Mentor/Student Involvement Philosophies

[MrJohnston]

This is such a tough subject because there isn't really any "right" answer... It is very true that each team has to have its own way of operating due to the personalities, capabilities, needs, etc. of its own students and mentors.... It is also true that team that attempt to really maximize the amount of decision-making power and construction hours their kids have are at a major competitive disadvantage when facing teams where the mentors hold the balance of power.
Philosophically, I do believe that it is ideal for each team to find it's own balance. However, in many ways, that undermines the spirit of competition. Really: who is competing against whom?

I suspect that, if FIRST wants to continue to hold "Championships" and if the community keeps hailing "elite" teams, FIRST is going to have to give some guidance as to an appropriate balance.

However, there will always need to be a some freedom for teams to do things for themselves. Our team is a great example: Last year, we were loaded with upper-classmen - students with three years of FRC under their belts. This year, we have very few upper-classmen and our leadership team is dominated by sophomores. Last year, our mentors stepped back a lot more and let the upper-classmen have much more "say" in the process. We let them make the mistakes they needed to make, etc. This year, the kids require much more direct guidance.

I do believe that, in order to inspire the kids, they really do need to be involved in the building and design process. They can't be spectators. AT the same time, mentors are important because they bring education, experience and specific expertise to the table to which the students would not otherwise have access. The mentors must also play a major role in the process.

I have been to Championships once... While wandering about the pits of all the "elite" teams and those often accused of having "mentor-built" robots, I noticed one thing very consistently: There were always students working on the robots. Sometimes they were working hand-in-hand with mentors. Sometimes mentors were simply supervising. Sometimes the kids were working, basically, on their own. I see nothing but good in all of these models. I would be concerned if, I were to wander into a pit and see three or four mentors actively working - and no students to be found. I just haven't seen this.

[bEdhEd]

I started similar thread before defending powerhouse teams, and it got out of hand, but here's my input before this thread gets closed:

I personally believe that a sign of a strong team with fewer resources than powerhouse teams is one that gets encouraged by being outperformed at a competition. I see that as motivation for a team to do more fundraising, more projects, more outreach (if we're also talking chairman's), and more involvement overall, from students, parents, mentors, and sponsors.

In the six years I've been in FRC, I see powerhouse teams as something to emulate, rather than feel inferior to. And all these six years have been on 701, and by being encouraged by defeat instead of discouraged, I've seen my team become better and better.The team didn't get its first blue banner until its 13th year, and in that same season we followed that first banner with two more. Plus, in that same season, we were accused of being mentor built when the reality was that our robot was built by students only. I think that shows how far inspiration can go if you define and implement your priorities, and improve little by little. None of that would have happened if we had any doubts about ourselves as a team.

Powerhouse teams don't happen overnight. They had to work to that level too, regardless of who is involved.

This reminds me of a Confucius quote: "By three ways we may learn wisdom: first is by reflection, which is noblest; second by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience , which is the bitterest."

[Sam_Mills]

Originally Posted by ZackAlfakir

The goal is not to have a working robot, it is to have the STUDENTS build a working robot and a Mentor is one of the tools that they use to get to that goal.

No, your goal is to have the students build a working robot. The goal of FIRST is to inspire students. I say this having spent 4 years (as a student) on a team well known for being almost entirely student driven. It worked well for us, and I got a lot out of the program, but if other teams find that they can maximize inspiration in other ways, then more power to them. If you have mentors on your team capable of teaching programming to the level that your students can do all of it, you're very lucky.

A side note, of the teams you would consider "mentor built," competitive ones are extremely rare. Yes there are the perennial powerhouses, whose philosophies you may not agree with, but they are a tiny fraction of "mentor built" teams. Not only that, but the students do far more than you would expect on most of them. When I think mentor robot, I don't think powerhouse. I think dad-robot built by under-qualified adults unwilling to give students the reins, and unable to teach new skills.

Nobody complains about them because they don't often win. If you're truly looking to rescue students from the terrors of mentorship, don't try to rescue them from engineers from whom they may learn something.

[xXhunter47Xx]

Originally Posted by bEdhEd

I started similar thread before defending powerhouse teams, and it got out of hand, but here's my input before this thread gets closed:

I personally believe that a sign of a strong team with fewer resources than powerhouse teams is one that gets encouraged by being outperformed at a competition. I see that as motivation for a team to do more fundraising, more projects, more outreach (if we're also talking chairman's), and more involvement overall, from students, parents, mentors, and sponsors.

