Now, let's extend the build season--no bagging, no tagging, just show up with your robot. You are in a Week 2 event--your first. You are competing against a team from Alaska, a team from Hawaii, and 2-3 teams from Mexico, and the event is in Arizona. Which of those teams is at a DISADVANTAGE in terms of time in an open build season, given that nobody bothers to build a practice robot when they have their competition robot in their ship to work on?




I would bet you even money that the team from Alaska and the team from Hawaii had to crate their robots and ship them before the Week 1 events just to make sure that they arrived at their destination on time. The Mexico teams would not need to ship, presumably (though they might choose to if the distance was far enough), so they have no disadvantage over travel time.

In other words, I think the real purpose of the bag deadline is to help the international/long-distance traveling teams, of which there are quite a few, have even time with the rest of us. Remember, they have to ship their robots. Most teams don't. Compete in HI or Israel instead of building a practice robot, and I think you'll agree that maybe it would be a good idea to have everybody at the event bag up their robot at about the same time.



So, here is a proposal: Extend the build deadline ONLY to the date that teams who ship their robots to Week 1, or whatever the first week someone will need to ship to an event is, will need to have their robots in the crate. FIRST presumably knows, or can be informed, of that sort of date, give or take a day in either direction. Now, I'd say that MI, MAR, and Israel would be exempt, except that MI and MAR would then proceed to kick the rest of our butts even worse than before (sorry, guys, I like the district concept, but could you ease off on the rest of us until we get our own? :p ), and I'd rather not have only one area exempt.


Speaking of which, someone asked about how those opposed to this change stood on the district model. I was not opposed to the district model, per se. I was opposed to certain elements, namely the secrecy and the fact that other areas who had wanted to do something like this for a while were not allowed to do something similar (now the former is a moot point and the latter is more of a "they're going that way, but foot-dragging is popular").

However, the removal of a bag day is something that I don't see happening. Not yet. Extended build time, or an access period, sure. Complete removal? Give it a couple of years after the extension and access period type of changes to see how that goes over--just like the districts took some time to get rolling, and now there are 2, with rumors of anywhere between 1 and 5 more being explored for 1-3 years down the road.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

Isn't that when our stop build day already is? :D

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

When it was, you mean? Or did you get the memo that you don't have to put the robot in the crate and ship it to week 1 anymore? :p :rolleyes:

Actually, I don't quite think so. You could probably sneak a couple more days in for a close event. That's part of why I'm suggesting that bag day be whenever the first team that needs to ship to an event has to be in the crate to make it there. Whether that's Week 1, or Week 6/7! Imagine what havoc a variable-between-years bag date could cause!

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

Lets ask 359 how many days ahead they have to ship their robot for a competition in the states. I bet if you figure out when they would have to ship their robot for a week 1 competition, it would be the day or two after stop build day. Almost as if FIRST did that on purpose. :D

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I'm sorry I have to admit that I haven't read this entire thread, so maybe I've missed this part of the discussion. But it seems to me that one of the biggest "field-unequalizers" is the extra time that teams have to work on their competition bot, when they attend multiple competitions. Some of the teams we compete against have the resources to attend two or three regionals; we can't raise the $30,000 or so (maybe more) extra it would cost to attend an additional regional (we have to fly everywhere).

Now don't just say we should get out there and raise more money. We are in a small, poor rural community and are doing our best to try to expand our fundraising using the internet and other innovative ideas.

Even setting aside the extra robot driving time, competition practice, and the learning and motivating experiences of competitions, a team that can attend 2 or 3 regionals gets many extra days to work on their robot. By the time they get to their 3rd regional or Champs, they may have had the equivalent of an extra week or more of build/improve time. By being able to afford the extra entry fees and travel costs, they are "buying" more time with their competition bot unbagged.

Is this fair? Is there any way to mitigate it? Could teams that are attending only one competition get an extra "unbagged" day at their (only) competition, kind of like the extra hours given for the 2-day events? Has anyone suggested that?

For that matter, as we go to more districts, we may want to look at giving some advantage to teams that can't compete in more than one pre-champs event, to compensate for all the benefits of multiple competitions. More building time, more practice time, or something.

Oh, and for the record, I think that limiting the build time MORE than it is currently (e.g., leaving the 6-week build, removing the withholding allowance or cutting off firmware operability after SBD) would just result in even MORE inoperable robots, disheartened participants and other icky stuff. Bad idea (IMHO).

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I think it's fair as it is. I know what you mean, I would have liked an extra day back when we chose to only play one event. But that was a week 1 event, so it gives an uneven advantage against everyone else at their week 1 event too.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

As things have moved in the direction of "what would *your* team do", I'd like to state for the record the school rules require that any time any part of the team meets, the coach (that would be me) is required to be there... So it doesn't matter if it's the programming team only and I know nothing about programming, or if other students and mentors want to work with their groups in shifts, or a group wants to get together and make buttons when I'd rather be writing or reading or resting or doing yard work; if they're there, I have to be there. Every. Single. Minute. First in the door, last to leave.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why I look at the blessing of the withholding allowance (without which our robot would not have done nearly as well as it did this year) with a certain amount of seething, maniacal hatred, whereas others see it as nothing more than increased opportunity...

