UNgracious UNprofessionalism

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Shane 2429

okay, so here is my two cents. i have mentored FLL teams for 3 years and i have seen mentors from other teams at that level of FIRST be way too involved with the building of the robot. I have also seen teams at a regional where there are more mentors then students working on the robot or even at the regional. My team personally has had problems in the past with some over bearing mentors. I'm just saying mentor built robots do happen and should not be written off as a complete lie or myth.

Nobody cares if it happens in FRC. If you care so much, you're missing out on improving on your own team.

Plain and simple: you don't know how another team runs. Just end this looping discussion. It always leads to nowhere.

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Just end this looping discussion. It always leads to nowhere.

I disagree. These forums give everyone the opportunity to state an opinion and their point of view instead of keeping views isolated. It allows those who have a concern about these types of issues to voice their concerns and then have others respond with differing ideas. One of the fundamentals of FIRST is the exchange of ideas. You never know who might make a valid point here and give a rookie team/team member some unexpected and valuable encouragement or ideas on how to make their team better. Viewed rationally and logically this is really nothing more than an exchange of ideas IMO.

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by Shane 2429

okay, so here is my two cents. i have mentored FLL teams for 3 years and i have seen mentors from other teams at that level of FIRST be way too involved with the building of the robot. I have also seen teams at a regional where there are more mentors then students working on the robot or even at the regional. My team personally has had problems in the past with some over bearing mentors. I'm just saying mentor built robots do happen and should not be written off as a complete lie or myth.

I think you need to separate FLL & FRC for the purposes of this discussion. There a very specific rule differences between the two; FLL coaches are NOT supposed to be working on the robots or projects. I've been at events where teams have been disqualified for awards because the adults were seen working on the robot in the pits, with kids nowhere in sight.

This is VERY different from FRC, where mentors & coaches are supposed to take a more active role. And, depending on your interpretation & how your team works, possible hands-on role. It really comes down to individual teams, and many people's tendency to assume things. Unless you're actually working with a team for a while you really shouldn't decide that a mentor holding a pair of pliers at a regional translates to "mentor-built robot". And even if it did, it's probably irrelevant. We need to remember that FRC isn't about the robots.

[yarb65]

Year in and year out this comes up. I have my opinion but I will hold it for now.

As a coach the biggest problem I have is explaining a percived inequity by parents. They often do not believe that mentors should be building the robot. They also question me about mentors setting the robot in the arena. I had one parent say to me that if we are using sports as the model what is the coach doing on the arena floor being the quarter back. I believe only students should be allowed on the arena floor.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by yarb65

Year in and year out this comes up. I have my opinion but I will hold it for now.

As a coach the biggest problem I have is explaining a percived inequity by parents. They often do not believe that mentors should be building the robot. They also question me about mentors setting the robot in the arena. I had one parent say to me that if we are using sports as the model what is the coach doing on the arena floor being the quarter back. I believe only students should be allowed on the arena floor.

Using the sports model, I'd say a mentor coach is more like the head coach of a baseball team. He writes the batting order, the fielding lineup, decides when to yank the pitcher, etc. That's what a coach is meant to do. I see no problem with a mentor being the coach of the drive team and helping set up the robot. The coach in this case helps position the robot (akin to writing the batting order and fielding positions), provides match strategy (deciding when to pinch hit, when to bunt, etc.) and keeps the drivers focused (mound visits, pep talks).

The OP had a pretty good point, and I'd hate to see the thread devolve into an argument about mentors vs students.

On topic:
I personally think FIRST should come out again and say that FRC is meant to be about inspiration, no matter who touches the final product. I don't know how effective the last time Woody said it was, but maybe people need a reminder during kickoff and during the pre-regional video that they record for every event. That, or instead of working on getting more FRC teams, we should work on getting much needed mentors and resources to those teams that exist today.

[MrJohnston]

I always find it best to start with the presumption that "the other guy" has the best intentions at heart.

Last year was my first with FIRST and I did wonder how in the world other teams built such awesome robots if the kids were doing the building... Instead of getting upset, though, I asked questions, got to know the other teams and learned what they were doing well. Being very gracious overall, they were more than happy to share. This year, we incorporated some of their strategies into our seaons and.... our robot is one of the awesome ones now! Yes, it is student-built. One of the most important things to learn is balance: Once you realize that it's not "alll about the robots," but rather about learning, mentorship and gracious professionalism, you find that every team needs a different balance amongst mentor and student responsiblities. for instance, a rookie team of three with only freshman will need a lot more direct input from mentors than a well-established team with 40 students, half of whom have been in FIRST since Lego League.... Moreover, no team will be able to establish itself long-term if the kids are not doing the work. What teenager is going to just sit around for six weeks and watch some old guy build a robot? For those who would doubt the work the kids on our team do, I would invite them to our pits - where they would see mentors standing back and watching the kids work: proof that the kids know the robot quite well and have been very involved in the building process.