In the six years I've been in FRC, I see powerhouse teams as something to emulate, rather than feel inferior to. And all these six years have been on 701, and by being encouraged by defeat instead of discouraged, I've seen my team become better and better.The team didn't get its first blue banner until its 13th year, and in that same season we followed that first banner with two more. Plus, in that same season, we were accused of being mentor built when the reality was that our robot was built by students only. I think that shows how far inspiration can go if you define and implement your priorities, and improve little by little. None of that would have happened if we had any doubts about ourselves as a team.

Powerhouse teams don't happen overnight. They had to work to that level too, regardless of who is involved.

Very well written.

[BenjaminWard]

Originally Posted by JesseK

The point was that for sustainability reasons each individual team should be run like a small tech firm. I agree that the philosophy doesn't mean the mentors make all decisions and do all of the work*. Mentors are definitely needed at the critical decisions in order to prevent a single group of students from dictating or ruining every other students' experience in a season. Sometimes this has to happen forcefully, depending on the culture of the community & the students in a given season.

The level of how much involvement is an art - we certainly have been overly-involved in the past - but as a team gains experience they'll find the right balance for themselves.

I agree that mentors are needed to be present at some of the major decisions, but not all. We at programming have a single mentor, and he does only a little more than we need him to. We do all of our own programming, and even teach the freshman programmers what they need to know before the season starts, based on the last year's code and WPILib API. However, they do not need to be "forceful" in any way. The students should be allowed to make their own mistakes to the extent possible, as in a tech firm, to continue the analogy. Even if one group is in charge of the others, this is not as much of a problem as you make it out to be in most situations. As long as nothing that would horribly harm the team is prevented, the students should have as much free reign as possible.

"As a team gains experience they'll find the right balance for themselves" rubs me the wrong way. If the team is largely mentor-run, the students will not be able to make the decision about what balance they want. That just seems.... wrong...

Originally Posted by JesseK

*Except leading the fundraising team ... I have yet to meet a student who successfully solicits a large business for fundraising without significant mentor involvement...

Our team actually has almost zero mentor involvement in regards to fundraising, etc. We have a large "marketing" team that is competent enough to make their own decisions to benefit the team appropriately. They have successfully funded the majority of the team's cash needs for the past few years, with little mentor involvement.

[Ian Curtis]

When I was a younger I used to get really defensive when people said, "There's no way high school kids built that robot by themselves."

Now I say, "That's the point!!!"

Thank you to all those mentors that taught me how to robot. I can only hope to pay it forward. And thank you, to the other mentors (adult and student) that pay it forward too.

[JamesCH95]

Don't you students forget that us mentors might actually *like* building robots. Most of us are also volunteers. It's easy to keep volunteer mentors around when they get to do things that they enjoy. I pencil-whip problems and model things in CAD all freakin' day, and I really enjoy going to robotics and making parts, it's a great change of pace. Coaching would hold less appeal for me if I couldn't work with my students in the hands-on part of FRC (as well as designing).

Alternatively, it is in-arguably inspiring to watch someone do what they're really good at. One of 95's coaches is a guy who owns his own CNC machining company. Our students are always enthralled watching him program, setup, and run our CNC mill. Suddenly their creativity spikes because they can see what is possible.

Originally Posted by BenjaminWard

Our team actually has almost zero mentor involvement in regards to fundraising, etc. We have a large "marketing" team that is competent enough to make their own decisions to benefit the team appropriately. They have successfully funded the majority of the team's cash needs for the past few years, with little mentor involvement.

Was that sub-team setup by students or mentors or both?

Often times successful efforts that are now student-run were initiated by a group of students AND mentors.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by robofreak

Doesn't seem to look like many people have had this thought so Ill just throw it here.

You may be inspiring your students by building a robot for them and winning every regional/district you go to. (I would hope you could beat a bunch of kids with all your engineering degrees)

But what about all the students from other teams who hand built their robots that only get to see disappointment because they know that they can't compete with you?

If you look at the big picture instead of putting your horse blinders on and only thinking about your team and winning all the time you might realize you impact every team around you. And that impact may not necessarily be a positive one.

I understand this issue, but I don't know a fix for it. I've tried reaching out to a few other teams in my area to spread around more knowledge, but a lot of the time it goes unanswered.

