GP? I think not.
 

To start off I would like to say FIRST has been the best program I have ever participated in. I have learned more during my years in it then I have in anyhting else I have ever done, all while having the most fun I have ever had. On the other hand there is one major, consistent problem I have seen. FIRST is a high school robotics competition, so why are there so many teams that seem to have more adult mentors than students? why are there so many teams that seem that whenever in their pits, in pictures, or during time outs, there adults are the ones working on the robots, and they have a number of the adults gathered around the robot with one or two high school students? Well these same teams are the ones that year after year have highly superior robots to any other team. In a competition that prides itself in its "gracious profesionalism" there should not be teams that year after year just completely dominate all the way to the win, but not even at just one regional but sometimes two or three in one year, I find that completely rediculous and definitely NOT GP.

I know im going to hear many argue that FIRST is not about winning, well just stop being so cliche and understand that everyone still desires to do well and no one appreciates working so hard just to have some NASA engineered robot come along every year and beat them without even a slight hope of winning. I understand that the glory of winning eventually fades, and in the end it really is the experience that matters, but it is still a competition. Students spend six hard weeks building and working on something that they want to see succeed just as much as the teams im speaking of do. Its not exactly a great experience or in any way encouraging to put all that effort into something, just to go to the competitions every year to see which team super power is there to dominate them this year.

I think there are many teams that need to think about this and change the way they're team is run, and for the ones who dont, go and horde up all those trophys and banners each year, but make sure you have plenty of fun, because no one else is.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

This has been discussed so many times. Please use the search function! Also, guessing by the name, no team number, and 1 post that you are an anonymous account. Those are not allowed.

Anyway, I am sure there are many robots, built by students AND mentors, maintain by students AND mentors, and driven by students that win competitions. It is so much more than "oh my god their mentors do everything".

Experience, teamwork, and determination all play a bigger role than "mentor bots", in my opinion.

Also, I realize you have not once in your post stated that your opinions are "GP", but I would hope that you keep to your own high standards, even when posting anonymously...

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Really? I see everyone having fun at every regional I go to...

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Oh woops, I guess I'll go tell 1712 that we had a miserable time in Philadelphia because we lost to 103 in the QFs. My mistake...

Seriously though, this post is a slap in the face of these successful teams. I suggest you actually speak to them, particularly the students. See how they feel. See what effect the programs have on them.
I also suggest you read around these forums for the threads about GP, mentor involvement, and FIRST in general.
I'll also link a post about my feelings on a part of this matter dealing with success and GP.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...5&postcount=25

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Glad to hear it.

Careful, subjective measurements taken over sporadic periods of time rarely tell the whole story.

Could be any number of reasons. Perhaps they've got more mechanical mentors and not as many mechanically-inclined students. Perhaps they've got students off in search of parts. Perhaps they just happen to have adults that know what they're doing, and are in the process of teaching the kids. I don't know, and you don't know.

There is a reason it is known as the FIRST Robotics Competition. There is a competition, and I expect the other teams present to give it their best shot to succeed in it. If a team has the resources to compete at multiple events, good for them. I can only hope for the day that we're at that level, but you can bet I'll be working on that in the off-season.

Dare I note that there are several NASA teams who have yet to bring home the gold this season? Neither 116 nor 118 have done so thus far. Even 359, a beautiful machine which dropped the jaw of every single member of Capital Robotics at Cheapeake, hasn't made it through the finals.

Then why is it an issue for folks to compete to the best of their ability?

I'm from 1618. We finished 46th of 60 at Chesapeake, 3-6-0. We got beat by some of the best teams in the field, and I know we were on a few pick lists. We didn't get picked, and it stung--but it lit a fire underneath our kids, new and old. Last season, we got lucky and slipped into the eighth alliance captain slot, only to get stomped in QF1-1 to the tune of 264-0. Didn't faze me one bit. Coincidentally, I'm also an alumnus of 1293, the team that finished next to last at Palmetto with only a single win to their credit for the whole 2008 season. I spoke with the head coach of their team at Palmetto, and he wasn't shaken up a bit. Nor was anyone else on the team, for that matter. Sometimes you have it, sometimes you don't. Ideally, you learn something from the experience either way.

George Wallace, coach of 1902, once told me that FIRST is like pizza. You and I may like different toppings, but in the end it's still delicious pizza. I don't mind if a team walks away with their third/fourth/fifth/sixth blue banner in a season. Why? They've done something right that we haven't. If we keep learning from our mistakes, and from the mistakes and successes of others, then our day will come on the field--a process that is accelerated when we don't tell other teams to bring anything less than their A-game.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

True indeed...

When I first joined I had the usual immature jealousness of amazing teams that made me think similar things. But once I actually talked to students on these "mentor dominated" teams, I realized they are learning more and getting more from the experience than students on teams entirely run by kids.


So, aside from the point of the argument, get to know the students that work hard on those teams before you pass judgement.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

OK well lets put the whole "message of FIRST" arguement aside for a moment and just look at the competitive aspect itself.

There are plenty of teams that arrive at competition with competitive robots that are built with limited resources and/or limited engineering help.

The game is usually designed so that you can't win purely by having the best machine. You must also be a cooperative team player and a good strategist.

A team that comes to mind is Team 563 in Philly. Always competitive with very limited funding and a few resourceful mentors. A great team. Another team that comes to mind is 284. (a truly great machine this year) It can be done.

If you need help improving there are teams that can and will help you get there.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

First off, I don't see how a team being successful is un-GP. Some teams have worked hard to get the mentorship and community support that they have, and this support has helped them become very competitive. Just because a team has the experience and ability to build a dominating bot doesn't make them any less gracious or professional. You may be surprised, but I actually enjoy seeing robots like this because it shows what is possible and inspires new concepts to explore for next year. If you think that spending six weeks designing and building a robot isn't worth the effort because someone happens to have found a better way of doing it, you are completely missing the point of GP and FIRST.

Also, if you think that no one has fun because there are dominating robots out there, you haven't paid much attention. At every FIRST event I've been to, everyone appeared to be having a wonderful time, regardless of whether they were winning every match or their robot was barely moving.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I'm with the others--you won't find much support here.

I mentored a team with a grand total of 6 mentors (many of whom weren't always there). We had a lousy record in qualifying and weren't picked, yet the students had a load of fun, even with the mentors getting their hands on the robot from time to time.

I graduated from a team that had more mentors than students for some time. I still had a load of fun. And the mentors were doing about half the work on the robot, but the students were doing the other half. (I think I'm slightly overestimating the mentors' involvement.) Successful? Yes. Fun? YES!!!!

If you go and read those other threads (a search for "mentor-built" or "student-built" should turn up a few), you will find two things in common--they have a tendency to get locked, and nobody really cares other than the thread starter. One of the goals of FIRST is INSPIRATION, and around here, it seems like most people don't really care how the students are inspired.

And if there is a team there that truly is mentor-built, it just makes it that much sweeter when your student-built/combination-built robot beats them.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I'm glad to hear this. It seems this competition has captured you as it has many of. After 7 years in it, I've yet to come across a better extracurricular activity.
This has been discussed time and time again on these fori. The fact of the matter is, no one has the right to tell any team how it should be structured or who should be involved. Different teams have different ideologies. Some teams value students being 100% involved in every step of the process. Other teams value students observing skilled mentors take initiative. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. If a team feels at a disadvantage due to lack of skilled mentors, maybe they should get some more. This program is For Inspiration. How teams choose to inspire their students is left at their own discretion. Some teams inspire their students by having a high level of mentor involvement leading to a higher quality product. This is inspiring.
I don't follow the logic here. If I attempt to follow your logic slightly further, you are basically saying that this should not be a competition that can be won by skill, experience, and teamwork. You are saying it should turn into an exhibition, where everyone gets to show their stuff but no one is praised for it more than any other. The teams that put a lot of work into it would be no better off than the teams who slap it together in someone's dining room on the last day. I don't think this is inspirational at all and I don't see how it benefits the advancement of education or technology. And btw, I don't find it GP to call out a team about not being GP.
First, FIRST is about winning. This is why we have competitions and not exhibitions. If you feel your team has trouble winning, maybe you should study why the winning teams are so successful, and make adjustments to your own team as you feel necessary. Second, gather all the facts before you make assumptions. Just because a team is sponsored by NASA or is a NASA house team even does not mean NASA engineers are designing the robot. Third, have you any idea how much NASA has contributed to the FIRST robotics program and the advancement of technology as a whole? I don't think you're going to get on anyone's good side here by hating on the NASA teams. Fourth, I spent 6 years on the average team that felt like it had no chance of beating the teams that had tens of thousands of dollars and a hundred machinists backing them. Then guess what, in the 6th year we got our act together and won a regional. It happens, you just have to try harder. The day that this program's awards are based purely on luck is the day I quit. In this competition, teams get honored for the excellence they display. Awards (judging based and performance based) are a pillar of the FIRST program. To take them away or award them at random would be quite detrimental.
When I was a young high school student in FIRST, I felt completely the opposite way. I took one look at those robots and said "wow, I want to make mine look like that next year. How can I make this happen? I need to start now." Every year I saw the same teams win again and again made me work that much harder to reach their level. Eventually, we made it.

As stated earlier, it is not anyone's right to say how any team governs or structures itself. Hording trophies is not something that happens by magic. There are experienced and hard working people behind it. To suggest they ought to just give up and let someone else win is simply absurd. It's a battle for them every year too. Winning doesn't come easy to anyone.

In conclusion, I see your frustration not genuinely against the so-called "powerhouse" teams but perhaps deep inside, and perhaps against your own team. Sure there are things people aren't too fond of about the FRC program. But I challenge you to adapt. The rest of us have.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

It's the process of first that counts. Not the end result of winning a regional. Any student that goes through the First experience wins. Unfortunately, allot of students don't realize what we did to them until several years latter.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

There are times i really really really like seeing these engineer managed bots go out there. why? because it gives me a higher tier to aim for, Another layer of competition. Also by seeing these robots i've been exposed to so many new concept ideas and mechanisms, also really really good design practices. I am proud to say we are a majority student built robot. I'd also like to proudly say that a student built robot is quite capable or tying the success or clearly beating these "engineer" bots (We've given 1114 there only elimination loss this year). I love having them because it adds a whole new level to the competition, and whole new platform to surge for.