Regarding the 84" and stopping the full court shooter comments... My team has a FCS and, at our regionals, we would walk through the pits and watch many other teams put up last-minute blocking devices. I'd chat with teams as they did - usually (with a smile) advising them to make their blockers a lot shorter. As the mentor who works with the drive team, we would talk about how to deal with the blocker - the kids worked hard on our robot for weeks and were not going to let a simple pool noodle and some duct tape stop us. Yes, one option was to drive forward - to the autoline - and shoot from there. Yes, we discussed whether or not the tall defender would be able to push us back or would find itself shoved across the autoline for a foul. We also discussed whether or not the blocking contraption would be robust enough to stop more than a Frisbee or two and were not opposed to shooting until their blocker gave out.

I don't view this as unprofessional or ungracious. We were simply looking at the opponents' attempts to stop us and discussing what we could do about it. If a blocking robot is not strong enough to stand its ground as we push forward clearing a shot, that is a weakness in its design and something, in a spirited competition, we would be exploiting. Likewise, if an opponnent puts up a blocking thingy that cannot handle the repeated abuse it will take from 50+ mph flying disks, then it shoudl be exploited.

At one of our regionals this year, our robot had a flaw - it was a little too top-heavy. Entering the weekend, we had thought we had dealt with it well-enough - and were feeling quite confident about the issue until our first match in the semi-finals. Then, we took a hit at a funny angle and went down - our first tip (or even close) of the weekened - and we were out for the match. Many of the younger students on the opposing alliance hollered and cheered at our misfortune - and probably said some things they shouldn't have. This happens: we are working with kids and it is all meant to be a learnign process. Instead of letting this bother them, our kids handled with grace. We were the big-bad FCS beast and we had been beaten fair-and-square. We did have an engineering flaw and it was exploited (albeit by pure chance). Later, a mentor form that team apologized to us for the behavior of his kids: they had turned it into a learning opporunity for their students.

So, my point? FIRST, if we always assume the best of others, we won't see ungraciousness where it may not be. Second, FIRST is all about learning Gracious Professionalism and if all our students had it down, they would not need FIRST. Third, when another team's students are struggling with Grace and Professionalism, recognize that their mentors most likely realize there is an issues and are working on it behind the scenes - just don't expect them to lambast their kids publicly. All of our teams, at some point or another, have (or will have) moments of which we are none-too-proud. Heck - even the mentors will. (Personally, I said some things to an Expedia agent that were neither graceful nor professional when trying to make flight reservations for my team last week.... )

So, what to do about YouTube comments? Graciously and Professionally let it go.

[bEdhEd]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

So, my point? FIRST, if we always assume the best of others, we won't see ungraciousness where it may not be. Second, FIRST is all about learning Gracious Professionalism and if all our students had it down, they would not need FIRST. Third, when another team's students are struggling with Grace and Professionalism, recognize that their mentors most likely realize there is an issues and are working on it behind the scenes - just don't expect them to lambast their kids publicly. All of our teams, at some point or another, have (or will have) moments of which we are none-too-proud. Heck - even the mentors will. (Personally, I said some things to an Expedia agent that were neither graceful nor professional when trying to make flight reservations for my team last week.... )

So, what to do about YouTube comments? Graciously and Professionally let it go.

I agree. GP is something some students, even mentors have to learn in time.
As for pushing 84" robots into the auto zone to get fouls, it's just a strategy that is completely fine in the spirit of FIRST. If the bot can be pushed in the auto zone, it's a flaw of the design and the drivers, and is nothing against the opposing team. We had to do that at our latest regional so our full court shooter could score. Usually, the fouls were not even on purpose, but consequential since the only way the opposing blocker was ineffective was if it was out of the auto zone

[Red2486]

It makes me so sad when teams post and say things that just bring other teams down. Our team has just recently become competitive with the robot and thanks to some really amazing mentors who have taught us everything they know, a full machine shop at our school, and some really dedicated students, we have been recognized at competitions for our work. We've gone from being in the lower half at competitions, to being in the top 15, and we are so proud of that fact.

At one event we went to I had an adult come up to me, look at our robot, then ask me where we send our parts to have them made. He was blown away when I said that we, the students, do it at our school. I take a lot of pride in the fact that students are making jaws drop and that students are able to do work that looks like it was made professionally. And I think all students do. Students built our robot, but we couldn't have done it without the knowledge of our mentors who have taught us almost everything we know about machining, SolidWorks, and CAMWorks.

