At what point does it become unacceptable for a mentor to design/build the robot

[Kusha]

I understand FIRST is for inspiration, but if mentors are building and or designing the robot isn't it pointless for us to waste our time there? When the ideas for the robot are basically mentor ideas, and student ideas are either shot down or refined enough so that they're just the mentors ideas.

If FIRST is about inspiration, then maybe mentors should just build their own robot and face off against each other and just let us watch. I'm sure that's inspiring enough to get into a STEM field.

I'm in no way accusing my team of doing this, I'm just wondering. Where is the line drawn between student/mentor involvement.

Disclaimer: I in no way shape or form are discussing Team 1745's opinions, these are my opinions and mine only.

[Libby K]

There are approximately a zillion threads on this, and it always turns into an accusatory and awful discussion. If people want to discuss this, please do so calmly and without internet-rage.

If you're asking for my $0.02, whatever a team needs to do to accomplish goals - as defined by that team and their dynamic (I'm talking mentors and students here)- is what works for them, and what they should do. So long as everyone on the team agrees on their process - that's their process, and that's that. Outsiders don't get to 'judge', because it's not their team.

For example - I was the founder/captain of 1923 in high school, and we worked side by side with mentors, because we knew that they know better than us. The kids did the design, the mentors were there to tell us "Physics says that won't work. Try this instead?" Now that I'm attending (and about to graduate from!) Clarkson University, I work on teams where there's a lot higher mentor-driven design and work- 229 and 4124 - because we work at the University, mentoring is a course for the CU students... and it's just plain not legal for the kids to machine here. None of the teams I've worked with are doing it 'wrong' - because it's what works for each team, and the kids and mentors are all happy with, and agree upon, the process.

Where teams encounter problems is when one "side" tries to "take over" the process and the team as a whole isn't happy. That's what I think you're trying to get at here, and I think that deserves some discussion.

Chief Delphi always gets weird in threads like these. Keep it civil if you're gonna post here.

[Chris is me]

It's unacceptable when students aren't inspired anymore. Anything less is a cop-out.

I've seen students inspired by 90% mentor built robots and I've seen students turned away from engineering forever by 90% student built robots. I've seen robots that look "mentor built" that come from excellent programs with students inspired at every level, and I've seen robots that look "student built" that come from terrible programs with almost no actual student involvement.

All of that said, I don't think the standard "whatever works for your team" answer really helps this particular question, since this thread seems to be asking about at what point one's *own* team has crossed a line. That calls for a level of introspection that the other threads lack. I would try to separate any frustration you as a student have from the objective facts of what is going on, and the subjective reality of how inspired these kids are by this program you've got.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

It's unacceptable when students aren't inspired anymore.

Why is this thread still going? Chris nailed it on the first page.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Why is this thread still going? Chris nailed it on the first page.

Funny... I just voted this thread as a 5 star thread.

There are some excellent posts on this last page, for example.

I enjoyed reading the posts by jwallace15 and Astrokid248. Wisdom.

Jane

[Phyrxes]

Adding this quote to my collection of FRC quotes every student should be exposed to.

That's part of the secret of their success is making sure the robot is ready to be in a position to dominate on the field before it gets to the field. A quarter of the teams have already raised the white flag before they even got to the arena and it has nothing to do with who built the robot.

[PayneTrain]

It's this time of year again already?

I'll wait for this thread to either be closed or develop into yet another thrilling debate on a topic that will forever be debated and never really change anything because most believe nothing should be changed.

For now, I'll leave you with this.

This means we must be mere weeks away from the "adults on the drive team" and "x was 'un-GP' to y, allow me to point them out to you and display my Gracious Professionalism" threads. Gosh, those are fun.

In the name of science, let me propose this if-then statement:

If Dean Kamen tells us "it's not about the robot," then why does it matter how the robots get built?

We come to be inspired. We stay because we are. We will become the inspiration. Teams aren't preparing a dynasty of a high school robotics team.

Sorry if I seem frustrated, it's just... tiring.

[Jon Stratis]

We know we've crossed the line when the students tell us. We crossed the line in 2008, and the students pulled us back halfway through the season. Since then, we've done much better. It's best when the students can be up front with the mentors about what they want. Ours always are.

Personally, I always cringe when our students say "do we want to go with this idea we had, or do we want to go with mentor X's idea?" Unfortunately, that's part of the development process - anyone can have an idea, and a 7 year mentor knows more than the students. We explore every idea equally, and if I present an idea to the students, I don't say "we should do this instead." I say "I had an idea that would get around this specific problem you guys are having with the current favorite idea." I explain the idea, and then walk away - I let them (with the help of other mentors, if needed) evaluate the idea and rank it with he other ideas. I don't stick around to push my idea over theirs.

In the end, it's up to the students and the mentors to figure out the balance that works best for them. If students join the team and decide to leave because of the atmosphere or interaction, there's a problem.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

We come to be inspired. We stay because we are. We will become the inspiration. Teams aren't preparing a dynasty of a high school robotics team.