Look on youtube for IRI 2006 matches, ours is the fridge that helped take down the world champs, finalists and regional winners out the wazoo, many of these teams would fall under your category, We came out on top it can be done.

If your ever at a competition with us come by and i'll show the drivtrain i myself designed

Re: GP? I think not.
 

All im really hearing is the expected cliches, and that the students on these teams are learning..

If the students of these said teams are learning a bunch from all this well great! that doesnt mean the way they are doing it is right or dare I say GP, and yes like i said FIRST is still an extremely fun experience, im just pointing out a problem which I have found to be a hindrance to the experience.

"immature jealousness"? Your calling my opinion immature for thinking that teams that are supposedly being profesional and gracious but still put themselves at a very obvious and extreme advantage is unfair and not so profesional...

And as far as anonymous accounts not being allowed goes. I could tell you who I was, but it really wouldnt make a difference.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

If you think not, does that mean you don't exist? (Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm in my sixth year of Latin and quod cognito, ergo sum!)

There's something special about seeing a robot or a team that inspires and depresses at the same time. Inspires for the obvious "Oh my goodness that is so awesome" and depresses for the "Our robot isn't performing that well." Whether you choose to be raised to the incredible FIRST high of inspiration or plunged into despair is up to you.

And of course, those winning teams are clearly doing something right. Change your own behavior, see what your team would willingly change. As for the adult/student ratio, perhaps mentors simply know more than the students and are helping them learn? I know, it's a completely crazy idea here in FIRST. 'now dump sarcasm on the last two sentences' Why isn't it Gracious and Professional for teams to be consistently good performers? Ask how they do what they do. Request their help, get to know their team and you would every other team at a competition.

Here ends my thoughts. A semi-rant? Can something be a semi-rant?

Re: GP? I think not.
 

All im really hearing is the expected cliches, and that the students on these teams are learning..

If the students of these said teams are learning a bunch from all this well great! that doesnt mean the way they are doing it is right or dare I say GP, and yes like I said FIRST is still an extremely fun experience. Im just pointing out but a single problem which I have found to be a hindrance to the experience, im not attacking FIRST or the FIRST community in any way

"immature jealousness"? Your calling my opinion immature for thinking that teams that are supposedly being profesional and gracious but still put themselves at a very obvious and extreme advantage is unfair and not so profesional...

And as far as anonymous accounts not being allowed goes. I could tell you who I was, but it really wouldnt make a difference.

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.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I think we have all seen a few teams where when the robot breaks the mentors are all over the robot with students standing 5 feet back. But measuring a team just by that situation is a little unfair. Many teams I know strive to be student built but when it comes down to the last weekend of build season or 30 minutes before the next match the mentors step in to help get things done. I think that its much better if the students are in there with the mentors, but its tough to do that.

I'm from a student built team and we have managed to be very competative even against the best teams. My first year of FIRST I thought that "mentor built" teams had an unfair advantage, but since then we have had two very solid years and that really changed my opinion. A student built team that is a few years old and puts in the time isn't really at a disadvantage in my opinion.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Chris already addressed some of 1983's situation, and he didn't even see the difference between our first and second years. We had one year with no mentors, just a coach who is amazing, and our second year we have at least 6 or 7 dedicated, amazing mentors. We won a regional both years. The first year we won with the #1 alliance as the 3rd pick, working with 254 and 1425. 254 is one of those NASA teams. We worked side by side with them, and they had just as much fun as we did. This year we captained the #3 seed alliance to win the MSR. This robot has had significant mentor input, and some of the parts were shipped out to sponsors, like the ladder being cut and holes made as well as carbon fiber claws manufactured. We are having the same amount of fun, in fact probably more fun. Yes, there might be a mentor or two in the pit to help with repairs, but students work on it as well. The mentors have more knowledge. They are necessary. You can learn by watching them do something too, so that you can try it next time.

I can definitely understand your frustration, in fact our team had some frustrations with the new mentor support at the beginning of the build season this year. There is an "ideal mentor-student medium" out there somewhere, but those sorts of things rarely happen in life. The best I can do is just worry about my own team and how we should function and conduct ourselves and how we can help the teams around us.

One last thing, is that when cliches such as these seem to pop up so often, there tends to be a reason behind it. They may be cliches, but I have seen them happen. They had to become cliches somehow, I guess.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

It is always quite easy to infer that the team that just beat you is "mentor dominated".

Truth is, a mentor dominated team is usually a student abandoned team. Many times, the mentors are willing to teach but few students are willing to step up into leadership.

Also. Too often do I hear people that a team is "mentor dominated" without the slightest bit of evidence.

All I have to say is, if you find a great robot: sit down, enjoy the show and learn! Make sure you beat that team next year.

Who are you to decide how learning should take place? If you are into 100% student built robotics competitions, they exist (check out OCCRA).

Francois

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Thank you guys...I feel a group hug coming on....lets keep AJ out of it though???? Ok, Thats really not possible! Even in years we sucked we had a blast, well not right away though.
I could tell you stories of kids who are engineers today who were on our first years team in the 1056 days. Three sat with our team in Honolulu and said they were shocked how good we were doing because we never did that well back then....That hurts! You don't have to have a winning program to let FIRST have an amazing effect on kids.
Am I still on topic??? I've got to get back to work and input my 3rd quarter grades......

BTW, I was sitting next to the DJ when YMCA came on in Honolulu and he was in such shock he picked up his video camera to film it and said something like he's never seen 1500 nerdy kids dancing to their anthem.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Likewise, you are denouncing successful teams with a cliche argument.

I strongly suggest that you look into the 'mentor vs. student ratio' argument, and realize that (with the exception of extreme cases) this argument usually stems from a person who feels bad because they did not perform well in a competition. I can understand this, ive been there, and it doesnt feel great for the first 20 minutes. But instead of saying "oh, such and such a team beat us because they have more mentors", i thought to myself "now, how can i help improve the team to do better next year?". You are right, this is a competition- but its about a lot more than a well built robot. teams who do well at the competition do so because of experience, teamwork, technical ability, sacrifice, and luck.

but hey, if youd rather mope and look down upon teams for having more resources, then be my guest.


i cant remember who said this but "if you are on a team who is completely student run, you are missing the point of FIRST" (it was either Dean or Woody)

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Here is a cliche you won't hear all that often. FIRST isn't about learning, nor teaching for that matter.

Its not For Inspiration and Recognition of Science Teaching, its For Inspiration and Recognition Science and Technology. I argue that learning, is a byproduct of inspiration, and that inspiration goes a long way. That inspiration is what gets student to learn, whether by watching, doing, researching or going on to institutions of higher education. You wonder why super teams are perennial super teams? Its because students come and go, but inspired mentors are there for the long hall.

I will even go so far as to say that FIRST isn't even just about the students, macroscopically speaking it has very little to do with them. The point is to inspire the culture, not just students, but adults, college mentors, and innocent bystanders. Students are only students for 4 years, if they are inspired, they want to be active and to learn, if they are active and they learn, change happens, if change happens FIRST has succeeded.

You speak of NASA, I've never met a more inspired group of students, than the kids from Cocoa Beach ( Pink 233 ). They are as professional, humble, skilled, knowledgeable, and talented as any group of students out there. You know what I attribute that to? They've seen how its really supposed to be done, they've been inspired by it, they've learned from it, and they followed the amazing leadership they have over there. What happens four years down the road when someone makes the same comment and all those students are gone? I say the same exact thing because mentors, their constants, will still be doing what they do, and students will continue to be inspired by it.

Also, one last thing, teams don't win based on resources alone. Every year teams come from seemingly no where, with absolutely no resources, and they still manage to put together amazing, winning robots. Sitting there, and telling me that I have no shot, because our team doesn't have a single Mechanical Engineer, or because the only tools we have access to are a broken drill press and a beaten up band saw, is disheartening and nearly insulting. I'd like to think we will be able to compete every year, and we will fight as hard as we can to be as competitive as we can, but if you take a defeatist attitude about it, you've already lost.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

You sound jealous of these "all engineer teams"...

Why?

From the student's perspective it can't be all that fun having adults design your robot... even if you do win...

Even if the robot you designed wasn't the greatest you can still have the satisfaction of knowing "you made it."

If adults built it… and you won… than what satisfaction can you possibly have in wining?

Re: GP? I think not.
 

That was Dave Lavery.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Hmmm...

Well now, regardless of the discussion at hand, I see a lot of comments and phrases aimed solely at the aggravation of the other party involved. I'd like to point out that comments like these:

Do nothing but raise the general feeling of "rabbalry" in the room, either by giving the intended reader a sense or worthlessness, or making him/her feel segregated from the community. This causes more drippingly sarcastic and or blatently rude remarks, which inevitably lead to a shut down thread, and a lot of hard feelings. Even if they weren't entirely consciously meant as such, the intent is definitely there, and fairly apparent.

Comments such as the following, on the other hand actively promote a healthy, learning discussion... and encourage the intended reader to go look at the subject form a different angle. There is nothing rude or sarcastic about either of these.

Now, on with the subject at hand.

I know exactly how frustrating it can be when you pour every waking hour, every last drop of design prowess, and a little more effort that you ever thought possible into YOUR robot... only to have it fail in the face of the most robust, complex, and cosmetically attractive thing you've ever seen on an omni-drive... That is just part of realizing just how much you have to learn. Without that what would you have to aspire to?
I believe that being on a team with limited engineering mentors, and a predominantly student run "government" helped me learn more about the entire real life processes of designing, fabrication, brainstorming, idea development, and social interaction then I would have if I'd been on a predominantly mentor run team. Notice I didn't mention "The exact and precise representation of a job in the field of Engineering". Which, while it can be introduced by a mentor run FIRST team, can only truly be taught by several long years of college and a few thousand dollars in borrowed money.

