UNgracious UNprofessionalism

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by flargen507

I should probably reply to this outpouring of apparent anger at my previous post.

I'm not angry at you. I'm frustrated, mostly with myself.

In my relatively short time in the FIRST community it seems like we are stuck listening in on a broken record, constantly slinging the phrases of "mentor-built robots" and "x was un-GP to y, see how GP I am for telling you?" and then the ensuing chorus that barks at those posters. It's clear that as a community we are not adequately addressing the problem because it results in good teams with bright, talented, and driven students and mentors erecting glass ceilings for themselves while the community at large jumps on top of the ceilings and generates a lot of noise without saying anything.

However, I think this is whole FIRST thing is the kind of organization designed to make me feel like no one, myself included, is ever doing enough to help the program reach its true potential. It will never peak, we will never fix everything, we'll always try to make it perfect, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by flargen507

I encourage all of you to try and understand the situation I am coming from, and at least give my point some thought, even if you don't agree with it.

No. I will never give the side of celebrating mediocrity a thought.

That's precisely what you are doing, you are consoling yourself with the thought that, while you failed at achieving the game challenge you are still better than those punks who had their mentors build it all for them! You are celebrating failure. And that's on top of the fact that you are demonizing the very teams that get what FIRST is about.

And you know what? Your students need to hear that. They need to hear that they need to get their butts out there and fundraise and make partnerships with industry. When 79 didn't play in eliminations at CMP last year after seeding 9th I didn't console our kids. They asked why we didn't play and I told them honestly, "because we sucked, we didn't work hard enough. We felt entitled to success. This is what that kind of attitude gets". And yes, it angered some students. And I'm sure quite a few parents didn't particularly enjoy me telling their kids that. But we hit the ground running this year and most of the kids I told that to? They worked their butts off.

I guess my entire point is, I won't consider your thought process because it is dangerous. It is poisonous. I will never accept failure and you shouldn't either.

[EricDrost]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

But we hit the ground running this year and most of the kids I told that to? They worked their butts off.

Most? This is also a pretty good indicator that no two students are the same and that some may need individualized responses in situations like this. Especially because there's quite a large gap in emotional maturity from the most mature to the least mature students (or all people for that matter).

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

Most? This is also a pretty good indicator that no two students are the same and that some may need individualized responses in situations like this. Especially because there's quite a large gap in emotional maturity from the most mature to the least mature students (or all people for that matter).

I say most because a few graduated... I, of course, presented these facts in the language that was most appropriate for the particular student or group.

[E Dawg]

I sincerely apologize on behalf of 159. I hope that everybody knows that flargen507's posts do NOT reflect the overall attitude of the team. I am disappointed that this view exists at all, especially on my team. I will work hard to correct this attitude towards other teams. It is not okay to accuse a robot of being mentor-built, especially if it is out of spite because of losing. There is so much to learn from other teams (I learned a lot from 701 at the CO Regional), and these accusations do nothing to foster the relationships that should be built at competition.

701, great job at CO and good luck at St. Louis!

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

In all the threads that discuss mentor-built robots, not once have I read an explanation as to WHY this is bad. It is just generally assumed to be wrong by most, and the debate becomes whether or not the mentor-built accusations are true.

I am (personally) more concerned with a mentor-designed robot than mentor-built robot (where you look at the robot and have no idea how someone of your experience could design a machine of this high complexity, much less high school students), but this side of the coin never seems to be addressed. Is design just something that is assumed to be mentor guided?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

It is just generally assumed to be wrong by most, and the debate becomes whether or not the mentor-built accusations are true.

It is?

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

It is?

Well, if being a mentor-built robot isn't wrong, why does everyone seem to get so upset about it when someone is accused of it?

I personally could care less who build the robot, as long as the students are learning. But that's me, and I'm not the people who persistently deny said accusations.

[TedG]

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

In all the threads that discuss mentor-built robots, not once have I read an explanation as to WHY this is bad. It is just generally assumed to be wrong by most, and the debate becomes whether or not the mentor-built accusations are true.

I am (personally) more concerned with a mentor-designed robot than mentor-built robot (where you look at the robot and have no idea how someone of your experience could design a machine of this high complexity, much less high school students), but this side of the coin never seems to be addressed. Is design just something that is assumed to be mentor guided?

