I'm going to disagree with you, and then agree with you. I know you don't mean it, but this is one of those issues that has such a fine line that wording is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
I don't think a mentor designed robot is a bad thing in the slightest.
|
It is bad. The designing is in my view the part that FIRST is trying to get at. I've hit this point already but I'll bring it up again. Referring to the mission of FIRST, it's goals are to inspire STEM "leaders", and in addition "build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation". I do not see a mentor designing a robot as accomplishing the mission. If students don't know the why or the how (what I see as designing) then how can they become leaders? How can they innovate or truly develop skills to make them go above and beyond, to go where we are asking them to?
Now the semi-agreeing part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
However, I really think that this detailed design stuff is rather hard, and to expect every team of students to do it without significant help is silly.
|
Yes. It is hard stuff, and that is why the other part of FIRST's mission is to establish "exciting mentor-based programs". Students do not know the detailed design stuff and they need help. But help does not mean, someone else does it for them, it means you mentor (definition of mentor: adviser) the students to design. Students can come up with simple designs or you can pull out A design really, and then you advise and guide them. You poke holes in their design, get them to see the flaws, and perhaps suggest what would make the design work better. THAT is true mentoring, down to the definition of the word, and how I see as it aligns with FIRST's mission.
There is an important distinction between mentor-designed and mentor-built. I do absolutely see concerns with a mentor-designed robot, as stated above. But for many teams that are trying to advance the knowledge they have, it absolutely requires mentors to assist in physically building.
I hardly doubt that any team has a 100% student-built and/or student-designed robot (I absolutely can be wrong) but that is the point of FIRST. Mentors are supposed to help students develop the ideas, and as a result the idea is no longer 100% that of a students'. Mentors are supposed to teach students how to work with tools, parts, and materials, meaning that robots aren't always 100% student-built.
Sorry for nitpicking, but it's important. Significant help and mentor-designed are not the same in my book, and as we discuss this I want to establish that (from my viewpoint).