Sippin' on the haterade

[Patrick Chiang]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Patrick- as a mentor for a decently successful rookie team in the heart of West Philadelphia with zero, and I mean ZERO, support from a school or the Philadelphia school district, I find your statement here highly irrelevant. Teams who relied on the district in the past have all died out. We are fully independent in raising money, finding a place to work, finding mentors, finding in-kind donations, and finding machining sponsors. Our main machining sponsor is located 2 hours away from our team, so please don't give the excuse that location factors into this.

Inspiring and anecdotal.

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

A team that blames their environment for their lack of resources is, in my honest opinion, not trying hard enough. (To a certain extent)

In the end I think it boils down to the question "do you really have a problem with all these successful/resourceful teams and feel you're being cheated out of something, or do you actually have a problem with your own team and feel that you want to improve?"

There is a lot our team could improve on. For example, first, we need to convince the school that our existence has a purpose, and they shouldn't shut us down / lay off our only autoshop teacher in 3 years.

I don't feel cheated out of a good experience. FIRST was, without question, the best thing in my high school. I just think it would have been better if the competitions were more fair.
(Since nobody is disputing the fact that the game unfairly gives an advantage to teams that have experience, money, and mentors, I guess we can agree to disagree on the way our values work. Mine: fair -> more inspired.)

Originally Posted by E. Wood

Having been on two teams, both of which have won Chairman's Awards (see signature below), both of which were not "an extension of whatever large corporation that sponsors them", and both of which have competitive robots year after year, I am deeply sadden and somewhat disturbed by your comments. Many of these "Elite" teams have worked many years to get to where they are today. Don't assume they "bought" their way to the top because they have large corporate names in their sponsors list because it's simply not true.

Never assumed anything. I think you're taking my quote out of context. I was referring to *some* top teams, and not all, and I made that clear in my post. Also, older teams have an advantage because of experience and resources. I will revise my opinion when a team with a 4 digit team number wins the overall Chairman's Award (has not happened since 1992, maybe this is the year)

Originally Posted by E. Wood

At the actual event, we mentors back-off as much as possible and let the students do the work where they can.

That's great. This is how a lot of top teams work, and I have *absolutely* no problem with that. In fact, I think that the best way students can learn and be inspired by FIRST is to feel in control of the robot.

Originally Posted by E. Wood

As for the robot, we work as team, students and mentors side by side to build the best robot possible. When we win it is always as a team, not just as a team of students or a team of mentors, but as one team of both. I believe it is this partnership between students and mentors that FIRST is looking for as it is in their mission statement.

Agree. Teams that don't utilize mentors well, don't do well. Unfortunately, the opposite may not be true.

Originally Posted by ebarker

That was the tryout / interview / team bonding experience. If they don't own it they don't go.

It is only fair that the team members that earned the right to go to the competition are not accompanied by people that didn't earn the right. The students that didn't go had a year to learn about what is going on and become introduced to engineering. For whatever reason they didn't make the cut and yes that is a fairness issue.

Yes, what you describe is fair. Every student has a chance to experience as much as the next student depending on how much they put into the program. On the other hand, if only the kids in my team could test/interview and get into one of the elite teams in our area...

[Kim Masi]

I don't think there is a "right way" to run a FIRST build season, as long as the students keep coming back, clearly they're getting something out of it.

Unfortunately I think we cannot avoid attitudes like this. Take professional sports, for example. You're either a Yankees fan, or a Yankee hater. I'm not saying this is something we should strive for, but its up to the individual students and their teams to rise above it.

[huberje]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

That's great. This is how a lot of top teams work, and I have *absolutely* no problem with that. In fact, I think that the best way students can learn and be inspired by FIRST is to feel in control of the robot.

...

Agree. Teams that don't utilize mentors well, don't do well. Unfortunately, the opposite may not be true.

I just have two questions on this:

1) What top teams did you talk to to determine that a lot of top teams work by keeping their mentors hands-off?

2) Could you elaborate on how a team can utilize mentors well?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

By your logic: If FIRST is supposed to introduce students to real life engineering, it would require teams to hold tryouts and interviews for team positions.

Patrick,
Many teams do that because it is one way to limit the number of students that can be included for teams with limited resources.

[Patrick Chiang]

Originally Posted by huberje

I just have two questions on this:

1) What top teams did you talk to to determine that a lot of top teams work by keeping their mentors hands-off?

2) Could you elaborate on how a team can utilize mentors well?

1. Well, a lot of top teams in my area are mentors-hands-off at competitions. You can go to the pits, and see that most people there are students. Of course, there are some teams where it's mentors-fix-everything at the pits, which I think is depriving the students the experience of actually doing things themselves under the pressure of competition.

