[Joe G.]

I, like Leav, have seen both sides of this.

To put my view on this into one sentance: "Students make the decisions, mentors help make the decisions informed, students build as much as possible, but when it comes down to the monday before shipdate, who really cares if the guy with the drill is in high school or not" Read on for a description of why

(Warning: Epic description of FIRST experience follows.)

I started FIRST in 4th grade, with a rookie FLL team. I had owned a mindstorms set for a year and a half, so I had some idea what I was doing. However, we were unable to build an effective robot, due to starting the competition epically late, and various misinterpretations of the rules. We saw many other teams scoring very effectively, which inspired us to continue. We didn't score a single point throughout the competition, but I remember, as I left the gym, saying "I can't wait until next year." I was inspired, not through personal success, but through watching what is possible to do.

Over the next five years, I remained in FLL, doing better each year. Our team consisted of 5-7 kids each year, selected largely on how much, after seeing a past robot, they went "oh wow." We had no mentors, only two parents who knew little of engineering, and served mostly to help with team organization. However, at each competition, I began feeling a lot like you do. There were teams there who had MIT professors build there robot, with kids who clearly did not know basic information about their robot, who would win. I began thinking: Why should that be allowed. We, a group of 12-year olds, built a competitive robot by ourselves, why should they be able to do that? If we can do it ourselves, why not them? I still maintain that these teams did not act correctly, but read on.

We did very well in FLL, winning our state tournament in 2004, and making it to the 2005 world championship, where we placed 19th. At the time, we felt that this proved our feelings about student built robots to be valid. And to a certain extent this was true. But now, looking back on those years, I realize just how much of what I learned came from other teams. We would go to a pre-season competition, see something, say "cool, but that won't fit on our arm. What if we modify it in xxx way." Some of this came from the MIT teams mentioned above. So, without realizing it, we were inspired by mentors

In 2007, I entered FRC and FTC. Our team, from my point of view, had a little mentioned variant of a mentor-built problem, the senior-built problem. Everyone on CD jokes about freshmen in the quotes thread: "Freshman; go file something. NO! BAD FRESHMAN! GET AWAY FROM THE BLOWTORCH." However, as one of those rare freshmen who wanted to learn, I didn't want to clean our closet. I wanted to design a robot. I learned a lot that year, but wish I could have been more involved.

In september of that year, most members of my FLL team "graduated," and I went on to mentor a new FLL team, composed of the two remaining members from my former team, and a lot of rookies. Based on my experiences, I wanted to be a hands off mentor. I would try to lead the students to the solutions, without directly telling them. However, this team, like my former team, had a strict anti-mentor policy. If I lead them to something, it would usually get thrown out, because I had helped the idea along, or even just voiced my support of something that a student had come up with on their own. I was not allowed to attend all meetings, because I was not considered a member of the team. Needless to say, after 6 years of FLL as a student, I considered myself something of an expert on it. Having your opinion ignored for that very reason was quite disheartening. As a result, I am not planning on returning to this team next year, unless some changes are made.

(end of long story)

So from this, I began seeing the mentor point of view. The mentors want to teach. Sometimes they can get a bit over involved. Sometimes they can flat out overpower the students. But if the students learn, it is okay. I know it sounds cliche, but FIRST's goal is to inspire students. Nothing more. Without realizing it until, quite honestly, halfway through writing this post, I got my inspiration from seeing other successful FLL teams. Yes, building a robot that made it to Atlanta was inspiring. But I would never have stayed in FIRST if I had had just our zero-point FLL robot to go on for what can be done with technology.

The mentors, in my opinion, should function to facilitate inspiration. This can happen in any range of ways, from sitting in a corner as I had to, to building a robot for the students. I believe that mentors should try to get students to come up with ideas by teaching them to think, or giving incomplete answers. However, if a mentor finds themselves telling students what to do, I think they have gone a bit too far. I agree with those who say FIRST isn't a science fair, but it isn't a lecture hall either. I have had great learning experiences through being taught, but also through personal discovery.



However, as Lil' Lavery has said multiple times, this is very strictly my opinion on this. FIRST has deliberatly not told us how we should adress this. Although I have had poor experiences on both ends of the spectrum, I am sure that others have had great experiences. As long as the team works towards what FIRST does say that it is, than I have no problem.