Having said that, I also wish we as a graduating class of team 306 had either :

A) Had one more year to finish honing our abilities in design and production, and produce a truly beautiful machine,

OR

B) Had more mentor help from the beginning so we would've delved deeper into the CAD and engineering processes.

In essence, We (the graduating class of any given year) Were just getting to the good stuff when we were shoved into the real world. As was said before in this thread (and the seemingly infinite threads before), The answer doesn't lie with an all student run team, or an Engineer-fest team... But somewhere in the middle. Moderation is key.


-Cody

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Im glad im atleast seeing some form of agreement here, I really did not create this thread to just complain and look down on these teams. I created it because I really would like to just make my opinion known and hopefully make a difference. I understand that I dont know the details of how each team is run. I just hope that every mentor and student of every team is doing whatever they can to make sure they are running they're team as fairly as possible. So if you are one of these teams that repeatedly do well year after year, please just take a second look at how your team is run, and if you are absolutely sure it is being run as fairly as possible and you continue to succeed as before, then I sincerely congratulate you.

edit: so essentially im just saying that I feel there is a good amount of people that feel this way and everyone should be aware and try not to be one of the teams that anyone feels this way about.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Wow, I hope that's not the sentiment of even a small percentage of the FIRST community. While mentors, sponsors and other adults definitely benefit, its all about the students! They are the future. It sounds like we need to redfine what the roles should be as I'm hearing a lot of things that disturb me. You can't justify mentors building the entire or even majority of the robot to me. A good mentor, ours, takes student input and helps THEM to make it happen. Case in point, one of our most talented students has been bugging me, the lead teacher and wannabe engineer, to make a ball knocker since day one. At the tournament he brought it up again and I told him we don't have the weight, the parts or time. Our engineer mentor listened to him and said "Ok, lets see how we make this happen." They identified and removed parts we were not using and experimented with different designs until they came up with a very effecient ball knocker. He guided him, as an experienced mentor does, to design, experiment and implement a system that helped us succeed. He didn't say great idea and then go to the side to build and mount it for him, as he easily could have done, and as a result that student will be a better engineer in the real world. We have too many students going into engineering that are book smart and tool/experience dumb. You don't learn these things by watching others do it! If mentors want to build the bots lets start a new competition they can compete in! Do you think students will learn as much by just watching that??? This is not a glorified pinewood derby - or it shouldn't be anyway. You're crazy if you think you are helping your students somehow by doing it all for them.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I don't know why anyone would want to skin a cat, but I hear there's more than one way to do it.

One thing I really enjoy about FIRST is all the different ways that different teams work, and succeed! I love talking to students and mentors of the have-not teams, as well as the have-alot teams, and all those in between.

It really doesn't seem to matter how you do it...just keep up the good work....

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I think you must be a great person, who is feeling frustrated. Again, the tough road is rising to the challenge, which is much tougher and easier said than done.
In our 9 years of existence, we are and will still be chasing the Poofs.:P

Prime example: When we were scouting as the 3 seed, a humble Hawaii rookie team came to our pit, looking to do a sales pitch on selecting their team. Instead, we honestly told them about a set of teams that we were looking at, which were other fellow Hawaii members and a California team.
I never felt so bad, after the disappointed look on their faces.
I promised myself to make sure we help them next year, if they will let us, not by making a better robot, as we are not the experts. But instead, share how we have improved over the years and to collaborate more with them.
They were a genuinely nice team diagonal to our pit.

That's what FIRST is all about!

Wait til you see us in Atlanta. I got my top ten list of things to do.
Its visiting the top ten teams that I am just in awe of that I havent seen yet.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Glenn, you are too good and are a great example of what is good about FIRST and what mentors can be! Knowing the person you are, this will embarrass you but I have to say you are so deserving of the Chairmans Award in Honolulu as witnessed by your attitude toward that rookie team. You are amazing! I've known you for awhile now but I keep hearing stories like this about you. Keep up the good work! Thanks for showing us the way! See you folks in Atlanta...I hope we get to team up again

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Reading this thread, I have become extremely upset.
If you look at our teams record, we have real good engineers, and usually put up a decent robot.
HOWEVER.
In the past 3 years, we have only won 1 award. YES, 1 award.
On our team we have 15 students. These 15 students are expected to put together a robot. A chairmans. A woodie flowers. And do PR.
This is a very hard endeavor which i applaud our kids for doing. Our team was a world champion (Thanks to 111 and 469), and we have very little to show for it afterwards.
The fact that you are comparing teams who have students who are eager to learn, Sponsors who are willing to put out the money, and Engineers/mentors who are willing to put in the time, to not being Gracious and that they should be ashamed of themselves..How dare you?
This really upsets me, For giving kids who want to learn and want to have a fun experience while in high school, you find it wrong? Many teams have a hard time, yes, its true. But its not about the WIN, or about the GLORY, its about the way you run your team.
Our team always cheers for the teams who are likely to win (217,1114) Heck, we even cheer for our cross town rival 47, BUT, we are not spiteful to those teams. We want to see the fun experienced and being able to do that does not involve winning.
Compare it to a sports team. The Detroit lions have sucked for the past 20 years, And even though they don't win, people still like them and cheer for them.
Just take this into consideration.\

*edit* After taking time to read what was going on, ive decided that people can have their opinions. However, i still think it is wrong to complain about success of others.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Oh, but it makes a HUGE difference when there's a face to a complaint. If I created an account to bring up an issue, it would be given a lot less weight than if I had brought it up myself.

Now here's my opinion on this:

I came from a 110% student run team. Want to know where that got me? Kicked off because of a stupid argument. It was stupid on BOTH sides. Here's why: We're high schoolers. We haven't had enough experience to get things right, and our cycle time is too quick to allow true systemic learning. WE MAKE MISTAKES. We haven't been here long enough to get it right the first time. So here's why the programs that are "unfairly" run by mentors are FAR superior: Longevity and consistency. When a team is "mentor run," it will be similar each year. This means a reliable, accurate, and more professional learning environment is present.

Also, if you let a student teach themselves, and teach other students, you end up with products like me: An inspired, ready to learn kid with some basic tools, all built on bad habits and unprofessional methods. If you want to learn how the real world operates, you learn from THE REAL WORLD. You get REAL engineers, REAL programmers, and REAL mentors to come in, and show you how it's done. Once you've got that idea, you're ready to move on and get into the world.

So what do we get when we have all students running a team and competing? A bunch of young hoodlums who know barely anything about how the world works trying to interact and change the world. If you want to make change, you have to know what you're trying to change.

I'm not going to harass you about your points; it's been done enough. However, I am going to say this: Start trading PM's with prominent mentors of those "all mentor" teams, and get a feel for how they work. I might as well throw a few names of programs I respect out there: PM these folks, I'm sure they'd be glad to answer questions. Try Cory, from 254, as a starter. I used to share the same opinion that you had. But then I actually SPOKE to the people on the team, and realized what they had going on, and I was floored. It's an awesome program.

Good luck with the issue at hand, and keep enjoying FIRST! You can only be a student in it for so long....

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I can understand where Mr. Anonymous is coming from. I felt that way my first year watching our team, and at our first competition when I saw well over 100 people from one of the mega-teams come down to receive an award for something or other I was flabbergasted! I remember seeing around 40 adult males (all of whom I assumed were engineers of course), and I was really jealous! Our team consisted of maybe 10 students, an engineer, a machinist at a few parent volunteers. We were majorly "outclassed" and our robot didn't appear to belong on the same field with them. Then when we heard what kind of funding they had and saw their tricked out trailers we realized how far behind we really were.

However... just like the posters on here have said, we visited those teams and looked at their drivetrains and wiring and control systems and we learned of some great new ways to improve. We also found that almost every team we talked to was more than willing to help us and explain how to do what they did. That sure sounds like Gracious Professionalism to me! And, if those top-tier teams are gracious, then what are you complaining about?

It's not like they won't open up the hood and they hide what's inside so that they can be assured of beating you again next year. It's more like they bring you in, answer all your questions, help you program, and leave you ready to build a robot twice as good the next year!

Well, the following year, we really improved - by listening and learning. Our team grew by maybe 5 students and more participation from some adults (though still only a couple engineers), and we not only went to the championship, but we went 9 and 0 in the qualifiers getting to be first in our division - eventually finishing as Newton finalists. The next couple years, we won Curie and numerous off-season events and various judges awards and sort of made it to "the next tier" of teams. We're still small - under 20 students (including all the part-timers) and our robot is still 90% student built, but we've matured and learned a TON in the past few years to become more competitive. We've also been thrilled to help out other teams who are just starting out and making the same mistakes (read KOP wheels?) that we originally made. Also, I've seen that strategy and driving ability also really help separate teams with similar bots. That's something that any team can learn. Heck, just watch all the Internet rebroadcasts of this year's events and you can learn a ton.

Bottom line is that it doesn't take a boatload of engineers to build a truly competitive robot, but instead, requires that you do your homework, read this forum like crazy, ask lots of questions, and build smart. Oh, and luck doesn't hurt either! :D

Re: GP? I think not.
 

The original post has been attacked enough so I'll leave that be, however consider another real world scenario of anythign...

Companies, the millions that exist out there, all start from the same place. Sure some of them might buy smaller companies to make themselves bigger and more talented, but how is this that different from FIRST ?

Team 125 for example used to consist of over 100 team members, and we actually managed to win a national championship (yes they were still called nationals back then) in 2001. Since then the team has gone from huge, enthusiastic team, to a handful of kids, back up to a solid amount of people. There were some ok robots inbetween 2001 and 2007, and there were some bad ones.

Teams that are able to go out EVERY SINGLE YEAR and win intrigue me so much. I always wonder how they are able to pick a design that stands above the rest every year.

