Quote:
Originally Posted by ttldomination
I'm curious about how you would reply to people who would say that this method fails to engage students at a higher level? That is to say that if a mentor is managing the big picture, it robs students from getting a chance to weigh into major decisions.
For some teams that operate on the principal of "student built; student designed," the aforementioned structure seems to challenge the very foundations of some teams.
- Sunny G.
|
In FIRST, there is no best way to do something. If your team prioritizes student involvement, and you believe that this method detracts from that to much, then you shouldn't do it. It's not the only way to achieve success. However, it is true that many of the most successful* teams out there do not put such a huge priority on student involvement (not to say that they are 100% mentor built, but they believe that there are more important things than avoiding mentor involvement, and that in most cases mentor involvement is actually a good thing). This enables them to use this method, and it works very well for them. I am not a believer in the student built; student designed philosophy. I don't think that it is the best way to reach the goal that we all strive for. But just because I don't believe in it, doesn't mean that it's bad. In the end, whether you are 100% student built or 100% mentor built (if there is such a thing), we can all reach the ultimate goal: the inspiration and recognition of science and technology.
*I'm mainly referring to successful in the robot sense, but the same applies to successful in chairman's award sense.
P.S. I hope this doesn't go in the direction of every other student vs. mentor built thread. There was a lot of really good discussion going on, and I don't want to see it fade away. I'm probably just fanning the flames, but I've been wanting to post something about the subject, and this was my chance.
