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