Our particular team dynamic has (4) technical mentors, (2) admin/finance/planning mentors, around (20) students, and a few helping parents.. depending on the year of course. We don't have the manpower to accomplish some of the things larger, better funded teams can. But I feel we do have a system that fulfills FIRST's vision and we are always trying to improve it.

None of our mentors are teachers at the school system and have careers outside the school district. Our build season is in a machine shop (our main sponsor) where we work nights and weekends for six weeks straight (+/-) some days off.

The students brainstorm and design their robot and game strategy right after kickoff. The mentors and students build prototypes and mock-ups and come up with a working model of what we want to build. Then, using engineering practices and concepts provided by the mentors, the mentors and students build the robot. Yes the mentors need to do the more complicated things, but with students helping or watching. For the most part, our robot is about 30% mentor, 70% student built. If possible, we will have the students do even more if they have the ability and/or desire. Our students are proud of what we bring to the field, they all had a hand in it's design and construction, and they all had fun during pre-build and build season, and all learned something.

As I said, we're always trying to improve the system, encouraging the students to take more of a lead role for the team.

[Chris is me]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Andrew Schreiber again."

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

I am (personally) more concerned with a mentor-designed robot than mentor-built robot (where you look at the robot and have no idea how someone of your experience could design a machine of this high complexity, much less high school students), but this side of the coin never seems to be addressed. Is design just something that is assumed to be mentor guided?

I think "built" is sometimes used as shorthand for "designed and constructed" in these discussions. The posters see any heavy mentor involvement as a disservice to the students, or somehow unfair. I don't think either of these things are necessarily true at all. These assumptions are addressed and deconstructed in numerous other threads, so I won't break this down.

I don't think a mentor designed robot is a bad thing in the slightest. I do agree that all the focus on who cuts the metal is kind of missing the point - if a hypothetical dissenter wanted students to be "doing the engineering", a student designed and mentor built robot would be closer to that than the opposite. However, I really think that this detailed design stuff is rather hard, and to expect every team of students to do it without significant help is silly.

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

Well, if being a mentor-built robot isn't wrong, why does everyone seem to get so upset about it when someone is accused of it?

Baseless accusations are still very bad things, even if the thing they are being accused of isn't as bad as some people believe it to be.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

Well, if being a mentor-built robot isn't wrong, why does everyone seem to get so upset about it when someone is accused of it?

The accusation itself isn't what upsets a lot of the people who get vocal when it happens. The upsetting thing is that the accuser thinks that mentor involvement is a bad thing and worthy of accusation.

Mentors are at the foundation of FRC. Students shouldn't be expected to design and build amazing machines without working side by side with engineers and toolmakers and skilled technicians (and teachers and business professionals and experienced administrators and...).

The best teams I know of have robots that are designed and built by the team.

[popnbrown]

I'm going to disagree with you, and then agree with you. I know you don't mean it, but this is one of those issues that has such a fine line that wording is important.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I don't think a mentor designed robot is a bad thing in the slightest.

It is bad. The designing is in my view the part that FIRST is trying to get at. I've hit this point already but I'll bring it up again. Referring to the mission of FIRST, it's goals are to inspire STEM "leaders", and in addition "build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation". I do not see a mentor designing a robot as accomplishing the mission. If students don't know the why or the how (what I see as designing) then how can they become leaders? How can they innovate or truly develop skills to make them go above and beyond, to go where we are asking them to?


Now the semi-agreeing part:

Originally Posted by Chris is me

However, I really think that this detailed design stuff is rather hard, and to expect every team of students to do it without significant help is silly.

Yes. It is hard stuff, and that is why the other part of FIRST's mission is to establish "exciting mentor-based programs". Students do not know the detailed design stuff and they need help. But help does not mean, someone else does it for them, it means you mentor (definition of mentor: adviser) the students to design. Students can come up with simple designs or you can pull out A design really, and then you advise and guide them. You poke holes in their design, get them to see the flaws, and perhaps suggest what would make the design work better. THAT is true mentoring, down to the definition of the word, and how I see as it aligns with FIRST's mission.



There is an important distinction between mentor-designed and mentor-built. I do absolutely see concerns with a mentor-designed robot, as stated above. But for many teams that are trying to advance the knowledge they have, it absolutely requires mentors to assist in physically building.

I hardly doubt that any team has a 100% student-built and/or student-designed robot (I absolutely can be wrong) but that is the point of FIRST. Mentors are supposed to help students develop the ideas, and as a result the idea is no longer 100% that of a students'. Mentors are supposed to teach students how to work with tools, parts, and materials, meaning that robots aren't always 100% student-built.


