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

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Most students aren't able to choose their own teams or do anything about a situation in which mentors are doing much more than they should.

I think the crux of the argument here is that students can and should speak up when they feel the team isn't running in a way that's in everyone's best interests. While that can be difficult, parents and teachers are certainly in a position to help. Students and mentors are both responsible for ensuring the team fulfills its mission.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by bduddy

I disagree. If there is a team that is doing a disservice to its own students by not giving them as much as FIRST should be giving them, I don't think the rest of the community should ignore it.

By and large you aren't "their" community, and neither am I.

Sticking our collective noses into how other people choose to run their teams is almost definitely destructive in terms of the larger culture, and I can't imagine how it would accomplish anything whatsoever in terms of how that team chooses to organize itself...

ESPECIALLY given the undeniable fact that you'd be operating on extremely incomplete information.

We don't all have to agree on what's best in order to do our best.

Edit:

Who the heck are you or I to presume to say to another team that their team isn't giving them "as much as FIRST should be giving them"? Even assuming perfect information--which assuredly we do not have--why is our definition of what's best for their team better than their definition of what's best for their team?

To whit, if we as a community can't even agree on whether or not sticking our noses into one another's business is a good idea, we're certainly not going to agree on how much to do so, or how.

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Is is permissible if students just step back and watch the mentors beat the dead horse?

No, that's not fair. Some teams can't afford a horse, and most students don't know how to kill one. :-)

[Ivan Malik]

TL;DR: It is actually HEALTHY for debates like this to happen. Let syncretism happen.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Sticking our collective noses into how other people choose to run their teams is almost definitely destructive in terms of the larger culture, and I can't imagine how it would accomplish anything whatsoever in terms of how that team chooses to organize itself...

I'm going to assume that my audience is engineers who have never really looked at how culture is looked at by people who study it. If this is wrong I am sorry. (this is not meant to sound condescending or snooty)

There are two ways in which an idea or custom is controlled in society, in the simplest sense: by a governing authority or by social pressure. With the debate of primarily mentors built vs primarily student built, FIRST proper (aka dean, woody, etc.) has never issued any sort of ruling on the matter. It is rather safe to say that they are the governing authority of FIRST at large. Their silence means that it is up to the rest of the FIRST community to form some sort of tacit or un-tacit construct that controls this idea among the community at-large. This will happen either with a conscious community effort or naturally without any conscious control of it by the community.

Conscious control requires a way for people from all over the community to be able to communicate with one another. Hence why threads like this crop up every season on chief delphi. This is the method that the FIRST community has chosen to "take the temperature" of where the social construct currently stands. Threads like this re-evaluate what is thought of as "acceptable" on the larger scale of FIRST. It is actually HEALTHY for debates like this to happen. If they do not, a general community consensus is not reached and their become sub-groups within the larger FIRST community. This is bad because when these groups need to work together on something (like the concept of GP, spread of the district system, or the spread of STEM to the rest of society) they will focus on their differences and get nothing accomplished. If you would like examples of this PM me, because history is rife with them. The alternative is the tacit acceptance of the ideas laid in the past that are either accepted or the person/group is shunned. Let syncretism happen.

If you want to talk about something that is harmful to FIRST culture at large, talk about the different approaches that the community takes with regard to mentor involvement at the different levels of FIRST. 3/4 levels, the less mentor involvement the better the team is viewed; you get to FRC and its chaos. No wonder students who have progressed through all the stages of FIRST are confused about what a mentor's role is. The proof for that is looking at who asks the initial question in threads like this, often it's current or former students.

FIRST is a culture. Start thinking about it in terms of a culture and less as an organization.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Ivan Malik

I'm going to assume that my audience is engineers who have never really looked at how culture is looked at by people who study it. If this is wrong I am sorry. (this is not meant to sound condescending or snooty)

I teach physics and American Sign Language. My minors in college are math and linguistics. I'm not an engineer, but I do quite a bit with culture in my daily curriculum.

The debate is fine -- the implication that there's one right answer, or that anyone has the moral authority to point at anyone else and say, "you're doing it wrong" is not.

I stand by the argument that worrying about your own behavior and your own team is much, much more constructive.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I stand by the argument that worrying about your own behavior and your own team is much, much more constructive.

And that is where I stand as well. As I told some rookie teams last year: "It might look like mentors built it. It might look like students built it. You don't know for sure; if you're curious go talk to the team. But whatever you do, please bear in mind that there is nothing saying that either method is wrong."

