Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rich Kressly
A mentor, by definition, provides a nuturing environment and, over time, makes themselves progressively unnecessary.
|
I think that Rich hits the nail on the head right there. (I'm actually surprised he hasn't weighed in yet.)
[somewhat off-topic]Kelly, Sgreco, I both agree and disagree. For one thing, what is "CD's most common interpretation of FIRST's goals" as you see it, and what precludes doing in its definition? As I see it, based on numerous discussions on similar topics, INSPIRATION is the goal, and the CD consensus seems to be that how the inspiration happens is up to the individual team. If the mentors are the inspiration, then why limit the inspiration? Or, if beating the heavily-mentored teams is inspiration, why limit that? Also, as a word to the wise, mentor/student built/designed robots has been discussed many times before, with the typical result of an "agree to disagree" or a flame war and locked thread.
I think that limited mentors in the pits is a good idea, but the ratio should be up to the teams. Also, some teams have the mentors step back already. I'll do work on the robot if I'm demonstrating something or helping the students ("here's how to take a FP gearbox apart so we can use the grease"), or
if a repair needs to be made and isn't being made and there isn't a student available. I can think of two or three times I worked on the robot at our regional, all of which resulted from something needing doing. I made sure to involve the students, too. ("Hey, can you put the number on the other 3 bumpers?")
Banning mentors from the pits outright is something that FIRST will never do, and if they did, I'd be one of the first to complain. The kids do need the mentors on occasion--and I've had at least one occasion to call a mentor to a team that needed help. Limited, yes, none, no.
Sgreco is right, teams do it very differently. That's why there isn't a rule limiting mentor involvement in the pits. However, here is where I disagree: "Students can't learn if they are not doing it ..." I'd disagree with this, as it is possible to learn though watching and observing. If you can't learn if you aren't doing, then WHY is the preferred method of teaching lectures? Students aren't doing anything there, but does that mean they aren't learning? No. I would actually say that it's closer to say "Students don't remember as well if they don't do it." (Also note: with his team's rule and his reasoning, then only 6 students are learning during competition. No one else is allowed to. That is a bit of an exaggeration, but with his words, it would be true. Fortunately, it isn't actually true--you can learn by watching in the stands, just not as much. I'm not criticizing the rule, at that is within the team and therefore not my concern.)