At another event we attended a student from another team came up to me while the majority of our team was working on the robot (with a mentor helping theses students). This student from the other team asked me "why I was just standing there while my mentor built our robot". This really hurt me, and the other students who heard the comment. It brought our whole attitude down for a little bit. I just hope the people who say things like this realize that they are devauling the work that students have put in. My team takes pride in everything we do. One of our big slogans is that if your are going to do it, you need to do it right and to the best of your ability. You have to take pride in your work.

I completely agree with Libby Kamen on the topic. If what your team is doing is inspiring students, I don't care how you do it. If your team is completely student built, built by mentors, sent somewhere to be machined, designed by mentors, designed at school, whatever. If your students can take pride in what they have in their pit and can say that they want to pursue STEM because of it, that is up to you. I just hope that teams who say these hurtful things know their words can hurt the students on teams, as to the teams that face these comments, like so many others have been saying, you be the Graious Professionals and rise above it and let it go.

[Seth Mallory]

The goal of First is to inspire students into STEM. Your team could do it with a mentor built robot or a student built or some where in between. If you succeed in inspiring students then you have a good program. Some programs are about building the best robot and some are about teaching engineering more then the robot. You could have a program that does both. You make a program that works with the people you have and the resources that you have. Make the best program that you can and let others make the best the way they can. Different is good.

[bEdhEd]

This thread is getting off topic. My whole point was that teams who work with industries aren't cheating, and that I would like to progress my 100% student run team with 100% student built robots to work with industries in order to develop them into more multi-faceted individuals and that they can have the opportunity to find a career or scholarships with the company or companies that we may work with in the future.

[popnbrown]

Originally Posted by bEdhEd

This thread is getting off topic. My whole point was that teams who work with industries aren't cheating, and that I would like to progress my 100% student run team with 100% student built robots to work with industries in order to develop them into more multi-faceted individuals and that they can have the opportunity to find a career or scholarships with the company or companies that we may work with in the future.

Yes it is, and I agree with Frank. It's not cheating, and mentors should discourage students from thinking that way. It'll take time for sure, but that's why we discuss things on CD.

[popnbrown]

Originally Posted by Seth Mallory

The goal of First is to inspire students into STEM.

I disagree with you slightly. The goal of FIRST is to inspire students into STEM and a whole lot more. The Mission of FIRST: "Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership."

You cannot be a leader if you don't know the how and all you see is the end result. The point of FIRST is to have mentors (advisers) to advise and train. And in addition there are the life capabilities.

I see FIRST as way deeper than inspiring students into STEM. I don't think FIRST's mission is as simple as that. Also there are many other programs that inspire students into STEM and are way more efficient but not into becoming STEM leaders.

Edit: I should clarify when I see mentor-built I think mentor designed and built. I don't have any problems with mentors physically building due to lack of students, lack of students' knowledge or ESPECIALLY safety. Our team doesn't have a CNC but even if we did our students wouldn't know how to use it. However, our students found a water-jetting company and drew parts to send over to them. I would have not allowed a mentor to draw the parts.

[Seth Mallory]

Originally Posted by popnbrown

I disagree with you slightly. The goal of FIRST is to inspire students into STEM and a whole lot more. The Mission of FIRST: "Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership."

Our program has all of that and a lot more. Your statment supports my view that you must create the program that works for you. Other people must follow their own style. That does not make it wrong. It just makes it different like people are different. The more that I look the more I have come to realize that I think or what Dean thinks is not the best for everyone and they must find what works for them.

[nobrakes8]

I read a bunch of the comments about 118 and I think quite a few crossed the line. I think it's OK for the community to be critical of each other and have these type debates but some of the youtube comments were just disrespectful and unconstructive. Our team had a chance to meet some of 118's mentors in Lubbock and we feel like we can email or call them anytime for help/advice/mentoring --and at the end of the day that's what FRC is about.

In Dallas we did have some people from the general public sit near us in the stands on Saturday and they asked me wether or not I thought team 148 cheated based off the quality of their robot (in Dallas the robots seem to drop off sharply in quality after best 5-6 teams every year compared to other regions). Their perception of FIRST is that it's a high school competition with robots built by HS students. Explaining to them that there are different philosophies with how teams define mentor and student roles was challenging and I don't know if they walked away with a good understanding (and in the case of 148 I have no clue how they operate so my answer was partially "you should go ask them"). In this case I wish there was a good short explanation regardless of personal opinion because it was a struggle to put together good answer.

[popnbrown]

Originally Posted by nobrakes8

(and in the case of 148 I have no clue how they operate so my answer was partially "you should go ask them").

And in that light, you can never judge a team based off of their robot. Our robot was pretty cool looking this year and it was because students got resources and then used those resources (i.e water-jetting company). Heck there are teams with heavy mentor involvement that come with really bad looking robots.

Until you know that things are not right, then you shouldn't really say.


Also my reply would have been they have lots of resources and then gone into a spcheel about how part of the teams' task is getting sponsorship which students have to do..blah..blah..blah.