Quote:
Originally Posted by aaeamdar
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.
|
I don't want to put words in Rich's mouth, but what I think he means is that there is no blueprint because FIRST does not care what method of inspiration teams use. They are just happy that kids are being inspired.
We should be too. If something works for another team, who are any of us to say that's wrong? When I was in high school I used to share some of the same opinions of the "engineer built" teams (and most of the time, this isn't even the case. Very few teams have a system where the kids don't do anything), and I said some things that in retrospect made me look plain old silly. I'm glad that I got to know those said teams, and found out that first of all it wasn't the way I thought it was, and second that even if it was, they have every right to run their team however they want, and their model is no better or worse than my own.
I think ultimately the student-mentor debate comes down to jealousy. Would any of you who think engineer built robots are bad care at all if every single one of them took last place at every event? It wouldn't be an issue if they did. Instead of worrying about how some other team is run, look around at all the successful teams in your area, and see what you can take from their model to improve your team. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If every team spent the time they waste pontificating on the merits of another team, and invested it into improving their own, FRC would be a much better place.