Quote:
Originally Posted by redbarron
1.) I was wondering what kind of relationship you have with your sponsors?
2.) When you graduate, and/if you decide to come back are you going to take no part in the build, even if it would help a student learn or better understand what he/she is doing. If you ask me I think to not teach a new student something that cannot be taught verbally is holding that student back which is doing more harm than good.
3.) Do you look down on teams that have a mentor or an engineer help them with their robot?
4.) What is your reason for not letting an adult help in the building of your robot.
|
I'll answer these as I would have after my first season in FIRST, and as I feel now after a few years mentoring.
1)
Then: Not much of a relationship. They sponsored us, but didn't send any engineers, so we were really didn't have an opportunity for mentoring anyway
Now: On my most recent team, it was about the same. Some of the sponsors were student's parent's employers, so the parents were there, but they would have been anyway. The other sponsors (school board) obviously couldn't send anyone. Really, I'd call it about equal to my original high school team
2)
Then: I probably would have said I was going to return, because in fact I did return to that team the very next year. I felt pretty guilty about every line of code I wrote or helped write outside of teaching C/C++.
Now: I still feel pretty guilty giving too much more detail beyond a general algorithm outline. I feel good teaching stuff they typically wouldn't have learned in HS math or computer science courses, but I feel bad saying "alright, so this is exactly a method or algorithm that will work".
3)
Then: Given a team that had any adult touch their robot at any point during build or competition, I would have thought they were, if not cheating, bending the rules of what was purportedly a high school competition.
Now: I mainly only dislike teams with pits full of adults, which is difficult to reconcile with my enjoyment of hanging out in the pit with the programming team begging to adjust code on the robot.
4) Since my old HS team was primarily a fabrication-based team, the teachers view it as an extraordinary chance for the students to apply their manufacuring skills that they've been learning. Thus, there is little need for adult mentors seen, as all the senior students already know how to mill, lathe, drill press, and weld. Also, there was a strong view of the competition as a primarily high school competition, so teams with super-heavy mentor involvement were seen as bending rules. Plus, the students get a much better feeling of accomplishment after finishing a robot and knowing that they did it ALL.
So there are my answers to your survey. Right now I'm pretty fine with heavy mentor involvement, but primarily limited to teaching students how to use tools to get the job done. Whether those tools are lathes, hammers, algorithms, or math, that's all good, just so long as the mentor isn't the one implementing the code, fabricating the part, or designing the robot.