2. This depends on the kids. In our team, mentors are resources. We teach our students how to use the tools (or how to program, in my case, though I'm passing that responsibility of teaching to the students next year) before the season. Then, when they brainstorm at the beginning of the season, we help them come up with a structure of how they should present and vote on their ideas (which they agree on). And when they build, they ask us questions like "how well do you think this will work" "what's the best way to achieve this" "I'm stuck, can you help me with this" ...etc. There's also cases where we've helped them used some power-tools, but overall, the robot belongs to the kids. In the end, they're extremely proud (and inspired) of this little monster they've created, and I think this is a big part about FIRST. A big part that you can't really get when the mentors are building the robot.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Patrick,
Many teams do that because it is one way to limit the number of students that can be included for teams with limited resources.

Yes. I realized that a while after I posted that. Read my last post on why that's not the same thing. Students can choose how much time they put into robotics. On the other hand, they can't choose which team to join.

[E. Wood]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Agree. Teams that don't utilize mentors well, don't do well. Unfortunately, the opposite may not be true.

I guess it depends on how you define "doing well" or "successful" when it comes to a FIRST team. Does it mean winning awards or positively impacting the lives of those that come in contact with the team?

I have found that chasing awards isn't always the best way to get them and I dont think any of us do this for the plastic trophies or the blue banners.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Inspiring and anecdotal.

Given the lack of hard data, anecdotal evidence is what you're going to get.

We live in the boonies, 20 miles from either a stoplight or a Lowes (ten more for a Home Depot). The huge majority of business in our town is wine -- which won't even consider sponsoring a high school program for obvious political reasons. We have explicit restrictions on how many fundraisers we are allowed to do each year (2), and have a hard time attracting engineering mentors willing to make the drive.

Those are all reasons, but they're not excuses. Your choice, regardless of what resources you have, is to aspire to excellence or don't. (There are ancillary choices, such as "bemoan your lot or don't" and "seethe with envy or don't", too.)

We know FIRST isn't "fair", just like everything else. We don't allow that fact to do anything but push us to improve.

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

I just think it would have been better if the competitions were more fair.

I would absolutely hate to see parity imposed by knocking the elite teams down. FIRST is the challenge that it is specifically because you're not just trying to build a robot that can accomplish tasks, you're trying to build a robot that can accomplish tasks better than everyone else's robots.

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

(Since nobody is disputing the fact that the game unfairly gives an advantage to teams that have experience, money, and mentors, I guess we can agree to disagree on the way our values work. Mine: fair -> more inspired.)

I'll dispute it. "Fairness" is both arbitrary and irrelevant. You might as well complain that it's unfair that teams that know things about robots have an advantage over teams that don't. This undisputed "fact" is a "fact" only insofar as the statement "advantages are advantageous" is a fact.

There are already many rules that force some level of parity, from materials utilization to BOM cost restrictions to time restrictions. I'm willing to bet that if you tried to come up with more rules to enforce parity, in public on Chief Delphi, you'll find that it's a lot harder than it sounds -- and that many of your ideas will actually skew things even more in favor of elite teams.

tl;dr version: Elite teams aren't elite because of the inherent bias of the system, they're elite because of what they do within that system.

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Never assumed anything. I think you're taking my quote out of context. I was referring to *some* top teams, and not all, and I made that clear in my post.

Which ones?

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

That's great. This is how a lot of top teams work, and I have *absolutely* no problem with that.

Which ones?

Originally Posted by Kim Masi

Take professional sports, for example. You're either a Yankees fan, or a Yankee hater. I'm not saying this is something we should strive for, but its up to the individual students and their teams to rise above it.

Yankees... Yankees... They do something with a ball and a stick, right? Some running around, too?

[Patrick Chiang]

Originally Posted by E. Wood

I guess it depends on how you define "doing well" or "successful" when it comes to a FIRST team. Does it mean winning awards or positively impacting the lives of those that come in contact with the team?

I have found that chasing awards isn't always the best way to get them and I dont think any of us do this for the plastic trophies or the blue banners.

Well, it's sometimes in the back of our minds when we build the robot. It's a competition, and we're doing our best to build the best/most creative robot for that. We're human, competitive by nature. I think very few people in teams in FIRST, even mentors, can claim that they don't get excited when their team wins (or disappointed when the opposite happens).

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but teams that don't utilize mentors tend not to do well in either of your definitions.

[darkMatt3r]

This thread is unnecessary.

FIRST clearly states that it is up to the teams to determine the relationship between the mentors and the students.

Yes, there are ways to benefit the kids, and there are ways to benefit the success of the team. There are also ways to do both. Everyone has their different method, and everyone has their opinion of what other teams do.

Use your time to help your team out, not judge others.

-Matt

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

On the other hand, they can't choose which team to join.

You should talk to the students we have on our team that have teams at their own schools, but are a member of our team instead.

This year, there are at least three that spring to mind. Last year, there were an additional two. There are several kids that are members of our team that attend private schools that don't have teams, but the public schools they would have otherwise attended do. They're members of our team because they value the experience we can provide due to, in no small part, our experience, strong relationship with our sponsors, and tremendous mentor involvement and support.

[Patrick Chiang]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I would absolutely hate to see parity imposed by knocking the elite teams down. FIRST is the challenge that it is specifically because you're not just trying to build a robot that can accomplish tasks, you're trying to build a robot that can accomplish tasks better than everyone else's robots.