Winning a competition isn't everything, but some people find that it is a lot. It is a physical representation of your success, as opposed to the success everyone gets just for participating and learning. Don't you, when you do win sometime, want to say you beat the best, and you were the best team out there on that particular day?

Winning is awesome, but the cliche is there for a reason...learning, and these experiences, are what make FIRST different, and what make FIRST for everybody.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Duplicate/anonymous accounts will not be tolerated, and as an attempt to curb this, anybody caught doing so will get a warning and will be publicly acknowledged as the anonymous user.

We have a forum specifically for anonymous posts .. if you don't want the implications of your post to affect your team, you can post it in FIRST-A-Holics Anonymous and a moderator will post it for you.

But anyway .. everybody, I'd like you to meet DanTod97 of team 97 in Abington, MA.. or Depreciation, as he'd like to be known today, I guess.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Although many have disputed the concerns Depreciation raised when he started this thread, I believe the views he expresses are not uncommon. Heck, I felt similar frustration in my early FRC experiences. It's not unlike the love/hate relationship NASCAR fans have felt toward Jeff Gordan.

I'm human & want recognition for the tremendous effort my team invests each year. I get cranky when stronger, well known teams with seemingly endless resources (machining, design, mentors, $, whatever) win awards repeatedly, are universally known & respected and are not from my area of the country (thus winning limited trophies away from "the locals" who can't afford to travel & try again for a win at other regionals).

It may seem a bit pollyanna, but I've become a better person, stronger competitor/mentor & lost that bitter feeling when I finally realized...That's life, which is inherently unfair...now what am I going to do about it?

Suggestions given here such as getting to know members of the powerhouse teams, reading the white papers they share, learning what makes them so successful really work! Sure, they have resources you don't, but they also have problems that smaller, newer or less structured teams don't face.

Now I look for ways to emulate aspects of these teams. Meeting members has let me see behind the curtain & the great Wizard was really some tremendously hard working folks. I still want recognition for my team, but now I understand better how to help our students achieve it. By the way, I still get a huge sense of satisfaction when we can outplay their robots!

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I have strong feelings on this topic and can speak from experience. For the past 5 years, my husband (an engineer) and I (a lawyer; I don't touch the robot!!) have been mentoring a small inner-city team. For 2 of those years (2006 and 2007) my husband was the only engineering mentor. We also have a very limited budget, and our team is comparatively small (about 20-30 kids). Yet in those two years, we were a regional finalist and regional winner. We also received the team spirit award and traveled to Atlanta for the first time, where we finished 15th in our division and were selected as a quarterfinalst.

How did we accomplish this with far less mentors and money than the "powerhouse" teams? As one earlier poster suggested, we strategized. We realized our limitations and worked within them, building a robot that did a subset of the game functions well, instead of doing them all poorly. Last year, for example, we hung a grand total of 1TUBE (and did that in autonomous in a practice round in Atlanta -- you should have seen the kids go nuts over that one). We were a defensive ramp bot (and a darn good one, not to brag). So there is a way to succeed.

As for mentors building the bot, I do know from talking to our students that they look around and often see mentors doing the work. It makes them appreciate all the more the opportunities for building and desiging that they have on our team. That being said, all their work is done under the guidance and supervision of our engineers (yes, we have a couple more this year, thank goodness). To me, that is the perfect blend of mentors and students, and it works well for our team. I know my husband was far more relaxed in the pits this year because he felt he had a drive team who really knew what they were doing and could handle most problems on their own.

Finally, in terms of GP, the "powerhouse" teams we have met along the way have been, for the most part, nothing but graciously professional to us, helping us to reach the achievements we have. Cyber Knights shipping our tools to Atlanta for us, Gaelhawks loaning us two mentors, Eagles giving us advice and a scouting program, Uberbots giving us valuable tips . . . I could go on. I don't resent or envy them for being strong teams; I hope we can continue to learn from them and someday join their ranks.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

In this thread, and many other (Im more of a reader than a poster) I have noticed people are always talking about what FIRST is about and putting in thier own opinions. The truth is visit the first website. The mission statement is right there along with a quote from Dean Kamen. Ill post them below (i hate links).

"Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication and leadership."
---FIRST website

"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."
----Dean Kamen


And now to address what this thread is about. I come from a team where the team is just not the students. Its everyone. Mentors, students, parents, college student mentors, board of eduaction members, sponsors and the list goes on an on and on. Everyone involved is important to the teams success. Winning or losing on the field has nothing to do with this success. The fact that a group of people from all different walks of life came together to accept the challenge makes a team successful by itself. Saying a team is mostly mentor run, and im sure my team has been accussed of this, just is not fair. Maybe it looks that way, but maybe the students have asked the mentors to do something for them. Maybe the students think they have more important things to do than work on the robot. Just ask the students on the team what they think and youll get your answer.

And as far as team being good year after year after year. This is going to happen no matter what you do. So watch these team, study them, and strive to be like them. This is what 1629 did and it works.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

im getting the feeling of a "if you cant beat em, join em" attitude here, I disagree completely.

That attitude is just denying that change is an acceptable answer. As ive stated before, even though people seem to be ignoring it, I only created this thread to remind people this is a high school competetion and to request everyone just be aware of that and to be extra careful to make sure there team is run as a highschool team. No attack on any teams at all, I have nothing but love for FIRST and all of its teams, but that doesnt mean I think they are all perfect, unless they beleive they are, and I hope no team does. Just the fact that so many other threads like this exist enforces my feeling that this is an existing problem people choose to ignore and just join them instead.

Im going to stop repeating myself and hopefully be done with this topic, I think ive made my opinions clear and can only hope they will do some good.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Something I meant to post earlier, but somehow forgot.
The counter-argument is that the points raised by the initial responses (first page or so) we're "cliché" and they've been stated before. The reason you've heard them before is because they have merit. While there is often a certain degree of idealism in these arguments, they have a valid point and are backed by solid logic, and often evidence.
Even though 116 is the NASA HQ team, 116 has never been entirely mentor driven (nor has 116 been entirely student driven). In 2003 116 finished dead last (63rd of 63) at the NASA/VCU Regional, behind a team that never uncrated their robot. 116 doesn't pretend that this was the most fun they've ever had, but they don't regret the experience either. In 2004 116 returned to the NASA/VCU regional and defeated eventual 2004 FIRST Champion Team 435 in the quarter-finals. Let me re-iterate that point. 116 went from placing last place to beating the FIRST Champions in the span of one year.
Even the best can be beat.
Every single "elite" or "superpower" FIRST team I have had the pleasure and privilege of inter-acting with has been extraordinarily gracious and professional. Following a successful and proven design process is not in any means unfair, but rather good engineering. Some have even made their design process and philosophy open to the public (1114 has even posted theirs on their website). Almost any will be willing to talk to you about theirs if you ask them.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

This is where I point you to the comments of Dave Lavery, over here. There is no requirement for it to be a high school team. FRC is targeted at the high-school level, granted, but there is no requirement for it to be a high-school team. What of the Girl Scout teams, like the Space Cookies out in California? What of the 4-H teams, like Team THRUST and Exploding Bacon? What of the teams that happen to spend more of their time working with elementary and middle schoolers than actually building their own robot? What about teams like 1114, who've run corporate team-building activities for folks far older than the students of the team and done a great job of bringing that group together? If you're keeping it focused on high school students, zoom out a little bit and enjoy some of the scenery you're cropping out of the frame.

FIRST has aimed its goal at changing the culture. At no point has it said how teams are supposed to go about it.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

You're forgetting one small detail. FIRST has never said that teams should be run as a high school team.

In fact, they celebrate teams that are run as a business through the Entrepreneurship award. They celebrate engineers through the Engineering Inspiration award, and they celebrate mentors and engineers through the Woodie Flowers Award.

To me it is insulting to hear someone say so convincingly and so self righteously that the way other teams (my own included) are doing things is wrong, against the principles of FIRST, hurting the kids, and just plain unfair.

When FIRST becomes about being a high school science fair, maybe you'll be right. But the reason FIRST is great is because of the way it is. If you didn't have all these amazing engineers that FIRST students (heck, and mentors) look up to like Andy Baker, Paul Copioli, Raul Olivera, Dave Lavery, Al Skiekerkiewicz, Ken Patton, Dan Green, and countless others, where would this program be?

Some could contend having an all student team is just as "wrong" as having a mentor dominated team, but who cares?

The real point here is you have a team. Everything else is gravy. Whatever you choose to do with it from that point on is awesome, as long as the kids are getting inspired; and there's no way you can tell me the kids on the powerhouse teams who everyone thinks are engineer built (and often are surprisingly different than they may appear from the outside looking in after you get to know them) aren't being inspired.

How is that not a good thing?

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Every team has the right to run their build process in whatever way that they see fit.

That's part of the beauty of FIRST. As long as the people in charge are thinking about what is best for the kids, there are any number of ways to approach build.

Do students get interested in science and technology by working closely with a large number of engineering professionals? Absolutely.

Do kids get interested in science and technology by working on the machine with more freedom and less supervision? Absolutely.

Two different philosophies, and both of them work. The first shows students the power of engineering - what professionals can do. The result is amazing machines year after year. The second lets students get more of a feeling of accomplishment - which is just as important. The result is pride that will never go away. Both are important.

Engineer-dominated teams tend to win blue banners and get the "oohs" and "ahhs" from the crowd. Student-led teams have different sorts of achievement criteria - kids who have never made a moving machine before have conquered a challenge no less impressive than a team of veteran engineers who can help win a regional.

Now, Chief Delphi is populated by far more of the former type of team. We go on here and praise the technical achievements of corporate teams. While some of what gets built in FIRST is truly amazing, I do think that we all tend to forget about the remaining 90% of FIRST whose major accomplishment is just having a robot at competition.

