Mentors on the team

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by V_Chip

Agreed. This is how our team works, and why we have a 1:1 ratio of students to mentors. It's been working for 16-17 years.

I recognize that our team was referenced in the thread that was closed yesterday. No team wishes to be criticized, but sadly it happens from time to time. Lack of comprehension may cause conflict or an unwanted opinion. I do not wish to bash "nileshp87" but would instead offer him/her the chance to visit our facilities and see how we work.

Originally Posted by nileshp87

@team buzz person:
You do not need to invite me to see how your team operates, I have already witnessed it in the pits last year at the competition. I will leave it at that.

For those who aren't aware, Team 175 - Buzz, is a member of the FIRST Hall of Fame, winning the Championship Chairman's award in 2002. I'm sure most people on these forums understand the significance of this, but for those who don't, allow me to elaborate. The below is taken from the FIRST manual, with some text bolded for emphasis.

Originally Posted by FIRST Manual

The FIRST Robotics Competition is about much more than the mechanics of building a robot or winning a competitive event. It is about the partnership among people who are part of the FIRST community and the impact on those who participate in FIRST programs with a united goal of achieving FIRST’s mission. FIRST’s mission is to change the way young people regard science and technology and to inspiring an appreciation for the real-life rewards and career opportunities in these fields.

...

The Chairman’s Award was created to keep the central focus of the FIRST Robotics Competition as our ultimate goal for transforming the culture in ways that will inspire greater levels of respect and honor for science and technology, as well as encourage more of today’s youth to become scientists, engineers, and technologists.

The Chairman’s Award represents the spirit of FIRST. It honors the team that, in the judges’ estimation, best represents a model for other teams to emulate, and which embodies the goals and purpose of FIRST. It remains FIRST’s most prestigious award.

Buzz, as a recipient of this award at the Championship level, was deemed by FIRST to be a model for other teams to emulate, as they embody the purpose of FIRST. Simply put, FIRST wants us to strive to become like Buzz and to learn from them.

Nileshp87, I suggest you take up Buzz on their offer for a tour of their facilities. There's definitely a lot that can be learned from them by anyone in the community. I know if I was in the area I'd be honoured to visit their facilities.

[nileshp87]

@Karthik

That probably came off the reverse of what I meant to people who had not been there. I just did not feel like typing out how we had seen their team have a good balance of working together etc. etc.

It was my apology to buzz, but it was aimed directly at Buzz.

[jblay]

I am on a team where our student to mentor ratio is like 5:1 and the vast majority of building is done by students and the design of the bot is done entirely by students with mentors taking looks and giving advice. But this is just the way we run it because we feel it is what will give the kids the best learning experience. As mentors we step in and take charge when it is necessary to get things going in the right direction but we always remember that the main goal of this program is to teach students.

It is not about who does what on the robot, it is about the kids learning the most and for some teams that maybe the mentors doing more on their robots than on other teams. If the best thing for some team or for some student is for the mentor to lead the construction of a robot part and for the kids to learn from the mentor, then that is absolutely the way that team should run things.

It is important to not forget the ultimate goal of FIRST and if there are teams where the kids don't learn remember that you are getting more out of it than they are. But I personally have never really seen it as a big issue that the students aren't working on the bot. It is easier to assume that teams with awesome robots like 254 or 1114 or so on are just mentor built than to recognize them for their great work.

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by nileshp87

I think we can all agree that there exists some teams where the mentors do all or most of the work on the robot.

To me personally, as a student, FIRST is FRC is a competition that takes place in high school. Having a robot be built almost entirely by mentors feels akin to cheating (or maybe bad sportsmanship).

Think of it as a spelling bee with little kids in it, then some adult comes and spells all the words for his\her kid in their place. Then tries to play it off as some kind of educational experience.

I can understand how you feel that way, but to use your own analogy, FRC is a competition that takes place in high school, but the challenge is that the rules and requirements of the competition are designed for someone in college. FRC is going to force you to stretch beyond what you have ever done before, and beyond what you have ever learned before. We, the mentors, want to give you knowledge to do so, and since FIRST doesn't expect you to know how to do it on your own, they have set up the competition to give you that level of support. It isn't cheating use the help that FIRST has put there for you.

There is a great quote, which I'll paraphrase since I don't recall the exact wording, from the book "The New Cool" --- "Why would I want to build a bicycle by myself, when I could build a Ferrari, with the help of a mentor?"

We just want you to be able to the do the best you can do, which is why most of us are here.

[AlecMataloni]

Originally Posted by nileshp87

@Karthik

I just did not feel like typing out how we had seen their team have a good balance of working together etc. etc.

You might want to feel like typing those things out, as it confuses people when you make very vague statements like the one you are referring to.

[nileshp87]

I am on my phone, and typing is a bit of a pain (boarding school where internet gets shut off at night) . And not seeing something does not imply it does not exist, unless you don't believe in creationism or evolution or many other things.

Last post, just look at what the students in this thread are saying.

