Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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: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.

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

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)

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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?

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.)

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I disagree.

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Again, nobody said otherwise. This means that there is not disagreement on this point. Unless you can find some?

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.)

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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?

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

6-8, all or almost all either in college or barely out of it, IIRC.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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:)

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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 about teams with strong mentor-based leadership in one of the earlier threads on this topic. I'll excerpt a part of that here: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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Do the math!

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Does it? In school did the teachers right your reports, or did they just tell you how and give general rules?
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
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
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.
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


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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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".

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."

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Very constructive woody, couldnt have said it better myself.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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



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)

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

posters remorse

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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: 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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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: 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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I agree completely. If only the world was perfect.

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 :) .

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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!

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Goodnight TO ALL

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

(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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

That idea is indeed ridiculous. It's also a good example of a straw man argument.

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Apparently brandon here cares, because its not anonymous anymore.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Gracious? Professional? Huh.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.)

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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.

Re: Gracious? Professional? Huh.
 

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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, from you, earlier in the year.

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.