Anyhow - in closing:

There is no one "right" way to run a FIRST team. Both engineer- and student-led approaches are valid and have their merits.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I understand FIRST encompasses many things, but I am speaking more specifically of the competition itself, which is why I say even though I see this problem with it, I still love FIRST as a whole. I have not heard one reason why teams cant do all these wonderful things for the students, while still being fair competitively.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

This statement, I think, sums up well the truth of most teams where you rarely see a student working on the robot. And this is the reality on our team, which in the past 2 years has become one of those teams with almost no students in the pits, so I'll use us as an example of perhaps why you see this happening.

I was a student on our team from 2004-2007, and this year was my first year mentoring on it. In my first years (04 & 05) the team had very strong student leadership and a pretty good amount of mentors involved (5 engineers with varying availability for each). The team built extremely competitive robots (we were top 8 seeds both years) and students on the team worked hard to gain more mentors and more sponsorship to help out for the future, so we'd be able to attend more competitions and try even more complex designs.
Then in 2006, the leadership graduated and a new set of students (myself included) stepped up to fill their shoes. But these students didn't have the dedication or the attitudes of the previous ones, and by the end of the year I was the only remaining member of that group of officers, as we found ourselves scrambling throughout the year to replace them as they one by one left the team. Since our team was primarily student led, the sudden shift in leadership quality meant alot of poorly trained new students and alot of time sitting around doing little. And this showed in our robot quality, as we performed much worse in qualifiers than before (going 3-5 if I remember correctly).
Now last year and this year our team has shifted to be more mentor run and the robot less student built. This is due to a combination of things. We now have more mentors (as a result of our efforts to recruit mentors years ago and students returning to mentor we have 15+ mentors), so automatically the mentors start to have more of an impact. Our school cut some of its tech classes (networking, drafting, and programming specifically), so there is less interest in the student body in technology. But mainly it is because the problems of 06 are still affecting us, not only because we are wary of making the team too student dependent should a similar situation occur again, but also because the new students we got that year learned from that leadership's good AND bad habits, and they still exhibit those habits today.

So our current team still has eager excited students, who put their heart and soul into the robot and making sure it gets done, but the majority of students don't put in as much effort as in the past. This has forced us to make mentors more involved to ensure the robot gets built and stays running. Yet this hasn't correlated with success; our 2 best performing robots were the ones built with our best student leadership. And this is because all mentors really do is ensure that you have a functioning robot; strategy, drivers, design, and scouting (key components to winning) can be enhanced by mentors but really require good students to come up with and implement them (I've noticed that engineer mentors actually tend to be really bad at driving advice :D ).

So next time you see a group of mentors huddled around a robot and no student in sight, don't be so quick to judge that the mentors are being over-bearing, and be glad that you have students on your team who are eager to do it themselves. It may be that they simply had to get involved to make sure that a robot was built, that all the eager students were in one area (maybe electrical) and no one wanted to do another portion (maybe programming). If you were a mentor, and you had the choice between building part of the robot yourself or no robot being built, which would you choose? Which inspires more, students watching as a robot is built, or students who show up with no bot at all?

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

For me, F.I.R.S.T. has been about helping all of us to rise to a higher level and achieve our potential. I saw this from the leaders and mentors on our team when I joined several years ago. Our mentors would willing help other teams rebuild on the spot and improve their machine. One year, we had a student help another team write their control code and got them running. I continue to see it from the "elite" and "superpowers" at every event we attend; we have been the beneficiary of some excellent help, including this year. This is what is different about F.I.R.S.T., this is gracious professionalism, do your best and help others do their best.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

The point here is it is NOT unfair competitively

Teams are allowed and encouraged to utilize engineers! If they weren't, there would be an open class of competition.

If students are building the robots all by themselves, then as Dave Lavery once said, they are not "getting it". It's their fault for putting themselves at a disadvantage competitively, and more importantly, not giving themselves the strongest opportunities to learn.

The little guy can compete with the big guy in FIRST. If you have enough know how, desire, and time, you can do anything. Blaming it on the powerhouse teams not letting their kids do anything is totally inaccurate, imo.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

The one thing that has always got me is everybody seems to have this idea of how a FIRST team is supposed to be. No where on the FIRST website or in any of their manuals is there such a thing. So why would people readily assume there is some pre determined model for a FIRST team to follow?
Let's look at the pinnacle of FIRST the Hall of Fame teams: Many of them are the un GP teams that you freely accuse of ruining FIRST (they win alot of award often. Even after they won the Chairman's award) which is ironic since they had earned the top honor in FIRST doing good works to improve FIRST as a whole. They seem similar in structure when you give them a quick glance but when you look more closely each team is very different from the other and no one team has the science of running a team down than the other Hall of Fame teams. In fact there are plenty of teams who are not in the Hall of Fame who are just as capable of running a top notch program and they can do it completely different from everyone else. There is no set formula to this. how else can you explain 1500 teams can come up with thousands of different solutions to the same problem? You don't think FIRST didn't intend this to happen?
Diverse thinking I think is also a goal FIRST aims for so everyone can see solutions form many angles and inspire others with that as well.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

While I agree with most of your points, I think you do need to consider what a "superpower" team looks like from the outside looking in.

Essentially, all teams start the season with the same basic resources - a kit of parts, a game description, and six weeks.

Now imagine you're a kid on a small team with a limited budget and mentor resources. You work for 8 hours after school each day, plus weekends, and finally show up at competition with something made of your own blood, sweat, and tears. It probably is a little homemade looking, maybe it works okay most of the time, but it is your own small victory after six weeks of hell.

Then you look in the pit next to you and see a robot that looks like it was ordered out of a catalog.

As an adult, how would that make you feel? I sure would be jealous!

Now, as a high school aged-student, how would that make you feel? Are you telling me that a 16-18 year old has the emotional maturity to not feel bad - even a little - about his own showing when kids the same age are sitting next to a future FIRST championship winner?

Life isn't fair, and FIRST isn't either. That's a hard lesson for a kid to learn.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Emphasis mine:I'll issue an open challenge: I dare anyone to find a message from FIRST headquarters saying that FRC is meant to be fair. You're going to have teams that bring the knife to the gunfight no matter what happens, and despite the best efforts of a lot of great people. You will see those same people protest on these forums and elsewhere about any attempts by FIRST to limit their effectiveness by holding down the top teams (see any of the threads from 2005-2007 about fix-it windows), while any effort to bring the lowest teams up (such as the kitbot) is met by cheers all around.

It all goes back to trying to get everyone to bring their A-game.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

My opinion is that teams should be run by students.

My opinion is that mentors should teach how to design, not teach by designing.

My opinion is that teams where the adults do the work are robbing the students of achievements. obviously this is highly dependent on the way the adults do the work, but it still is inferior to a team where the students do the work.

My opinion matters to my team because I am part of that team.

My opinion matters to FIRST because I am part of FIRST.

My opinion is relevant because I was once a student, and now I am a mentor - So I know both sides of the city.

-Leav

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Dan,

The mentor vs student debate has long raged since what I can remember in FIRST. So has the big team vs little team. I was on a team in high school that I felt was "too" mentor run at the time, so I stepped up, I asked the mentors if I could take a leadership role as a sophomore, I forced my way into every design, build and program that I could, and I tried to make sure that the other students on my team had the same experience. On my college team, we started out high school and college mentor peers for the first two years. After that, the college started to bring in a mechanical team that while drastically improving the design of the robot, didnt seem to involve the high school students as much. I fought tooth and nail but lost that battle (but am happy to see that they were able to spin it around a few years later).

Now I've had the amazing experience of being able to form my own team and run it however I wanted with some amazing sponsor support. We, like many others here, have tried to strike that amazing tight-rope walk of a mentor student balance. With an amazing sponsor, we are one of the well-off teams, but probably not really one of the power-house teams *yet*. Looking at some of the comments here, I realize we are probably one of the teams that some smaller teams might seem jealous of at times. We take 60+ people to every competition, go to 3 competitions a year, have crazy PC pit displays, etc etc. But we are in that weird in between. We did terrible at the FLR competition last year, but then vaulted into 5th at Boston and 8th in Championships. This year we were 27th at FLR, but 3rd in Philly. Its all been about learning for us. This year we wanted to learn strategy before the build. I wrote to mentors like Andy Baker, Paul C, Karthik, and several others to ask them how they did it, year after year, how did they build good robots for the strategy. ALL of them answered me with quite awe inspiring details.

I know the "if you cant beat them, join them" or "learn from them" attitude can feel frustrating when you are at the bottom... I remember my high school team, no matter how much sponsor/mentor support couldnt ever live up to the cross town rival team that we always seemed to be up against. Heck in my first two teams, and 7 years of FIRST, my teams NEVER received a SINGLE trophy. It was disheartening sometimes to sit at the competition and think the awards were going to be for us, but they werent. But we always jumped back in and tried harder. At the time teams were much further spread out, ChiefDelphi didnt really exist to the extent that it did, and it was much easier to be jealous of the teams than learn from them.

I dunno, in my eyes, FIRST is what you make of it. We are all going to have those pangs of jealousy here and there. But we cant let this be like sports, we cant say "oh that team gets the fancy uniforms, shiny busses and expensive meals so they do better". We ARE NOT SPORTS, lets not let that rivalry or jealousy stay in our hearts. Everyone is going to feel it time to time, I know I get that feeling at some point during every year, but I often just force myself to turn around and see how our team can do better. Its not worth trying to BE them, its not worth being JEALOUS of them, we are who we are, BUT we can be who WE want to be.

While it may be unfortunate to see mentors fixing a robot with students standing back, and I know how it feels to see that, Im not sure its always as bad as we think it is. I struggle with it a lot. If I had the choice between a two mentors and a student fixing something and being done in time for our next match to let our student drive team get out there and give it all they have for all the hard work our students have put in all year, or letting 3 students struggle with it and miss making it out for the match... I can honestly say I would probably pick the mentors. I know that our students designed EVERY part on that robot, and that in reality our pitcrew is really 6 students and 2-3 adults, but if it came down to it in the heat of battle, and you KNOW someone can fix something in time and the students cant, what would you do? The answer of course is always training the students well enough ahead of time, and that is what we always try to do (and Im thankful I havent ended up in the situation I expressed here), but the reality is that student interest varies from year to year. If there arent any students interested in mechanical, should I let the electrical students fail because it should be all student done?