I like to think that the robotic aspect of FIRST is about students building robots accomplishing tasks better than everyone else's robots. Parity does not imply knocking the elite teams down.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I'll dispute it. "Fairness" is both arbitrary and irrelevant. You might as well complain that it's unfair that teams that know things about robots have an advantage over teams that don't. This undisputed "fact" is a "fact" only insofar as the statement "advantages are advantageous" is a fact.

Student knowledge is much more easily accessible than cash. And the point of FIRST is so that students can gain knowledge. Most people here agree that robots built entirely by mentors give their team a strong advantage (though they dispute whether or not FIRST should be fair). Fairness is arbitrary, but not irrelevant.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

There are already many rules that force some level of parity, from materials utilization to BOM cost restrictions to time restrictions. I'm willing to bet that if you tried to come up with more rules to enforce parity, in public on Chief Delphi, you'll find that it's a lot harder than it sounds -- and that many of your ideas will actually skew things even more in favor of elite teams.

To enforce more parity, all they would have to do is announce "FIRST is primary about students. Mentors, remember you're only here to help, not do it for them". If they emphasize that philosophy (which would be great), mentor-ran teams would not disappear overnight, but their legitimacy would decline, and teams will change; the competition would become a much less hostile atmosphere between alleged elite teams and normal teams.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

tl;dr version: Elite teams aren't elite because of the inherent bias of the system, they're elite because of what they do within that system.

Plenty of non-elite teams do similar things as elite teams, yet aren't elite teams. This further illustrates that "being elite" is dependent on factors other than how well they do things within the system.

[EricH]

Engineering is, at least partially, about producing an optimum product, based on resources available.

This leads to a number of design choices and tradeoffs. Maybe an "inferior" material is used because it's cheaper/more readily available than the preferred material. Maybe time is extended to reduce cost slightly. Maybe you can produce a part at 0.0001" every time... but you produce it at 0.001" every time because that's "good enough" and besides the machine that normally does the 0.0001" is busy on some other project. Maybe you throw 5 engineers at a problem, or maybe you throw 2 interns at the same problem. Maybe you use a thickness that isn't going to work because that's available--but you can design another part to take up the extra stress.

I don't really care whether you've got 60+ students, 30+ engineering mentors, 30+ NEMs, a full CNC shop, and a $300,000 budget, or you have 5 students, one teacher who keeps the shop open, hand tools, and a shoestring budget. It's all about how you use those resources to produce the best design you can. If you want to use those engineering mentors to produce your entire robot, that's your choice. If you want to have those engineering mentors sit around drinking coffee, that's your choice, but they may have some good input anyway. If those 5 students with minimal mentor support beat you, it ain't luck. It's them using their limited resources to the optimal level.

[E. Wood]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Well, it's sometimes in the back of our minds when we build the robot. It's a competition, and we're doing our best to build the best/most creative robot for that. We're human, competitive by nature. I think very few people in teams in FIRST, even mentors, can claim that they don't get excited when their team wins (or disappointed when the opposite happens).

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but teams that don't utilize mentors tend not to do well in either of your definitions.

O, I get excited whenever we when a match or a trophy but I would still mentor even if we didn't.

Yes I agree with you that teams that don't untilize mentors correctly don't tend to do well while teams that do use them well will most likely succeded by some measure.

[Bongle]

To enforce more parity, all they would have to do is announce "FIRST is primary about students. Mentors, remember you're only here to help, not do it for them". If they emphasize that philosophy (which would be great), mentor-ran teams would not disappear overnight, but their legitimacy would decline, and teams will change; the competition would become a much less hostile atmosphere between alleged elite teams and normal teams.

I disagree - since there is already animosity between student-run teams and teams that they perceive to be (but may not actually be) helped "too much" by their mentors, then actually having a rule or proclamation against mentor-run teams would make the animosity even worse, since these accusers would be able to claim the elite teams (who they know nothing more than hearsay about) are "too" mentor-run.

Having an ambiguous ruling would be like the post-Oshawa coopertition team update - it would officially change nothing and change nobody's opinion, but both sides of the issue would use it as ammo. Also, having the ruling enforced entirely by social pressure would be pretty brutal on the teams that get on the wrong side of the mentor witchhunt.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

To enforce more parity, all they would have to do is announce "FIRST is primary about students. Mentors, remember you're only here to help, not do it for them". If they emphasize that philosophy (which would be great), mentor-ran teams would not disappear overnight, but their legitimacy would decline, and teams will change; the competition would become a much less hostile atmosphere between alleged elite teams and normal teams.

VRC does exactly that. Is there/has there been a raging battle on the VEX forums about the have/have not teams there?

This thread has degenerated into another mentor-built vs. student-built thread, we've got piles of them, and of the dozens of events I've been to over the years, I have yet to see any 100% student-built or 100% mentor-built robots. Let's keep the OP in mind moving forward and make this a constructive discussion - if it needs to be discussed further at all.

tl;dr [the entire thread]: We love 1771, 1311, 234, 1114, 2056, et. al. We also are jealous of them. Whaddya gonna do.