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

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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

The only people who care about who builds the robot are the people on the sideline. FIRST is just happy someone showed up with a quality product to put on a good show.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

The only people who care about who builds the robot are the people on the sideline. FIRST is just happy someone showed up with a quality product to put on a good show.

Is this such a bad thing? Yes, the "do whatever works" is a cop out but it's also better than the alternative. Inspiration comes in many forms and legislating how we are permitted to inspire will remove some of them.

I miss when we used to call Championships the Superbowl of Smarts. Players don't go to the Superbowl to learn. They go to showcase their best. And we watch not to learn how to throw a ball 40 yards to a receiver. We watch to see incredibly athletes performing at their peak. To see the limits of their strength, their drive, their will, and their talent. If we are supposed to be the Superbowl of Smarts people aren't going to watch us to learn how to use a CNC mill. They are going to watch us to see what we are capable of doing with our skill, drive, and passion. We need to put on a good show so that instead of saying "I can be Tim Tebow" (I honestly don't know anything about football and NEED to get a better example) they say "I can be the next Dean Kamen".

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Is this such a bad thing? Yes, the "do whatever works" is a cop out but it's also better than the alternative. Inspiration comes in many forms and legislating how we are permitted to inspire will remove some of them.

I miss when we used to call Championships the Superbowl of Smarts. Players don't go to the Superbowl to learn. They go to showcase their best. And we watch not to learn how to throw a ball 40 yards to a receiver. We watch to see incredibly athletes performing at their peak. To see the limits of their strength, their drive, their will, and their talent. If we are supposed to be the Superbowl of Smarts people aren't going to watch us to learn how to use a CNC mill. They are going to watch us to see what we are capable of doing with our skill, drive, and passion. We need to put on a good show so that instead of saying "I can be Tim Tebow" (I honestly don't know anything about football and NEED to get a better example) they say "I can be the next Dean Kamen".

People focus way too much on the robot in FIRST.
When Dean talks about it's more than about the robot People think he's saying "I don't care about the competition" but actually I think he saying the best teams are good not just because of what they built but the whole organization surrounding the operation of the robot at the competitions. They meticulously plan every aspect of what they do, how they go about their business and what they plan to do to win the competition. As a lead que I can have gained an appreciation of these teams. For the most part they are very professional and cooperative to deal with. Disrupting the event keeps them from wining so it's in their best interest to not disrupt the event.
The teams that freak me out are the teams who show up with a barely functioning brick and wheels and that's the least of their problems.It's not that they are incompetent they have no sense of urgency in anything they do. It doesn't really matter if the robot performs well they made a robot (sort of) wasn't that the point? Nevermind that they are letting down every team who gets stuck with them during the competition and dragging them down to the bottom of the standings with them (that's why I label them Anchor Teams). I remember one team in particular at Midwest a couple of years ago. They were in the first qualification match on Saturday and were no where to be found. The national anthem is playing and they were going to start the match when it was over. They come waltzing in during the last stanza like nothing was all that big a deal while I'm trying to rush them to the field. The lead mentor looks casually down at the robot and shrugs and tells the kids "i guess we can put the robot on the cart". I had to leave so I didn't go nuts.
Elites show up early and get down to business ready to hit the field. They are aware of what's going on with the schedule and the event and unless something drastic has happened to the robot are almost always on time. 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.

[SenorZ]

I personally think mentors should sit behind two-way mirrors and hold a kill switch for all power tools.

[jwallace15]

I support Mentors changing students' ideas, as long as they provide an explanation for why. If they just change an idea someone has without giving reason, the students don't learn from it. If an explanation is provided, it's ok, because the student is learning from a "mistake" they made (I put quotations around mistake because it isn't really a mistake, I don't know another word to call it).
If the student learns from the mentor who changed their idea, they will remember the reasoning for why it wouldn't work, or why it wouldn't be as effective as this other idea. Then the next year, when it comes time to build another robot, the student will remember the concept he was taught the previous year, and incorporate that into their new design.

I was building an electrical enclosure for my train set (not related to robotics, but the story relates, trust me). I was proud and showed my Dad, who has a lot of knowledge about electrical enclosures (as the company he works for, ABB, has both a robotics division (in which he works), and an electrical division, which he comes into contact with frequently). He pointed out that my enclosure wasn't grounded. So I listened to his advice, remembered it for future reference, and grounded my enclosure. A month later (last week, to be exact), I was making an electrical panel to mount switches on (also for my train set). I went to show my Dad my work, and he asked if it was grounded. Fortunately, I remembered his advice, and had already grounded it.