Really every team's situation is different, and I see your frustrations, Ive been there many times, but I think its what we do with those frustrations that determines our success or failure in FIRST.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

But that's the thing. It isn't just a high school competition. You must have high schoolers on your team, and high schools must drive the robot at the competition, but that is the sum total of the required high school involvement. It is a robotics competition that involves high schoolers.

I understand your argument though, as I've made it before I joined the dark "mentors are A-OK" side: Teams that utterly thrash the field each year result in a net lowering of engineering inspiration, because they discourage teams in their area. I no longer hold this opinion after having met several high school kids who take 1114 (our local unbeatable team) as an inspiration rather than a roadblock.

Those seemingly unbeatable teams aren't untouchable. Take the best robot this year: 1114. Nothing on it took (to my knowledge) extraordinary resources to manufacture. It's a bunch of bent metal on top of a 2 speed 6WD drive base. Nothing in its design is extraordinarily far-out. Other teams have roller claws, other teams have hybrid shooter-arms. 1114 just seems to have a process where they think about the problem, think of a solution, and then optimize, optimize, optimize.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

It'd make me want to do whatever I could possibly do to make my team better, so that I could be at the same level.

When I was a freshman in high school, I was jealous of the so called mentor built teams. I didn't really like my current team. I thought that NASA built their robot, etc etc. I'm not real proud of myself for thinking that way, but I didn't know any better, and of course it's easier to attack others for the things they've earned than better your own situation.

I came to realize that those teams had the things they had because of hard work, dedication, and a desire to always be improving. I also came to realize that every person I looked up to in FIRST was an engineer or mentor for teams that appeared to be "mentor built".

Instead of limiting everyone who has worked hard for the things they have, the people who have less should ask them how they did it, so they can aspire to the same heights.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I feel like people havent read my latter posts and are speaking to me based on my first one which I realized might have come off as a little hostile which I did not intend. Im not sure why people keep reffering to me as being jealous? Im simply stating my opinions about a problem I see, my team does fine and im very proud of it. Saying im just jelous of these winning teams is just unecessary and doesnt help anything.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

This post has some merit. I would be lying if I said during our first several years, as lucky as we have been, that I wasn't jealous of those awesome robots from 100, 115, 254, 192, 368, etc. from the SVR regional. Our students and a few of the mentors were very very intimidated.
Everyone in the last several posts have offered positive solutions. It seems Dan that you feel that the solution of "joining" the group is not the solution.

Then I ask, what do you suggest teams do?
1. Dumb down everything so that we have a level playing field, no engineers whatsover?
2 Or embrace the challenge, hustle to find support, and step it up in order to "join the group"

We chose "step it up" and join the group attitude. We are far from it, but its our inspiring attitude. Just several years ago, we got a judges sheet showing the areas we needed to improve on the Chairman's Award. I was disheartened. More areas were "needed improvement" than the good areas. I had a few thoughts about just forgetting about enteriing already and let it be. Instead, we worked hard to build up our program the last several years. The feeling of winning the CA is priceless and will stay with us for years, knowing what we had to do earn it.
Now looking back at when we had the choice to step it up or dumb down everything, the proof is asking the students what has been more inspiring to them, as I have many students/former students still on the team the last several years.

They will ALL tell you, they like the program as it is now, and still want to strive it to be better.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

*claps*

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Here's a little story for you about my first FIRST experience. I first got hooked on FIRST through FLL. I joined in 6th grade during the Volcanic Panic challenge. Most of my team had played with Lego Mindstorms before and owned kits, but none had ever built a robot for a competition of any sort. We spent months building and programming our robot to complete the various missions. In our first competition run the robot shattered into pieces as I went to retrieve it after it drove astray. We put it back together and competed the rest of the day and ended up near the bottom of the pack, 40th out of 42 teams. Makes you wonder why I'm still here right?

We'll I'm still here because I saw an amazing robot built by the Rosemount Roboraiders that earned a perfect score in multiple runs. I was immensely impressed by their robot, their cool white jumpsuits, and their calm demeanor at the table. I was inspired to do better. I spent all summer researching Lego design and programming. I built and programmed countless robots of various designs. Each year after that I learned more and my team's performance improved. I never did manage to earn a perfect score in competition, but I sure learned a heck of a lot trying.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

And your opinion is a fair one based on your experience. But is it also your opinion that all other teams should follow how you would run your team?

That has been my problem with DanTod/Depreciation's posts. I find teams where students do a majority of the work completely valid and one of the many possibilities of FIRST. As George Wallace has said, FIRST is like a pizza, and no matter what toppings you use, it's still a delicious pizza.

I have no problem with any FIRST member wanting students to have power on a team, I have a problem with those who think that the team's who do it differently are somehow wrong, unjust, unfair, ungracious, and/or missing the point of FIRST.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

The students vs. adults debate has been going on since the beginning of FIRST. It just won’t die. I care little to get in the middle of it and am mostly of the opinion that each team can run however they want to as long as students are inspired and learn something. I do however find it interesting when my students notice only adults working on robots in other pits at competition with no student in sight. Enough so to bring it to my attention and tell me that they are happy that they get to do all the work on our robot. Seems kind of hard to inspire the students if they are nowhere around. Our students really care little when they loose a match to a team that they know is mostly adult designed and built. They understand the point is not to win every match but the experience as a whole. Sometimes in the heat of competition even I tend to forget this and have had more than one student remind me that FIRST is more about the journey than the destination.

I am curious though how teams decide on adults vs. students on the field. Of course the drivers and robocoach/human player are required to be students but what do most teams use for the coach position? student or adult? We always give the option to the drive team. If they feel more comfortable with a more experienced adult behind them then we use an adult coach. If they feel more comfortable and less pressured with a fellow student behind them then student coach it is.

Also, what about the extra pit crew members allowed during eliminations. Do you usually use adults or students? I have seen both but for some reason feel the students are more inspired and maybe learn a little more being the ones on the field fixing their machines in those precious moments between elimination matches rather than sitting in the stands watching all the adult team members from a distance. Of course, that is just my opinion.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

And I feel like you haven't read our posts. It looks like you keep stating the same opinion, without supporting arguments, but you expect us to change our opinion to match yours. Your preferences for how best to run your team are certainly valid, and they are likely appropriate for your team. However, several people have pointed out that your wider view of "what FRC is supposed to be" is not supported by the facts.

I've tried to keep an open mind and listen to what you are saying. Unfortunately, it sounds to me like what you keep saying is that FRC is all about teams of high school students, and having adults as an active part of the team is unfair. I cannot accept that, because it is demonstrably false.

Try reading what everyone is trying to tell you, without prejudice. If you can't come up with a more effective way to defend your opinion than mere repetition, you might want to consider the possibility that your opinion ought to be reevaluated.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Is there Robot Envy? Certainly - everyone would love a slick-looking well-executing machine.

Is there Budget Envy? Who wouldn't want a $40,000+ budget that some teams have?

Is there Mentor Envy? Sure, but there are only so many Karthiks, Copiolis, Bakers and V-Neun's to go around.

But does this create despair? Not for me, and that's because of a very different mindset in FIRST - those that have help those that lack, those that can help those that can't. Rather than sink into despiration, we can choose to seek inspiration from those around us. And if we happen to beat a 33 or a 65 or a 47 in a match or two, that's icing on the cake.

As a parent, I'm very happy for the amount of hands-on activity my daughter and her teammates get. This team seems to have more direct student involvement than some other teams have. Yet we respect the contributions the mentors make. The students, and the non-engineering parents, realize that the ability to weild a screwdriver or power drill is important, but that doesn't drive the program. The ability to understand the engineering principles behind designs as explained by the mentors is worth even more. And as the students learn, they contribute their design ideas to the pool that becomes the robot. Not to mention the Chairmans, the fundraising, programming, and all the other sub-groups that make up a team.

It's my opinion that this team structure is the best for this team. Leav has his opinions. Other teams have their own opinions. The success of any of the programs cannot be determined by the robot performance on the field. The success will come much later, after inspired students go on to get degrees and they themselves begin designing or building or medicating or teaching or mentoring in their careers. The success of a now-17-year-old program will be felt many 17's of years later.

It may be a cliche, but inspiration comes in many flavors, and inspiring the students to change the culture is what this is all about.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I, like Leav, have seen both sides of this.

To put my view on this into one sentance: "Students make the decisions, mentors help make the decisions informed, students build as much as possible, but when it comes down to the monday before shipdate, who really cares if the guy with the drill is in high school or not" Read on for a description of why

(Warning: Epic description of FIRST experience follows.)

I started FIRST in 4th grade, with a rookie FLL team. I had owned a mindstorms set for a year and a half, so I had some idea what I was doing. However, we were unable to build an effective robot, due to starting the competition epically late, and various misinterpretations of the rules. We saw many other teams scoring very effectively, which inspired us to continue. We didn't score a single point throughout the competition, but I remember, as I left the gym, saying "I can't wait until next year." I was inspired, not through personal success, but through watching what is possible to do.

Over the next five years, I remained in FLL, doing better each year. Our team consisted of 5-7 kids each year, selected largely on how much, after seeing a past robot, they went "oh wow." We had no mentors, only two parents who knew little of engineering, and served mostly to help with team organization. However, at each competition, I began feeling a lot like you do. There were teams there who had MIT professors build there robot, with kids who clearly did not know basic information about their robot, who would win. I began thinking: Why should that be allowed. We, a group of 12-year olds, built a competitive robot by ourselves, why should they be able to do that? If we can do it ourselves, why not them? I still maintain that these teams did not act correctly, but read on.

