[ahartnet]

There's frequently a lot of conversation on student-built vs mentor-built. I used to have much stronger opinions on that, then I came sort of to what I would consider "middle of the road", but in the last couple of years I've come to conclusion that's the wrong way to think of the problem.

My focus is on student accountability. If the students feel accountable for the robot and success of the team - then I don't care how involved or uninvolved the mentors are.

A student-led (mentors there just to make sure students don't lose any fingers) team is no good if the students don't feel accountable and don't feel some pressure to make the team succeed. In other words, they students are just there having "fun" and learning - which maybe they still have fun regardless of the amount of success! That's good - but there are much cheaper, less stressful ways of doing that. Too many people put too much money and time in for a team to not be actively working towards a team that can compete (whether that competition is focused on a robot on the field, or the impact they're having on the community).

Alternatively, a mentor-led team (even one where students are actively involved and learning) is no good either (in my opinion) if the students don't feel accountable for the robot and the team. In other words, if they view the mentors as a safety net and rely on mentors to produce award winning concepts/prototypes/ideas. If a team wins (whether an award or just general success on the field), but the students don't feel ownership over it - then I think a big part of FIRST is missing. Even if the students are inspired and excited about being a part of a winning team.

If students are working hard - I'm working hard along side with them. If students are not working hard - I'm working hard to figure out why they aren't and what needs to change.