[GW Kalrod]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

This comes up every year (and it will come up again and again) and to be honest it doesn't matter what we say, People will see what they want to see and if they believe that teams that have mentors who build their robots (or even assist in any way shape or form) are the root of evil.
Perhaps the only way to deal with it is to let them stew in their own juices and take them off your pick list. Sometimes the best lessons come with a swift kick to the rear.

Yeah man, you've got FIRST nailed.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by NoMentorsAtachd

Hi Tom. I recently made an account specifically to reply to posts like these in light of the current controversy. I choose to not include any specific team information because I have noticed alot of rage against the OP.

Anyway, I would like to reply to the underlined statement.

I am on a team which has highly capable mentors who have admitted that at times they have had a strong urge to jump in and become super involved in building the robot but have had enough self control to understand that students lose interest really, really quickly when left alone to sit on the sidelines and watch the critical design and fabrication process.

To reply to Dean Kamen's analogy that relates FIRST kids to being little league'rs looking up to mentors and the complicated build process, the FRC, I'd like to say this: those students becomes interested because they saw how cool robotics and technology can be, I can say on behalf of the majority of students in FIRST because I am a STUDENT, that if left to watch mentors do that which we were so interested in, namely building a robot while leaving us to watch, we progressively lose interest and are inwardly disappointed because we are not allowed to freely engage in the activity.

Kids playing baseball all have a coach which teach them at a young age HOW to play, but as those members mature they are the only ones PLAYING and actively developing skill.

Mentors should sit on the sidelines, guide, and not feel dejected because they are not receiving the action the actual students should be getting.

Any team that does not let a student fully realize and develop their potential is hindering the student and that is not in the spirit of FIRST.

First off, as a moderator: This post is in breach of ChiefDelphi forum rules:

Creating multiple accounts for a single person is not allowed.

With that out of the way, let me ask some questions:

1) If a team can't press a pinion gear onto a motor properly, but a mentor can take it to work and get the operation done quickly and effectively, should the mentor "sit on the sidelines"?
2) If a team has four hacksaws, 40 feet of pipe that needs cutting, and three available students, should that fourth hacksaw just sit on the shelf?
3) If a mentor's demonstration can save the team valuable time and resources, should a student tear it down and start it fresh?

I submit the answer is no to all of these. Balance is the answer.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by nileshp87

I think we can all agree that there exists some teams where the mentors do all or most of the work on the robot.

I've been a FRC mentor for 9 years now and have never seen one. There are many philosophies to be sure but none, that I am aware of, where the mentors do ALL the work.

Originally Posted by nileshp87

To me personally, as a student, FIRST is FRC is a competition that takes place in high school. Having a robot be built almost entirely by mentors feels akin to cheating (or maybe bad sportsmanship).

Think of it as a spelling bee with little kids in it, then some adult comes and spells all the words for his\her kid in their place. Then tries to play it off as some kind of educational experience.

No offense intended but perhaps a competition that is totally student-designed and student-built is a better environment for you. There are numerous such fun and awesome events.

FRC is orders of magnitude more complex than spelling, or any sport played with a ball (most of which I also love to play). It is a rare group of high school students that could build a first-tier FRC bot in 6 weeks. It just can't be done - the league would have to change fundamentally or die. And before we mention the many very talented seniors on most teams, remember where they learned their skills.

I started mentoring a team 9 years ago, not to re-live my youth but to influence my son's decision to become an engineer. He graduated with an EE degree 4 years ago. My daughter will graduate in May with an EE degree. Both won design competitions at school and credit their FRC experience. I continue as a mentor because the teacher/coach and I became good friends. My experience is typical, not extraordinary. FRC mentors participate with an outward-focus and a heart and mind for service.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by nileshp87

@team buzz person:
You do not need to invite me to see how your team operates, I have already witnessed it in the pits last year at the competition. I will leave it at that.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I can only hope you grow out of your blindness soon.[/quote]

[372 lives on]

Originally Posted by Billfred

With that out of the way, let me ask some questions:

1) If a team can't press a pinion gear onto a motor properly, but a mentor can take it to work and get the operation done quickly and effectively, should the mentor "sit on the sidelines"?
2) If a team has four hacksaws, 40 feet of pipe that needs cutting, and three available students, should that fourth hacksaw just sit on the shelf?
3) If a mentor's demonstration can save the team valuable time and resources, should a student tear it down and start it fresh?

I submit the answer is no to all of these. Balance is the answer.

YESSS...



it looks to me most people who post in this thread are on teams with plenty of mentor help. So i will post a perspective of the opposite.
my team has a few vary capable mentors who have been doing first since pre-2000 since I have been here we only have mentors helping us for one or two days a weeks leaving us alone, except the school adviser, for the other four days. the mentors will normally help teach how to use tools and basic stuff; they will not touch the robot unless we need a custom part that we cant make ourselves(our school only has a small wood/welding shop with limited equipment). I find this method does work well for people on the team to INSPIRE stem but unless you are super committed it is difficult for people to find there place on the team (we have averaged less than 15 members for the last 5 years.). Our robot designs are usually rather effective and able to compete with the "'"best"'" teams. members of our team have learned far more than members of the local mentor heavy teams(yes I know this for a fact).
so from what i have seen more mentor help will inspire more people, but less mentor help will inspire people more.