We did very well in FLL, winning our state tournament in 2004, and making it to the 2005 world championship, where we placed 19th. At the time, we felt that this proved our feelings about student built robots to be valid. And to a certain extent this was true. But now, looking back on those years, I realize just how much of what I learned came from other teams. We would go to a pre-season competition, see something, say "cool, but that won't fit on our arm. What if we modify it in xxx way." Some of this came from the MIT teams mentioned above. So, without realizing it, we were inspired by mentors

In 2007, I entered FRC and FTC. Our team, from my point of view, had a little mentioned variant of a mentor-built problem, the senior-built problem. Everyone on CD jokes about freshmen in the quotes thread: "Freshman; go file something. NO! BAD FRESHMAN! GET AWAY FROM THE BLOWTORCH." However, as one of those rare freshmen who wanted to learn, I didn't want to clean our closet. I wanted to design a robot. I learned a lot that year, but wish I could have been more involved.

In september of that year, most members of my FLL team "graduated," and I went on to mentor a new FLL team, composed of the two remaining members from my former team, and a lot of rookies. Based on my experiences, I wanted to be a hands off mentor. I would try to lead the students to the solutions, without directly telling them. However, this team, like my former team, had a strict anti-mentor policy. If I lead them to something, it would usually get thrown out, because I had helped the idea along, or even just voiced my support of something that a student had come up with on their own. I was not allowed to attend all meetings, because I was not considered a member of the team. Needless to say, after 6 years of FLL as a student, I considered myself something of an expert on it. Having your opinion ignored for that very reason was quite disheartening. As a result, I am not planning on returning to this team next year, unless some changes are made.

(end of long story)

So from this, I began seeing the mentor point of view. The mentors want to teach. Sometimes they can get a bit over involved. Sometimes they can flat out overpower the students. But if the students learn, it is okay. I know it sounds cliche, but FIRST's goal is to inspire students. Nothing more. Without realizing it until, quite honestly, halfway through writing this post, I got my inspiration from seeing other successful FLL teams. Yes, building a robot that made it to Atlanta was inspiring. But I would never have stayed in FIRST if I had had just our zero-point FLL robot to go on for what can be done with technology.

The mentors, in my opinion, should function to facilitate inspiration. This can happen in any range of ways, from sitting in a corner as I had to, to building a robot for the students. I believe that mentors should try to get students to come up with ideas by teaching them to think, or giving incomplete answers. However, if a mentor finds themselves telling students what to do, I think they have gone a bit too far. I agree with those who say FIRST isn't a science fair, but it isn't a lecture hall either. I have had great learning experiences through being taught, but also through personal discovery.



However, as Lil' Lavery has said multiple times, this is very strictly my opinion on this. FIRST has deliberatly not told us how we should adress this. Although I have had poor experiences on both ends of the spectrum, I am sure that others have had great experiences. As long as the team works towards what FIRST does say that it is, than I have no problem.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

ofcourse not... that's why I repeated "My Opinion is..." about 47 times..... :]





rocketperson44, I agree with you when you say that it possible to inspire in many ways - but My opinion is (zing ;) ) that they should be inspired that they can do things... not that a mentor can.








this is important:

Both ways work:
Inspiration by perspiration
or
Inspiration by observation

it's just that every single student would want to be inspired by doing and not by seeing someone else do things.

If you don't agree with me ask a student - i'll bet you a dozen krispy kreams they will tell you the same thing....


-Leav

Re: GP? I think not.
 

This is kind of an interesting thread to read but at the same time, I think about alumni of 418 (and other teams) whom I've had the opportunity to work with and to get to know and I'm so tickled with their educational choices/careers paths, I sometimes just giggle.

We are a team who makes it work.
We are a very proud team because of how we make it work.
We don't really worry about other teams and who has what or does what, we just focus on what we can do and on keeping it healthy and fun for everyone, especially the students. We had our postmortem last night that lasted for a while and afterwards, the mentors agreed that we will continue to talk on the bus to Atlanta but that our priority is to keep the experience a rewarding experience for the students, keep the fun alive, and help them live out their dreams in pursuing their goals.

That's kind of what I think about as I read these posts.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I've corrected numerous members on my team about this issues too many times to count. I try to explain to them that just because you have a good looking robot it's professionally built. This year we have a decent looking robot and we have 3 mentors and no engineers but, we do have an awesome designer (*cough* me *cough*).

One of the things that I strive for on my team is consistency and improving on idea that already works. I've studied some of the greatest robots ever and I've noticed that many teams build upon what they know. Some examples are: Pink's Telescoping arm, Beachbots Single Jointed arm, 254's and 968's "west coast drive", 25's gear drive, 118's swerve, Wildstang's Swerve and many many more. These teams create a standard mechanism design that can be adapted to nearly any challenge. And it may appear on the outside that these robots are professionally designed, but when you look at the up close you realize they are just cases of using what you know and improving upon it. I'm just saying if you built a *insert cool mechanism here* every year you would look professional too.

I also would like to add that many people who say "Team XXX has engineers build their bot" or "We'd be good if we had a $XX,XXX budget" or "those kids haven't touched their robot" have never even spoken to anyone on these teams. I've noticed with many teams that have a lot of mentors, that the mentors work side by side with the students. So just because the mentors are working on it doesn't mean that the students don't, you can't assume anything until you ask. And yes, there are teams out there who don't see the robot until a few days before ship but, don't assume because someone is good that they have engineers build their 'bot.

And anyways who cares if someone builds a robot for a team. FIRST in itself is about inspiring, and these teams with "Engineer Built Robots", as people like to say, just inspire me to get to their level. And yes, I would like to have $XX,XXX dollars as a budget but, we do fine without it. And I will almost guarantee you that most of these kids on the teams with "Engineer Built Robots" are walking around with smiles and participating. I've found that there is no reason to bash a team better than you because there's no point. IMO, I think that those who say things about other teams without knowing how they run their team and built their robots is UN-GP.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

DanTod97,
Not every program is the right fit for every person. If you have a deep philosophical difference with a program, there are basically 3 options:

1. Try to work with the leadership of the program to change the philosophy. This is probably not going to happen in FRC -- the involvement of mentors is such an important component, this issue has been addressed so many times, and the conclusion has come back again and again to keep things as they are.

2. Try to accommodate yourself to the program. Tell yourself, "I don't like A, but B and C are so good that I'll tolerate it."

3. If the philosophical is divide is so different that you can't reconcile it, find a different program that is a closer fit to your philosophy. There are many other robotics programs out there: BEST, Robofest, Vex (now independent from FIRST), and FTC, for starters. Last year's FTC (formerly FVC) Championship Inspire and Winning Alliance captain was entirely without adult mentorship. Even in Atlanta, the all-student team came without a single adult to pay the bills and carry the snacks.

Our team was offered a NASA scholarship for FRC 3 years ago, but we knew it wasn't the right fit for us. We explored FVC/FTC instead and have had 3 wonderful seasons.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Out team was like that earlier, out mentor was the main one with the ideas and he led the team. But then change came and now out team is student led. Ever since the change, the students are happier but we have not won a regional. Every since the change, the robot we have built have been more successful at their objectives than the previous ones.

I wouldn't say that it's mainly the mentors building. There are still teams out there with large number of students who perform amazingly. I feel the first comment was posted as an unfair way to pin a loss or frustration on a a great system. Many teams enjoy FIRST and what it stands for. Although there may have been only a few teams in the pits, there may have been many other students around. The pit is only supposed to have like 4-5 people max. You can't really have 50 people doing something in one pit.

I for one think it's great that mentors take part in this competition and i can't think about what this competition would produce if it wasn't for the mentors, engineers, and team parents that put effort into this competition.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I would like to point out one situation that might strike one of the points DanTod was trying to make about the fact that during competition these teams are power houses well here it goes:

During the Florida Regional we were seated 5th and got picked by 233(after 5 years of having a team this is the first time that we were paired up with them) and we also picked 86

233 I believe is one of the power houses of FIRST and they deserve it given the fact that they have been in a lot of finals and also received recognition with things other than their robot but their program itself.
This year 233 has been a growing star from barely seeing them at the practice field on Thursday at Florida to being undefeated in Hawaii until they lost one match in the semis.

Well I'll get to the point during match 2 of the semi finals at Florida we ended up placing a ball at the last second that go us the win instead of the tie and allowed us to go to the finals and later on win the regional

what I'm trying to say is that no one team does it on their own, if we hadn't placed that ball up there maybe we would of tied and lost the regional which wouldn't of been the end of the world. the other alliance (79,801,348) was one of the toughest alliances there

Even 1114 who has been unstoppable with their 42-6-0 record this year has had help from their partners, during their first regional I don't think they could of done it without 1024 and it goes the other way for 1114

I believe that the strong teams that maybe be ran by NASA engineers are only as good as how you perceive them because after all they are man made and student driven so if you just think of it as "wow what a great machine" and sit there and analyze the parts and how the things are designed then you might get that spark to do something like that on your own as a high school student or college student

This is what I try to pass on to students when I mentor 1251 or LEGO league if you are intimidated by these teams and don't have anything better to do but call them unfair because they are winning and they have a great design then I'm sorry but you are jealous (my opinion )

Sebas

Re: GP? I think not.
 

FYI: There is a spotlight somewhere on here about "your second year as a student is your first year as a mentor." So, if FIRST is for students only, then only freshmen are allowed on teams. This is not the case.

DanTod, the problem you see is not a problem necessarily. Remember, there is absolutely no rule about team makeup (other than drive team makeup) or who can work on the robot. Also, there may be factors such as a critical repair needing to be made and the students needing to be fed at the same time. There is nothing that can disqualify a team from competing based on makeup/who does the work.

I am with Leav, to a point. I am a mentor. I prefer to let the students do the work, but I will step in if something needs to be done. I was in the pit most of the time, but I was mainly observing. However, improvements sometimes need to be made. So, I step in with the students at least observing, if not actively participating in the changes. Would you disqualify a team because mentors help? I think not! Especially because that isn't what you said. Just some teams, the mentors seem to do the work, but do they really? As I said, there may be other factors.

