[Jared Russell]

Every team has the right to run their build process in whatever way that they see fit.

That's part of the beauty of FIRST. As long as the people in charge are thinking about what is best for the kids, there are any number of ways to approach build.

Do students get interested in science and technology by working closely with a large number of engineering professionals? Absolutely.

Do kids get interested in science and technology by working on the machine with more freedom and less supervision? Absolutely.

Two different philosophies, and both of them work. The first shows students the power of engineering - what professionals can do. The result is amazing machines year after year. The second lets students get more of a feeling of accomplishment - which is just as important. The result is pride that will never go away. Both are important.

Engineer-dominated teams tend to win blue banners and get the "oohs" and "ahhs" from the crowd. Student-led teams have different sorts of achievement criteria - kids who have never made a moving machine before have conquered a challenge no less impressive than a team of veteran engineers who can help win a regional.

Now, Chief Delphi is populated by far more of the former type of team. We go on here and praise the technical achievements of corporate teams. While some of what gets built in FIRST is truly amazing, I do think that we all tend to forget about the remaining 90% of FIRST whose major accomplishment is just having a robot at competition.

Anyhow - in closing:

There is no one "right" way to run a FIRST team. Both engineer- and student-led approaches are valid and have their merits.