[Joachim]

I have read several threads over the various seasons that touch on how much adults/mentors should or should not do for the success of an FRC team. During some seasons, I have also reviewed the game manuals and other materials, including the e-mail updates and Q&As. I have also attended a regional in two different seasons, even though I have never yet been part of an FRC team. (I have also been to Atlanta three times with teams in other programs.)

From the threads I have read in the past (but not necessarily from the official FRC materials) I had thought that an all-mentor built or all-mentor designed machine was obviously a bad thing, not in keeping with the intent of FRC.

Then (in the 2007-8 season) I heard Dean Kaman speak about FRC and the other FIRST programs to a roomfull of scientists and engineers.

Dean analogized the different FIRST programs to different leagues in a sport--from little leagues to pros--with FRC being the top professional league where students are exposed to real-world professional level engineering. The picture Dean painted of FRC was of professional engineers teaching students what they do by exposing them to it--almost like apprenticeships or internships within the structure of the FRC contest--not by teaching the students some basics, or whatever they can handle, and then mostly getting out of the way while offereing some guidance and counsel and a little fabrication help here and there. The overall picture was very different from the impression I had picked up from just reading in the forum.

I know there may be many different yet acceptable ways to run an FRC team, and some teams may rely on more management and direction by students than other teams. (And I realize the current standard at FIRST may even be different from Dean's vision). But from Dean's talk, a mentor-lead team, producing a mentor-designed machine, where students are learning from every step, seems well within (if not maybe even closest to) Dean's vision, at least as he expressed it on that one occasion.