Sorry for nitpicking, but it's important. Significant help and mentor-designed are not the same in my book, and as we discuss this I want to establish that (from my viewpoint).

[Racer26]

Nice to see that someone on 159 'gets it'. I would have expected as much from such a team. I only hope you can get the message across to the others.

I know how much I've struggled internally in my own teams to get them to stop looking at 1114/2056 like they have an unfair advantage. Yes, they have an advantage, but the important question is why do they have that advantage? (they worked hard for it) and how do we acquire similar things such that we can compete on the same level? (work hard).

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

In all the threads that discuss mentor-built robots, not once have I read an explanation as to WHY this is bad. It is just generally assumed to be wrong by most, and the debate becomes whether or not the mentor-built accusations are true.

The debate devolves into a question of whether the accusations are true, because simply put, if they're untrue then the argument is moot. If a "mentor-built" robot doesn't exist (and I'm fairly firmly convinced that it doesn't) then an argument about why they are bad is irrelevant.

Let's set that aside for a minute anyway. The goals of the program are to inspire young people to get involved in STEM fields. Does participating on a team with a mentor-built, winning robot do that? Yes, it does. I agree, that it is likely not the most effective way, but it DOES achieve the goals. I know of exactly ZERO teams that operate this way. Much less the most successful teams among us.

Every example of those top echelon of teams that get painted with the 'mentor-built' brush that I can think of, in actuality, are the teams who've fostered some of the strongest relationships with their sponsors, and have students and mentors working together better than any other teams. I would count 67, 118, 148, 217, 254, 1114, 2056, and many more in this group.

I speak all this as an 11 year participant in FRC that has never won a blue banner in 17 regional events + 1 FIRST Championship (registered through the waitlist) of competition (attended 20 regionals+CMP+6xOffseasons).

1075 won 2 offseasons, both in 2008, with a robot that was, for all intents and purposes, a clone of Simbot SS.

I feel this taught us an important lesson: that with our relatively modest fabrication abilities, we were able to successfully build a machine with a proven winning design, and then go and win with it. What we needed to do to have more success at the official events was to iron out the design process.

I'm still learning. First with 1075, and now with 4343. I watch 1114 and 2056 (and the others like them) incessantly. I occasionally engage their members to learn about the inner workings of their teams. I DO agree with many posters that find some members of 1114 and 2056 seem cold and uninterested in conversation, but I suspect that this is an artifact of being bombarded by constant accusations of not playing fair. Some of their members are much better at 'rising above the hate' than others, to which I say: They're humans. They're not perfect. Additionally, talking to them at competitions, while easiest, is also the highest stress time for them. They have high expectations, and a reputation of being the best to uphold. Catch them on a lunch break, or in the offseason, and they're much more approachable.

Like Karthik frequently quotes:

Originally Posted by Vince Lombardi

Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Racer26

1075 won 2 offseasons, both in 2008, with a robot that was, for all intents and purposes, a clone of Simbot SS.


...
I DO agree with many posters that find some members of 1114 and 2056 seem cold and uninterested in conversation, but I suspect that this is an artifact of being bombarded by constant accusations of not playing fair. Some of their members are much better at 'rising above the hate' than others, to which I say: They're humans. They're not perfect. Additionally, talking to them at competitions, while easiest, is also the highest stress time for them. They have high expectations, and a reputation of being the best to uphold. Catch them on a lunch break, or in the offseason, and they're much more approachable.

Racer, I'm gonna pick your brain about that first part... mostly for a presentation I am working on. Expect a PM shortly.

I'm going to toot my own horn for a bit and point to an interview we did with 1114 a while back. It breaks down their entire process in their own words. They were incredibly open with us. I've never felt they were cold at all. http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-98466/TS-509845.mp3

Reminds me that I should continue that series of Inside Look casts...

[Grim Tuesday]

I had very high hopes for this thread because it was actually a different topic than the classic students and mentor built robots. But after reading page four of this thread, all I can think of is this image:




As for dealings with members of 'elite' teams, if you are attending Championships, I would highly suggest just having a chat with some of them and trying to learn from them. On Thursday night last year, I went to 2056's pit just to admire their robot and didn't find any of the students or adults in their pit to be cold in any way, just a nice bunch of people who were completely willing to talk about how their team and their robot works.