Quote:
Originally Posted by Depreciation
All im really hearing is the expected cliches, and that the students on these teams are learning..
|
Likewise, you are denouncing successful teams with a cliche argument.
I strongly suggest that you look into the 'mentor vs. student ratio' argument, and realize that (with the exception of extreme cases) this argument usually stems from a person who feels bad because they did not perform well in a competition. I can understand this, ive been there, and it doesnt feel great for the first 20 minutes. But instead of saying "oh, such and such a team beat us because they have more mentors", i thought to myself "now, how can i help improve the team to do better next year?". You are right, this is a competition- but its about a lot more than a well built robot. teams who do well at the competition do so because of experience, teamwork, technical ability, sacrifice, and luck.
but hey, if youd rather mope and look down upon teams for having more resources, then be my guest.
i cant remember who said this but "if you are on a team who is completely student run, you are missing the point of FIRST" (it was either Dean or Woody)