[aaeamdar]

First off, thanks to all who have replied and a further thanks to putting up with what may seem like a regurgitation of old arguments. That was not entirely my intention, though I may have stepped into a bit of a quagmire.

My intention was really to ask this question without shades of grey (which, of course, we all know is impossible, which I'll get to). When I originally wrote this post, the word "mentor" was not something that was at all in my head, frankly. This is because to me, mentor means a teacher who takes a special interest in students' development. I hope this isn't getting too much into the whole 'which is better debate', but I will say that I find it hard to be a true engineering mentor if you're not at least in some small way working with the students to build and/or design the robot. I'm not saying that I think teams that have engineers build the robot are bad, or that they aren't inspiring students.

What I was really thinking of is when ABC Corporation picks up the K.O.P., takes in back to their shop, and designs and builds a robot and then ships it. Now, there are shades of grey within this. For example, if the students watched the engineers build the robot, they probably got something out of it. And if one student tightened one bolt once, did the students have a meaningful role in building the robot? Whether you think student involvement is important or not, most would agree that this doesn't constitute terribly meaningful involvement. But really, I was talking about a situation where students have no significant roles in either designing or building the robot.

So, to summarize the rather lengthy point I was perhaps obtusely trying to make: I wasn't thinking of "mentor-built" robots, because I don't personally see them as "mentors" if they're not teaching the students and at least partly involving them in the design or build process.

One last point: though perhaps unwise, I did request personal opinions on the subject. Mostly so far I think we have been fairly reasonable to each other, and let's try to keep that up. Specifically, FreedomForce thinks that FIRST should change its rules and audit teams, and he's entitled to his opinion. I'd also point out that responding to someone saying "mentor run teams do not acheive the goals of FIRST" by saying "well, FIRST does not have a blueprint for how teams run" doesn't make too much sense (to me at least). The first person is suggesting (or seems to be suggesting) that FIRST should have such a blueprint. Responding by telling them that there is no blueprint is not much of a logical point.

Paul

P.S.: I am not at all talking about NEMOs. I just don't equate "this guy who built a robot for me" to engineering mentor.