P.S.

Originally Posted by squirrel

I disagree, because I've never seen it happen.
t
My guess is that you've never seen it happen either.

I have seen teams where mentors do all the work there isn't as many as some people think but there definitely are some out there.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by 372 lives on

Our robot designs are usually rather effective and able to compete with the "best" teams. members of our team have learned far more than members of the local mentor heavy teams(yes I know this for a fact)...

I have seen teams where mentors do all the work there isn't as many as some people think but there definitely are some out there.

No offense, but exactly where (and over what time period) did you acquire this extraordinary information? Did you perform some sort of test (from a valid sample set)? If CD sees multiple students (from multiple years) make this statement (mentors design/build everything) about their team, I'm listening. Otherwise such observations are hearsay and/or anomalous.

[nitneylion452]

Originally Posted by 372 lives on

YESSS...



it looks to me most people who post in this thread are on teams with plenty of mentor help. So i will post a perspective of the opposite.
my team has a few vary capable mentors who have been doing first since pre-2000 since I have been here we only have mentors helping us for one or two days a weeks leaving us alone, except the school adviser, for the other four days. the mentors will normally help teach how to use tools and basic stuff; they will not touch the robot unless we need a custom part that we cant make ourselves(our school only has a small wood/welding shop with limited equipment). I find this method does work well for people on the team to INSPIRE stem but unless you are super committed it is difficult for people to find there place on the team (we have averaged less than 15 members for the last 5 years.). Our robot designs are usually rather effective and able to compete with the "'"best"'" teams. members of our team have learned far more than members of the local mentor heavy teams(yes I know this for a fact).
so from what i have seen more mentor help will inspire more people, but less mentor help will inspire people more.



P.S.


I have seen teams where mentors do all the work there isn't as many as some people think but there definitely are some out there.

My team is in it's 3rd season. Year 1, we had 1 capable mentor. Year 2, we had 2. This year, we still have 2 (I'm not including myself as a capable mentor as I only graduated last year. I help with smaller tasks that involve hand tools and such.) I have the same opinion as the majority of the people who have posted on this thread.

EDIT: We also have some parents and teachers who help, but I was limiting the scope to engineering mentors with careers in the field.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by 372 lives on

it looks to me most people who post in this thread are on teams with plenty of mentor help.

The mentor:student teacher ratio on our team is 1:10, last year it was 1:40+ (me being the one). With all due respect, I strongly disagree with your assertions - I've lived it.

[DavidGitz]

Here are my thoughts. I've been involved with FRC for for 11 years, 4 as a student and 7 as a coach/mentor. Our current "robot" team (comprised of mechanical, electrical and software teams) has about 70 students on it. We have 2 main team mentors: myself, an EE and our main team mentor, a Physics teacher. We have a couple other parents/teachers and NEMO's who are also involved but with a lesser level of technical proficiency, but they are all very dedicated and intelligent individuals.

Our entire team is student-run, as in we have students that run each of the sub-teams and are responsible for their respective responsibilities, robot-related or otherwise. We try to give every student a good amount of responsibility and level of ownership.

We also try to stay as flexible as possible. For some students we may say make this part, exactly according to this specification and do it as fast as possible. For other students we may say that we need to accomplish this task and that's it. I personally don't feel that this is an all-or-nothing debate for a team, but instead need to focus on the individual. If I have a student who gets inspired by me showing them step-by-step how to solve a problem or perform a task I'll do it, even if it includes me performing the work itself. If I have a student who prefers that I take a step back and let them learn from their mistakes with minimal guidance, I'll do that too. Most students fall somewhere in between, which as a mentor is important to recognize where they are so we can have the biggest impact. As many people post here, FIRST is about Inspiring and Recognizing the Science and Technology. As a team with a low ratio of students/mentors but still a very successful team we feel that this strategy as a whole works well, from the public perspective. However, that (to me) is not the key point of this discussion.

The point is, which is essentially what nileshp87 does not understand, is that the inspiration and recognition has no direct relation to the amount of awards that a team receives at a competition, which I assume is what really caused their misinformed post in the first place. If I can meet the goals of FIRST by working with students to make a competition winning robot, fine. If I can also meet the goals of FIRST by other activities that do not entail having a competition winning robot, that is also fine. They are both equal. I've had students on both sides of the fence. Sometimes whey the see a winning machine which truly trumps their best laid plans it inspires them to stretch the bounds of the imagination. For others, when you win it gives them a sense of accomplishment that is unrivaled.

These are just my "ravings" and I would like to inform nilesph87 that you are not alone in your opinion of FIRST teams. I know several people who feel the same way (and some of them are family ). Unfortunately, these people are under the impression that the point of FRC is to produce a robot that wins awards and is made by high school students. Which is completely wrong.

My apologies if this is lengthy, it is fairly late for me. I just personally get frustrated when people have this opinion (not to mention from attacking a FANTASTIC team) but in Dean's words (correct me if I'm wrong) these people "just don't get it".