[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Quite honestly, though, while the amount of mentor involvement is a very important personal debate for teams to have internally, it shouldn't have the slightest bit of relevance to judged awards at all. And what a judge perceives as "student built" or "mentor built" shouldn't matter.

Respectfully, I think it's a bit too simplistic to proclaim this as an absolute. Student involvement is important. Let's consider an extreme case: if a team showed up to competition that consisted of a handful of students who drove the robot, with literally everything else handled by the mentors, do you think that ought to have "not the slightest bit of relevance" to judged awards at all? There's a reason that the judges talk to students, not to mentors.

Now, I don't mean to imply that such a case is representative of any actual teams - but I think it illustrates, as a principle, why we can't just discard the notion that student involvement is important to whether or not a team deserves an award. I obviously can't speak to the questions that the judges you observed were actually asking, or to whether or not their judgment in the matter was reasonable - but I don't think the concept itself is necessarily wrong. It's all a matter of extent.

If an inspired student can professionally explain a quality mechanism within the criteria of an award, they should be eligible for the tech award. If a team of students manages to inspire not only themselves but the community at large through promoting STEM awareness, then they should be eligible for EI. And no student should have to convince any judge that they are the sole entity who built a quality, professional looking mechanism in order for the team to deserve recognition for it.

Now here, I agree entirely. But if a student is able to professionally explain a mechanism (both in terms of operation and manufacture), what reason would the judges have to believe that the mentors did all the work?