I don't think any of us really have to debate or consult the oracle on what FRC/FIRST defines as a mentor, their roles, etc, etc... There's a guide for that:
http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...ng%20Guide.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by wireties
Jason - I hate to beat a dead horse in this thread. But you have made extraordinary claims and I have to ask: How many students did you talk to? How did you assess the % of student involvement on each student's team? How many students per team did you sample? Were these students first, second, third or fourth year? How did you gauge the student level of excitement? Did you record any of the observations? (not to reveal here but to make sure your year over year data was consistent) Did you query the correlating mentors?
Do you see what I'm getting at? One can't just make believable claims w/o supporting data. it just does not ring true.
From the dictionary - a wise or trusted adviser or guide - One wants their "guides" to show them how to do things. One wants wise, trusted advisors to be "doers" if the advisor thinks it best.
Agreed - but how is this not playing an active role? You state one principle then gives examples of something very different.
Another thing - the term "mentor", as used in FRC, is not strictly the one from the dictionary. Your definition is far from complete. FRC teams are meant to resemble real-world engineering organizations where mentors are muuuuuch more than teachers or counselors. In a professional context, mentors are held responsible for the progress and success of a novice. It is a much more formal and collaborative role.
|