Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

This is the exact flaw in your argument. Neither you nor I nor anyone else have any say in what is "right" for a team.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

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

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Folks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

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

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

Best regards,
Chris
Team 1983 - The Skunkworks

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I came across a post from November 2004 that describes GP as I've experienced in FIRST:
"Mentor-dominated" teams are more likely to meet these standards of GP than purely student-run teams. The "mentor-dominated" teams are more likely to share their talents, experience and knowledge because they want to see success for the FIRST program, not just their team.

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

Re: GP? I think not.
 

rise up to theirs

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

These folks are the absolutely aweSOME future of this program.