Is there anything more inspirational than a dynasty? If you can can compete at such a high level year after year I don't think that there is any other outcome than everyone having learned an incredible amount in the process.

In my opinion, dynasty is probably the highest complement someone can pay.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

Is there anything more inspirational than a dynasty?

Sure. In a town where the average graduating class is 60 kids and you struggle to get 20 on a team, with no engineering mentors and nothing even approaching engineering within 20 miles of the school, you strive to become dynastic, but aren't so impressed by dynasties.

Personally, I'm impressed by people being the best they can be, regardless of how well they actually do.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Sure. In a town where the average graduating class is 60 kids and you struggle to get 20 on a team, with no engineering mentors and nothing even approaching engineering within 20 miles of the school, you strive to become dynastic, but aren't so impressed by dynasties.

Personally, I'm impressed by people being the best they can be, regardless of how well they actually do.

I don't think you need engineers to build one. I would wager that a typical fourth year FRC mentor or student is MUCH more useful than a typical recently graduated engineer. If you improve year on year, the sky is the limit. Building the dynasty is key.

Originally Posted by Vince Lombardi

Gentlemen, we will chase perfection, and we will chase it relentlessly, knowing all the while we can never attain it. But along the way, we shall catch excellence.

[pfreivald]

One of my favorite quotes, Ian.

[JesseK]

You know, every year I wonder if the mentors on my team are doing too much for the kids we have that year. Each year, the students change (they're all in FTC/VRC Freshmen-Juniors) and we just might get a Junior or two who will be around next year. The only knowledge continuity is via the mentors. I've grown accustomed to using my time keeping the students busy by pairing them up with each other and with mentors on various sub teams.

Then every year, around the end of Week 4, I realize that the students are starting to take charge. The students get it. They realize what to do for the next iteration of the design and how to make it better. They realize that choices have consequences for any given design, even if the consequences aren't immediate. Then it doesn't matter how hands on we were in Week 1. One or two days early on, sure we carried the students (someone had to order long-lead parts!) -- yet if we hadn't, who knows when the 'aha' moment would have happened. Now, even the (historically) lazy kids are very motivated and working hard.

That's the point: they're becoming problem solvers, rather than whiners filled with regretful ambivalence.

It took a sharp boot and big shoulders to get to this point, but who cares? To each team its own, IMO.

[Anupam Goli]

I've been reading some similar threads for the past few days (i spend too much time on this site), and a big difference in this thread and the others is that OP is not attacking a team, but is more curious. yes, this is beating a dead horse, but it's nice to see curiosity rather than jealousy.

Know this OP: If you're inspired enough that you want to make those extra steps to win, you'll have to realize that students don't have all of the answers, and it takes years of studying and experience to even understand a fraction of the answers to any year's game. For this reason, it's important to have mentors. Mentors show you the steps to becoming competitive, which is an inspiring process for all. They'll show you how to design, how to go about doing iteration, and how to continue to engineer your dreams. Don't shun them.

It's up to you and your team mates, but also your mentors to decide how to handle relations among each other. You as a student want to design a solution, and the Mentors want to guide you to whichever solution you choose. Talk with them and discuss how your team wants to go about finding and implementing the solution for this year's game. Just remember that different teams have different methods. You'll find that most of the famous teams boast more than a handful of mentors, and this is because the students and mentors want the relationship to be like this, and both parties find this to be inspiring.

[Kusha]

Originally Posted by Wing

I've been reading some similar threads for the past few days (i spend too much time on this site), and a big difference in this thread and the others is that OP is not attacking a team, but is more curious. yes, this is beating a dead horse, but it's nice to see curiosity rather than jealousy.

Know this OP: If you're inspired enough that you want to make those extra steps to win, you'll have to realize that students don't have all of the answers, and it takes years of studying and experience to even understand a fraction of the answers to any year's game. For this reason, it's important to have mentors. Mentors show you the steps to becoming competitive, which is an inspiring process for all. They'll show you how to design, how to go about doing iteration, and how to continue to engineer your dreams. Don't shun them.

It's up to you and your team mates, but also your mentors to decide how to handle relations among each other. You as a student want to design a solution, and the Mentors want to guide you to whichever solution you choose. Talk with them and discuss how your team wants to go about finding and implementing the solution for this year's game. Just remember that different teams have different methods. You'll find that most of the famous teams boast more than a handful of mentors, and this is because the students and mentors want the relationship to be like this, and both parties find this to be inspiring.

Sometimes I feel that because mentors have been doing this a long time they don't take into consideration or even test students ideas. The mentality that students can not come up with good solutions, or rather the mentality that the mentors designs are more correct keeps coming into play. Students, if dedicated enough spend as much or more time coming up with solutions, and it isn't all that inspiring to be shot down without any thought or even any testing. I'm saying this from personal experience, sometimes I feel like I have to go on my own to build something to prove it will work and after it does suddenly it is looked at more seriously.

Obviously if students are being inspired then they are going to want to help design and build instead of watching. Watching someone build something leaves something to be desired.

To clarify, I am not attacking any teams in this thread. I am talking about team dynamics.