I think that you should think about what others have said in this thread. There are many, many valid points on both sides of this issue.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Agreed. I'd rather run a race than watch someone run a race, but I'd also like someone to confirm that I'm running in the right direction.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Well, its pretty clear that a lot of people have strong opinions on this issue (6 pages in less than a day).

Most of the responses have disagreed with the original post and many have good reasons for this, but the fact is that dissent against these "mentor teams" exists. It obviously does not bother the people in charge of FIRST, but some members of smaller teams (mentors and students alike) lose respect for teams like this.

Its true that these teams can be more successful and more helpful at competitions, but that isn't enough to sway everyone's opinion. Calls for change by people like Depreciation can go ignored, but the truth is is that he is not the only one with this opinion.

There seems to be somewhat of a split in FIRST between people who agree and disagree with mentor-dominated teams. The reason that its not quite so apparent on CD is that everyone who is against these mentor-dominated teams is promptly told that they shouldn't criticize how other teams are run. Often times, this is worded harshly and this person no longer speaks their opinion on this subject. Is this really a good way to deal with people who have this opinion?

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I dont think its a clear cut mentor vs student thing.
Our mentor (engineer) this year was the cheesy poofs website, 2005 robot photo where we tried to emulate and create our base from. :P

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I saw a lot of specific examples and well phrased explanations behind virtually all of the opinions expressed in this thread. I didn't see many if any posts that were worded harshly towards Depreciation.

Unless someone has a good idea on how we should deal with this "split", explaining our views and the ideas behind the "mentor dominated" teams is the only way we can try and reconcile the difference.

I have already expressed my opinion here. There are many other competitions that are high school competitions. Perhaps if some people feel that strongly that their experience is being harmed by mentor dominated teams, then maybe FRC just isn't right for them. I love FRC and I don't like even suggesting that people leave it, but members of FIRST leadership have already expressed their thoughts on this issue, and change does not look to be on the horizon. Science and technology inspiration can come from many other programs as well and if things just aren't working in FRC maybe that is the best direction to go.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

straight from FIRST's mentor handbook;

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I have no desire to jump into this discussion (partially because I haven't decided what side I'm on yet), but I wanted to point something out to everyone who says "don't try to convince other teams that your opinion is the correct one".

IMO, if everything was left the way it is without attempts to initiate a change, we wouldn't get very far (this applies to FIRST and society in general). More participating members and teams means more insight and constructive criticism. If Leav thinks that the students in his team have a better experience as the actual working members on the team, he is entirely entitled to suggest and even try to convince other teams to adopt this system. If Sean believes his system provides the most inspiration and benefit to the students, it is great that he is trying to convince people to use it.

One more thing that bothers me: when people say that the "team" should decide what works best for it, that would be the ideal case if all teams were democratic and keen to changes. However, most teams developed these systems when they are founded and are often run the same way for many years, while the current students don't really have a say in it. Because the program is intended for high school students (the mentors and engineers are there to support the program), I think their opinions should be given considerable weight in such team decisions, which we all know does not happen (most important decisions are made by the mentors from what I have heard).

Re: GP? I think not.
 

When I started FIRST freshman year, I had a very one-sided view on how a FIRST team should be set up. My team's robot was student built, and I'm competing with it, so shouldn't my competitors be student built robots as well?

Needless to say, I didn't get it, as is evident by the 80-something posts before me, and countless other forums about this very topic.

As a freshman in college, I see the merit to both approaches to student inspiration, and every mix in the middle. Unfortunately, I think the side that favors student run teams has been blatantly attacked, and I think it has been overlooked by the CD community at large. Dave Lavery said (correct me if I am misquoting) that teams run by students with robots built by students are "missing the point". So how can the many members of CD, whom I have nothing but respect for, find it so easy to invalidate DanTod's posts when during the Kickoff, which I assume a majority of people here (including myself) watched, the very same thing happened, just to the other "side" of the argument?

I'm going to say how I, personally, myself, felt about what Dave said during the Kickoff. I was frustrated, angry and disappointed. After 4 years of being on a student run, student built team, putting in hours upon hours of hard work into our teams robot year after year, being told that the entire time I was "missing the point"?

To make it very clear though, I have the utmost respect for Dave Lavery, and every other student, mentor, parent, volunteer and sponsor that make FIRST possible. It really is the greatest thing happened to me in high school and I am nothing but in debt the great organization FIRST is.

Mike C.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I just hope that the people who post in contradiction to this thread understand that everyone is allowed their opinion. I happen to agree with him. I believe that adult interaction with the robot is way above what should be allowed. I don't think this is the students fault, the team structures fault, or even the adults fault! People naturally want to be involved. The thing is that adult who want to get involved get involved because quite simply they are the adults. It takes incredible restraint for an engineering adult to not take control of engineering, something that he/she must do, in my opinion. The one time I really understood the importance of this was this season. I was working with our engineering mentor on our elevator's spool when we decided to make a food run, of which I went with. When i got back a half hour later and found him sitting in a chair doing nothing. At first I wondered why he hadn't finished it without me, then I realized that He wasn't really working on the spool, he was working on me. Thats when I realized how much the teams with (sorry to be frank) irresponsible adults, are losing. I walk by pits, and see adults bouncing ideas off each other, making calls, being innovative, and acting on those decisions over and over again. I think this is a real hit to the purpose of FIRST and something that students really should sit down and talk to with their mentors. Remember! They work for you, not the other way around!

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I thought the exact same thing when I heard that at kickoff (I think it was Woody btw). I think student run teams are getting the point! FIRST is here in order to train our youth on how to run and advance the engineering world, when we run the world there will be no elders doing things for us. So I say make tools off limits for adults, and make the design phase student only. Please understand the difference between engineering and designing. Where Designing is deciding to use Akerman steering, and a launching robot. Engineering is what materials and methods to do these things.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

Exactly, the only reason I keep posting at all is because people seem to keep attacking my opinion and the fact that I decided to state it, im not trying to start and argument and im not going to get involved in one.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

The reality of the situation is that FIRST as an organization has taken sides on this issue.

Dave Lavery's comments during kickoffs are the most recent example. He completely alienated over half of FIRST by saying that. I understand the lesson that Woody and Dean originally wanted to teach, but thousands of other lessons have emerged beyond their dreams.

To categorically say that some of the unique things kids learn on student-dominated teams are any less important to inspiring students is, frankly, insulting.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

The original post was about super teams that are just here to
win.

I can tell you that the best feeling we had at Cleveland was that
our partner team 2048 won right along with us despite they were only
a 2nd year team working with very few mentors.

Its the best when we all win.:)

Re: GP? I think not.
 

It was Dave.

Design is a fundamental component of engineering.

Again, everyone is talking about the competition. While people are quick to point out that it's not about the robots to the teams who are ultra competitive, it's interesting that the same situation is happening here.

To you I also say it is not about the robot. Thus if it is not about the robot, it doesn't matter how other teams conduct their business, so long as they do it within the rules, and they find it inspiring.

If it was about the robots, and FIRST was all about making a competition for high school students to determine which students could make the best robot then yes, adult involvement would be something to worry about. We have clearly established that it is NOT about the robots though.

I'd like to point out a few years ago that Dean flat out said "FIRST is not fair". It's up to the teams who feel that way to do something to better themselves, or take their time and money elsewhere.

I'd like to see the numbers backing your statement that half of FIRST was alienated. I for one applaud Dave's statement, and I have seen both sides of the equation.

For the record, if you were to go back and watch the video again, I believe Dave said something to the effect of "Hey, it's awesome that these students are capable of doing what they do--but imagine how much more they'd be able to do, and how much more they'd learn if they worked with professional engineers who have mountains of knowledge to share.

To categorically say that Dave's claims are inaccurate is exactly what you just said you were against.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

From the FIRST website, http://usfirst.org/who/default.aspx?id=34:

The point of FRC is to expose students to science and technology professionals. That is what differentiates it from other programs like it. I believe two years ago at kickoff, someone said something along the lines of "There are hundreds of high school programs out there that stick students in a corner and tell them to build a robot. There is only one that sticks students AND adult mentors in a corner to build a robot, and that is FRC." (forgive me, I'm paraphrasing from a vague memory here.)

You had a great experience, you were inspired, I'm sure Mr. Lavery was not trying to take that away from you. Instead, what I think he was trying to say was that sure, you can do cool things as a student built, run etc team, but what you can learn from working with mentors is so much more, and is what this program is about, as it is clearly stated in all their promotional materials and in everything they as an organization do.

The people at FIRST are those who determine what the program is supposed to be about. They have made it crystal clear that FRC teams are supposed to have students and mentors working together to build a robot. Unless the message we are given from on high changes, I see no reason for teams with mentors to stop what they're doing.

If you disagree with this philosophy, FRC is obviously not the competition for you. There are plenty of other competitions out there that share your philosophy. It has been made clear that FRC is not one of them.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

I was never actually jealous of any of the fancy engineering teams. The only time I was jealous was the year I left college and saw the new kit. The gearboxes were made out of metal.Unfortunately, that's not how real life works. In real life you are forced to work with the elders because it's the law. You legally can not call yourself an engineer unless you A) Pass a test and B) Work underneath someone who is an engineer which would be your elder by a number of years.

Re: GP? I think not.
 

If we think about this in a glass half full way - let's look at the spectacular growth of FIRST in less than 20 years in several programs, with more growth on the way. The growth is being managed now by mentors who are committed to the program(s) and the students. These mentors range from engineers to college students to teachers to NEMs. I felt the comments made at the Kick Off addressed the intrinsic need to retain the engineers we have and to recruit more engineers into the program(s). I support this stance because I see teams/FIRST weakened over time by lack of the sound foundation that engineers bring to the program if we don't continue to recruit them as we grow. Teachers, NEMs, college students can keep the program(s) going and do excellent jobs but the engineers are vital to the program, the mission, the goals - short term and long term.