Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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!!!!!

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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 :)

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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...

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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!

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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!

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Agreed.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I agree.

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