The teams with the attitude of "Hey! Help us build a robot!" tend to attract more mentors than those that stay silent, and those of us (mentors) who are looking to teach kids about designing/building/testing are going to find the vocal teams first. I'm in Phoenix AZ. If anyone in the area wants input or help with their design just send me a message! I like helping teams make competitive robots, but I can't help if I don't know who/where you are.

It's not a factor of winning/losing for me; I just want to pass on knowledge to students and build neat things. Naturally, I'll be working the most with a team that is looking for that kind of support.

[Rachel Lim]

I normally stay far away from these threads, but I thought I'd say this once:

FIRST is about inspiration. There are many ways to be inspired. Inspiration means different things to different people. Consider these situations:

• Students build a robot by themselves, or with limited mentor guidance. Their success (by their definition) and the knowledge of what they were able to achieve (personally able to achieve, due to limited mentor involvement), inspires them to go into STEM.
  
  
• Students build a robot with some mentor guidance. Their success (by their definition) and the knowledge of what they were able to achieve (and possibly the knowledge of what they could be able to achieve, by seeing what their mentors know), inspires them to go into STEM.
  
  
• Students build a robot with mentor guidance. Their success (by their definition) and the knowledge of what they were able to achieve (and possibly the knowledge of what they could be able to achieve, by seeing what their mentors know), inspires them to go into STEM.
  
  
• Students on any type of team go to competition and see other teams compete, some with more mentor involvement that may have great success. They return with the knowledge of what is possible (and possibly try to use it to change their team), and are inspired to go into STEM.
  
  
• Students on any type of team go to competition and see other teams compete, some with less mentor involvement. They return with the knowledge of what is possible (and possibly try to use it to change their team), and are inspired to go into STEM.

As a student, I find all of these scenarios inspiring in their own way, and personally do not see how any of these scenarios could be considered the "wrong" way to inspire. Some people will find one scenario more inspiring to them than another, and other vice versa.

To me, if a team inspires their students, they are successful. How they decide to achieve their inspiration depends on the team, and could range from very little to a lot of mentor involvement.

Until one method has been shown to not inspire students to pursue STEM, I believe that teams with a high level of mentor involvement are just as relevant to the mission of FIRST as those with little or no mentor involvement. Which direction a team chooses to go is completely their own decision, and should not be pushed as the one "right" way to do FRC.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Who said they didn't like it? Or maybe they liked doing it because they connected with a mentor or another student there. Or because they were there because the alternative was being at home that was bad for them. If they were happy and learning something about engineering or about themselves I'd view this as a success. Could they have gotten more out of the program? Maybe. But maybe what they needed out of it was just social interaction.

This isn't a hypothetical situation, I've had multiple students over the years who were at robotics because it was either there or be at home alone while their parents worked. One that sticks out in my mind clearly had 0 interest in building robots. He thought they were cool, but he just wanted somewhere to interact with people. He'd help build or wire if we asked him to. But you could tell his heart just wasn't in it. But he was the first to every meeting and one of the last to leave every meeting. He WANTED to be there. But it wasn't the robot he was interested in. I don't feel like I failed him at all. I don't know where he ended up (I moved across the country the next year). But I at least hope he got something out of the program, and I know that being there made him happier. Definitely not a failure.

Frankly, I'm there to try to inspire the students, not babysit someone who just doesn't want to go home. If someone's on the team but has no interest in the robot, then I put in the effort to find out what interests them, then figure out what they can do with the team that both fulfills their interests and shows them potential career opportunities they may not have been aware of. As I said before, it's not all about the robot. There are a hundred things students can be doing with a team other than working on the robot, and they can lead to true inspiration and life-long career paths. It just takes more effort to make that a reality for ALL of the students on a team.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Karthik

This thread has been split from the CheesyVision thread.

I was wondering what was up with the cold opening.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by bEdhEd

Powerhouse teams don't happen overnight. They had to work to that level too, regardless of who is involved.

QFT. Our team was started in 2001 as a partnership with BP, and it was 8 years before we won a regional. 8 years! That's when the 3000's teams were entering the fray. I see a lot of rookie teams getting discouraged, but sometimes all it takes is dedication, and years of experience to know what works and what doesn't.

I've been following this thread for a while, and thought I might give a student's perspective - especially meant for those who think that a good robot can't be built by students. Competitive robot =/= mentor built.

On my team, I have first-hand experience that the robot is fabricated by students. That does not, by any means mean our mentors are not involved. It's a joint effort to brainstorm, innovate, and design this vehicle. It's not designed by a sponsor or anything either; we cut every part and drill every hole by hand in our shop.