In this build season, I was making spacers for our robot. I went on making it, and got two done, when my mentor Gary showed me a more effective way to make it (it had to be cut, have holes drilled on each side, and be threaded). Yesterday I was remaking shafts for our wheels. They were made nearly the same way as the spacers, just three times as long. I remembered Gary's method for making the spacers, and used that method while making the shafts.

I do not represent my team in this post, I represent myself and my own ideas.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by jwallace15

I support Mentors changing students' ideas, as long as they provide an explanation for why. If they just change an idea someone has without giving reason, the students don't learn from it. If an explanation is provided, it's ok, because the student is learning from a "mistake" they made (I put quotations around mistake because it isn't really a mistake, I don't know another word to call it).
If the student learns from the mentor who changed their idea, they will remember the reasoning for why it wouldn't work, or why it wouldn't be as effective as this other idea. Then the next year, when it comes time to build another robot, the student will remember the concept he was taught the previous year, and incorporate that into their new design.

I would suggest that instead of "changing", mentors should "challenge". That is, they should ask the students "Why did you do it this way?" and "Have you considered the following items...?" This does not change an idea for someone, it opens that person's eyes to things they may not have considered and allows them to change their idea. It also opens the door for them to say, "I didn't see that, how would you deal with it?" and let mentoring take place. Even more effective, as the students now know some hazards to look for.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

People focus way too much on the robot in FIRST.
When Dean talks about it's more than about the robot People think he's saying "I don't care about the competition" but actually I think he saying the best teams are good not just because of what they built but the whole organization surrounding the operation of the robot at the competitions. They meticulously plan every aspect of what they do, how they go about their business and what they plan to do to win the competition.

...

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.

My only regret is that I have but one greenie to give. This should be stapled to the doors at the events.

[JDL]

Originally Posted by JDL

We try to maintain a very good balance. Our teacher sponsor described it very well once as kinda like an apprenticeship program.

Just like I can't turn a 1st year loose inside a piece of 480V switch gear to rack breakers or play with the protective relaying we can't have freshmen running a muck with a plasma torch.

For potentially dangerous tasks the students have to watch a mentor do it a few times and listen and learn, for must stuff we work next to the students and explain and teach as they go and learn. offering advice and pointing out potential issues, better options, whatever.

They are also like apprentices in the fact that sometimes they get uppity, back talk and think they know everything.

[jwallace15]

Originally Posted by EricH

I would suggest that instead of "changing", mentors should "challenge". That is, they should ask the students "Why did you do it this way?" and "Have you considered the following items...?" This does not change an idea for someone, it opens that person's eyes to things they may not have considered and allows them to change their idea. It also opens the door for them to say, "I didn't see that, how would you deal with it?" and let mentoring take place. Even more effective, as the students now know some hazards to look for.

That sounds a lot better, I didn't think of it that way. It sounds like something an engineer would say (rather than "That idea is stupid, it will never work"). Our lead build mentor will typically ask, "Why?" when we propose an idea to him, and then coach us on a simpler or more effective way to accomplish what they are trying to do.

[Astrokid248]

I'm gonna say something that will probably be hilariously controversial, but here it goes:

As a student on a team that is supposed to build robots, you need to build a robot. Even on a team with 90% mentor-driven design and build, you as the student have a responsibility to try and learn from these guys. I feel like my time as a student in FRC was productive because I grabbed the bull by the horns and forced my way into the design and build process. Taking the initiative and actively showing the mentors of a team that you want to BUILD ROBOTS is the only way to move beyond simple inspiration. I have seen too many teams accused of being mentor-driven when the problem is actually students not participating. Sure, it would be ideal if the mentors could just teach and not actually do any hands on design/building, but let's face it: you'd have to extend the season by about 4 weeks to make that happen.

So, my opinion is, it is always acceptable for the mentors to work on the design and build of the robot, as long as they aren't actively pushing students away. It is always unacceptable as a student to just throw up your hands and not try to help out. This argument is a 2-way road, double-edged sword, etc., but just blaming the mentors helps nothing.

[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.