Now, if someone on a team thinks that a mentor(s) are going too far or not far enough, and asks for help, that means that they want someone to help them. In that case, I would advise, but only in a general, "this is something that might help" or "this is the way we do it, maybe it'll work for you" way. Beyond that, I go back to focusing on my own team/work.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Ivan Malik

With the debate of primarily mentors built vs primarily student built, FIRST proper (aka dean, woody, etc.) has never issued any sort of ruling on the matter. It is rather safe to say that they are the governing authority of FIRST at large. Their silence means that it is up to the rest of the FIRST community to form some sort of tacit or un-tacit construct that controls this idea among the community at-large. This will happen either with a conscious community effort or naturally without any conscious control of it by the community.

The following is a quote from Dave Lavery from the 2008 kickoff. The full transcript is here: http://robotics.arc.nasa.gov/events/...transcript.php

But a lot of people say Dave, isn't that hard and tough?
Guess what?
This is supposed to be hard, this is supposed to be difficult.
Dean mentioned already if you think the program is about robots you're missing part of the message.
There are a lot of teams out there, and i know i'll hear back from them about this, there are a lot of teams out there who are built solely of students as a student-built, student-run, student-organized team from end to end to the process.
I congratulate them what they're able to accomplish and do.
They're able to participate with no problem at all.
Do the task we're setting out for them.
If you think the task is about building a robot.
My challenge to the teams is, part of what we're trying to do is get you exposed to real world technologies practices, people who are professionals.
If you're doing this with your team you're able to build the robot and able to compete and be able to be a participant in the program but i think you're missing the point if you don't have an engineering on your team or two or three or four because you aren't taking advantage of the opportunity to expose your team and your students to real world engineering practices to learn to be inspired by the professionals to which you have access.
So is this a hard problem?
Yes.
It's supposed hard.
We're making it hard because we want you to be encouraged to go out and get professional engineering help for your teams to help solve this stuff.
That's how you're going to get the most benefit out of the entire program.

While he doesn't address how much mentor vs how much student, it's very clear that no mentor involvement is not the correct answer.

[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.

[Ivan Malik]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

While he doesn't address how much mentor vs how much student, it's very clear that no mentor involvement is not the correct answer.

Nice find, I vaguely remember hearing this as a student that year. Have they ever come closer to making a ruling on the age old question?

This is what makes FIRST so much more successful, most times, compared to other programs like it; but, I don't think anyone will argue for zero mentor involvement. The question that needs to be answered, and is why this thread is actually constructive: how much is too much mentor?

This isn't some all or nothing question, it's going to be somewhere in the middle. It's also not going to be a one size fits all solution either. But, the end result of this debate should express the unofficial ruling of the community on the subject. Basically set the median point of what is a generally accepted "okay" level of mentorship. A point that can be pointed to, for those who have no clue what FIRST is about, and say "hey start here and adjust to what works best for you." It is not meant to be perfect for anyone, but that is kinda of the point. FIRST the society is not about any one individual team, but rather something that is separate from the sum of its parts.

This is your (who ever is reading this) opportunity to discuss a subject that has the potential to shift how FIRST looks at itself. Take this opportunity to discuss it and not judge others, or think that others are judging you. Be critical, but not destructive to the conversation and don't be to shy or afraid to express how you view things. Nullifying this discussion by taking stances that each individual team should make their own decision is as destructive to the conversation as screaming that someone is wrong. This isn't specifically about your team, but the community at large. You are a part of FIRST and your ideas count, but others have just as much say as you do in this matter.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Ivan Malik

Nice find, I vaguely remember hearing this as a student that year. Have they ever come closer to making a ruling on the age old question?

http://web.archive.org/web/200502052.../DEKA1998.html Yes... They said they don't care. Mind you, that was over 15 years ago...

[nicholsjj]

I have only one thing to bring up that hasn't been said yet. When a person describes a robot as being "mentor built" they are rudely stating that the students were completly imcapable of desiging, building, and programing a quality robot. It is a rude comment that only insults the students and makes the speaker sound like a Missouri Mule. I say this because unless you have knowledge of how a particular team operates then you have no right to claim this. It greatly upsets me when I hear that Team xxxx has a mentor built robot. Then I ask the person how they know that for certain, then that speaker says erll the robot is just beyond student quality. Encounters like this turn my face . Encounters like these can change if teams instead of complaining about "mentor built robots" go and learn about these inspiring robots. You might just learn a lot about what it takes to build a fantastic robot.