A lot of what makes teams good is a passion to improve and prove yourself. Our programming subteam doesn't have a mentor who is actually a programmer, let alone in LabView. We have some build mentors who help guide the functions and logic necessary, but when it comes to actually coding the robot, it's all on the students - thankfully, they are very self-motivated, working on code all the time, pretty much for fun. (One decided to make our current team website from scratch over the summer a year ago, and another programmer made an FRC statistics site, http://bbqfrc.x10host.com.) We've managed to win 5 Innovation in Control awards in the past three years, and really all I can attribute that to is the persistence of our programming team.

When we go to competition, we see teams with other robots, often times better than ours, but we never think - "Man, I wish ____ built or robot for us too." We take that and challenge ourselves to build a robot that can compete at the same level as those powerhouse teams, and we're getting there, thanks to the hard work of generations of mentors and students on our team. As a side note, I have worked personally with students from teams that routinely get accused of the "50+ mentor built robot syndrome" - they are just as knowledgeable, and I'm sure they were "inspired," since it seems we like to throw that word around a lot when talking about this subject.

In the end, I think that if a team wants to get better, they'll find a way to bring themselves up, rather than complain about what other teams have and don't have. It might take time, but it's worth the wait to build this program. Besides that, every student and on every team may be "inspired" in a different way from the other. There isn't much one can do about the teams whose programs you may not necessarily agree with, but the fact is you will have to live with it and move on.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Frankly, I'm there to try to inspire the students, not babysit someone who just doesn't want to go home. If someone's on the team but has no interest in the robot, then I put in the effort to find out what interests them, then figure out what they can do with the team that both fulfills their interests and shows them potential career opportunities they may not have been aware of. As I said before, it's not all about the robot. There are a hundred things students can be doing with a team other than working on the robot, and they can lead to true inspiration and life-long career paths. It just takes more effort to make that a reality for ALL of the students on a team.

Must be nice... I had to be there to babysit because I wasn't going to send them to homes where they'd gotten robbed at gun point the night before*. If they wanted to be there I'd try to find things that interested them. If I couldn't find anything I'd let them do what they wanted as long as it didn't disturb anyone else. Besides, you never know what's going to spark an interest. I had way too many students and not enough mentors to sit and focus on each one, if you've got enough mentors to focus on each student then count your blessings. But don't preach at those who aren't lucky enough to be in that situation.

Remember that not all kids are capable of telling you what they want to do. No matter how much you ask it sometimes boils down to finding just being lucky enough to find it. This was a student who we could BARELY get to talk, let alone tell us what he wanted to be doing.


*I wish this was an exaggeration. It happened... multiple times.

[Link07]

Ah, here's the Chief Delphi that I know and love. Oh how I have missed you.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I would think a student like this would have found a different path or position on the team... Why would they keep doing something they don't like for 4 years?. Someone who goes on to major in theatre arts may have spent their time in the team preparing the chairman's presentation (which is basically a short skit acted out by 2-3 people in front of judges), doing pit presentations to judges (similar in some respects to improv), or working on things like the Safety animation, chairman's video, or a season release video (directing, editing footage, writing scripts, etc). There is certainly room on an FRC team for someone who wants to go into theatre arts. This isn't all about the robot, the robot is just the vehicle you use to create the inspiration and environment to help the kids succeed.

Frankly, if I had a student that spent their entire fine with the team doing robot build activities and then decided she wanted to go into theatre, I would feel like I failed that student. It's not my job to turn every student into an engineer. Rather, it's my job to show them the options and nurture their interests so they can be successful in their career path. Honestly, there are very few career paths out there that can't have a start with a well organised FIRST team.

My experience as a student could be somewhat similar. I was a freshmen on the team and our only programmer a senior was graduating. By the end of my freshmen year I knew someone had to take over as the programmer but it didn't take long to realize that no one really wanted to do it because they had other interests. I decided to fill the role as the programmer and began to work on different projects learning to code and I hated it. It was so confusing to me but I knew that we needed it and that our robots both land and underwater would perform a far deal lower than if I didn't do it so I stuck with it. So I continued to do programming and hated it for about 2 years. However most of my hate was the result of not understanding it and not having a solid background of the basics. Once it started coming more naturally, I love programming now. I love all the things you can do with it and can't imagine not doing it. Had I just begun it my senior year, I probably would have hated it still and not went into a computer science major.