------------------

So, that's a side note. What I meant to post was this:

What this discussion comes down to is, "what is the purpose of extending the build season?" And follow-up questions should be, "are there other ways to fulfill those purposes?" Pros and cons, priority charts, etc, etc could be made, storms could be brained, data could be collected, and multiple solutions to perceived problems could be presented.

I'm not naive enough to presume that any group of this size will come to full agreement, but if we all got to thinking about what the perceived problems are, and what the possible solutions to those problems are, then we wouldn't be going round and round about extending build -- because I don't think we're even to the point where many agree on what the build extension is meant to accomplish, much less the negative side effects such as mentor burnout.

For example, when it comes to those teams that build nothing of use, I think there are a lot of things that can be done to help them become better... The bot in a box, where teams leave kickoff with a functioning drive train, is a fantastic resource, and any kickoff areas that are not currently doing this should absolutely be doing so, starting next year. If you start with a drive train wired up with a control system on day one, that gives you six full weeks to make some kind of useful manipulator... and if that's not enough time, then I don't see how eight or ten or twelve weeks will be, because whatever your problems are, they're much bigger and more critical than time. And thus, extending the build season is not a viable solution to this problem--and that means that arguments about do-nothing robots aren't good arguments for extending the build season.

On the other hand, when it comes to elite teams spending unnecessary money on practice robots and expedited shipping, I think extending the build season is a much more viable solution to these problems -- and indeed, I don't see any other way to make practice robots and expedited shipping unnecessary (though I'm opposed to doing it anyway).

...but if we can't agree on what the intended pros are, we aren't even at the place where we can discuss whether the cons are worth it.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I'll add one more personal tidbit about why we should not extend the build season, and maybe that will help some of you understand why many of us are against it.

My profession is a full time high-school teacher, teaching 5 classes with about 150 students total. I also like to help with mentoring a Lego robotics team at a local elementary school one day per week for much of the school year. I am also a Tech Leader for the school district which has about 6-8 meetings per year. Along with the teaching job, I am often wearing the hat of computer technician, machine maintenance technician, machinist, welder, procurement specialist, high altitude balloon chaser, and now auto mechanic and detailer (all associated with the teacher job).

In the fall and in the spring, I am a professor at the local community college two nights a week. This conveniently falls just before and just after the FIRST build season (by a matter of a couple days). Post-bag (like the day after) and before and during competition season, I'm teaching in a second job two nights a week. I already turned down teaching another class at both the high school and at the college, because I want the time for FIRST.

As a college professor, I make about $52/hr. As a teacher, even with the additional college class, I already don't make enough to afford a house in the area I work. Doing FIRST Robotics, I make about $1 an hour (stipend), but I do it because I want to, not for the money. I've already turned down a 20% pay increase at the high school (to do another class there) and $52/hr for about 4 hours a week to do another class at the college. So, you could say my future ability to own my own home has been hampered by my commitment to FIRST Robotics. Participating in FIRST Robotics costs me money. Lots of it. Even if I flipped burgers for the time I spent doing FIRST Robotics, I'd be at least $5000/year more wealthy. I don't necessarily mind because I love doing it, but let's be realistic here. To extend the build season any more, I would no longer be able to teach the one college class I do, which would cost me about $3500/yr, not to mention the mental and physical toll it would take. I'd like to retire someday.

There's only so much one person can give. Everything I do, I like to do well. I never like to give a half-hearted effort at anything. If I do it, I'm all in. There's no cutting back time in any of it to balance it all. Not in my world. If I can't do something well, I don't do it at all. The problem becomes that there are only so many hours in each week, month, and year.

I wasn't going to mention this to avoid starting any rumors, but I feel it's relevant so I will. At the Inland Empire regional, Frank Merrick spent a while talking to my team in our pit, and one of the questions he asked was "What would you think of a longer build season?" to which I replied "No! Please don't! We want to see our families!" I hope he heard me. Of course my students were all for a longer build season. I guess that's why we have teachers like me to set them straight. :D

Anyhow, I bet my case is not all that unique.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I am a big fan of the extended build season because I am reasonably confident I will spend an equal amount and in all likelihood less time working on the robot. What's the more efficient way to study, a 10 hour cram session right before the exam or 5 2 hour sessions spread out over the week?

The people in favor of an extended season I've talked with about this outside of this thread feel exactly the same way. We want to see our friends and families. Spreading the build season out over more time will let us put in as many hours without disappearing from our social lives (or least let us go home and take a nap occasionally).

I think there are very few people that want an extended build season so that they can put in more time. With the witholding allowance, FIRST basically gives you a permit to go nuts working for the whole competition season as is.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

This post is likely the single most compelling anecdote in the entire thread. It would be hard for anyone to argue against it...


Kudos to Sanddrag for all his hard work!

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

Participating in FIRST has forced me to stay at my part-time (second job) for almost 24 years and counting.:ahh:
**would've quit a long time ago**