Mentor/Student Involvement Philosophies

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by mentorDon

I don't have a problem with mentors helping students. You could bring every NASA engineer as far as I'm concerned. My problem is with NASA or other large corporations supplying the manufacturing time and materials for some of these robots. I wrote a letter last year to First expressing my thoughts about these $1,000,000 robots. If the rules were changed so that all materials and manufacturing time were included in the cost of the robot, that would level the playing field for all teams. Time to eliminate the free ride from major sponsors.

You want to create a rule preventing sponsors from donating material and manufacturing to a not for profit program? The partnership between sponsors and FIRST/teams is the lifeblood of this program. Cutting down and/or eliminating their involvement is quickest way to turn a world class program into an old school science fair.

[mrnoble]

There's always BEST Robotics for those who want zero mentor involvement and a level budget of $0 for all teams. It's a fun enough competition for the kids and they can learn from their mistakes rather than from mentor guidance.

Let me recommend that those who think that robotics competitions should be run that way check out BEST, and stop suggesting that FRC should be run that way.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by mentorDon

I don't have a problem with mentors helping students. You could bring every NASA engineer as far as I'm concerned. My problem is with NASA or other large corporations supplying the manufacturing time and materials for some of these robots. I wrote a letter last year to First expressing my thoughts about these $1,000,000 robots. If the rules were changed so that all materials and manufacturing time were included in the cost of the robot, that would level the playing field for all teams. Time to eliminate the free ride from major sponsors.

It's a competition. Level playing fields only exist literally, not metaphorically.

If there is a single competition out there with a level playing field I'd love to see it. In every high-level competition the playing field is uneven. Sports teams have different budgets to recruit players; racing teams have different budgets for testing, consumables, and driver salary; Olympians from different countries have different levels of coaching skill and training facilities; companies have different budgets, resources, and facilities for developing their products. Life is not even, and FRC is a good object lesson for this.

If you are unhappy with your team's resource level, do whatever you can to improve it. A given team's situation can be improved, which is a superior alternative to bringing down other teams' capabilities with rules.

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

. I have not always had this perspective and at one time held opinions similar to ZackAlfakir.

I distinctly remember when you were new to the boards, and the perspective you had. After being away for a couple of years I was very happy to see you are now a regular and productive poster. It was interesting to see the evolution there. Now that we are in the same region please introduce yourself at the Virginia Regional.

Originally Posted by BenjaminWard

Exactly, this is what ZackAlfakir and I were talking about. It is all well and good if the students are being "inspired" by the success of the mentors, but it is important that they learn what they are doing, which they can only do by actually doing it.

The issue is you cannot learn engineering through FRC, and the goal is not to learn to be an engineer, or to learn to solder, or to program, or any of these other skill. The goal is to inspire students. Along the way every one, mentors included will learn new skills, and new tricks, but that is a small benefit tacked on to the inspiration. The inspiration is the key, I have worked on teams that built their entire robot out of home depot parts, and on teams with more than 1 mentor per student. I have been on teams with no funding, and on teams with 6 figure annual budgets. I have worked in a build area with access to tens of millions of dollars worth of machining equipment, and in a garden shed. At this point I have seen the full range of team styles in FRC, and I can't say that any style is better than any other. As long as the students are enjoying themselves, and they are inspired then the team is doing it right.

Originally Posted by mentorDon

I don't have a problem with mentors helping students. You could bring every NASA engineer as far as I'm concerned. My problem is with NASA or other large corporations supplying the manufacturing time and materials for some of these robots. I wrote a letter last year to First expressing my thoughts about these $1,000,000 robots. If the rules were changed so that all materials and manufacturing time were included in the cost of the robot, that would level the playing field for all teams. Time to eliminate the free ride from major sponsors.

I don't understand this. The ability for teams to receive in kind donations from sponsors is one of the highlights of the program. We could set the budget for actual cost of all items to $X,XXX but all that would do is limit teams, and stifle creativity. There are a dozen other competitions out there with this type of model. FRC is different because of the big corporate sponsorships they are what makes the competition what it is.

My first FRC exposure was 2004, and my first season was 2005. I after seeing championships those two years, I was incredibly jealous of 254. They were a NASA team, in Silicon Valley, their robots look incredibly professional. They were powder coated, and they had a spare at home to practice with. How could we ever compete with a team like that? It took a couple of years before I really understood that there is nothing that special about their robots, or their fabrication process. I mean that in the most complimentary way possible. They are simple, they just work. I cannot recall ever seeing a feature on one of their bots that would not have been fabricated anywhere else in the country. There was no reason other teams couldn't build the same level of machine in the same time frame with resources available in their area. This is the case for 99% of the top robots in FRC.

There is (or rather was) a secret sauce to being one of the top teams in FRC, but it has nothing to do with specific sponsors donating time or materials. However Karthik presents every year at championships on how you do it, and 1114 (and other teams) have posted it right on their website. Timelines, how to analyze a game, its all there.

On a slight tangent, when did NASA teams become a negative thing? There are a ton of NASA teams, covering the full range of competitive levels, and budgets. I recently ran into this with local mentors, and have seen it on here.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

If there is a single competition out there with a level playing field I'd love to see it.

I think I would prefer to rearrange my sock drawer than watch a "competition" with a "level playing field" imposed on it. Mediocrity is boring.

(PS: I am pretty sure you meant that in a "I'll believe it when I see it" sense and not in the "Let me get my popcorn" sense)

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

I think I would prefer to rearrange my sock drawer than watch a "competition" with a "level playing field" imposed on it. Mediocrity is boring.

(PS: I am pretty sure you meant that in a "I'll believe it when I see it" sense and not in the "Let me get my popcorn" sense)

Indeed! I hope my intent is clear given the context and tone of my post.

[IronicDeadBird]

If you don't like peanut butter don't eat it, don't try and stop everyone else from eating it.
If you don't like First don't do it. Also don't eat First.

[Lil' Lavery]

Can we please stop with the "dead horse" emoticons and generally cynicism towards these topics? I'm please most of this thread has been productive and insightful, and I fully realize that this topic has been discussed ad naseum before. However, just because its something that has been discussed before doesn't mean that all FRC participants have had a chance to engage in the discussion, or even absorb previous ones. If you're going to dead horse, at least reference some particular discussions from the past (and preferably, highlight particularly insightful posts), rather than simply being dismissive of the concerns presented by those you don't agree with. Regardless of the consensus on Chief Delphi, this is still a contentious issue for many FRC participants. Being dismissive towards a minority opinion is not the proper way to handle it (on or off of Chief Delphi).

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by mentorDon

I don't have a problem with mentors helping students. You could bring every NASA engineer as far as I'm concerned. My problem is with NASA or other large corporations supplying the manufacturing time and materials for some of these robots. I wrote a letter last year to First expressing my thoughts about these $1,000,000 robots. If the rules were changed so that all materials and manufacturing time were included in the cost of the robot, that would level the playing field for all teams. Time to eliminate the free ride from major sponsors.

Five years ago, our club started the fall out in debt about $4,000, no shop and only a couple of sponsors. The leadership of the club (I arrived the following year) realized that the long term sustainability of the club was in grave jeopardy. Some folks looked at the "privileged" clubs with jealously/disdain. However, most of our leaders instead looked at them as examples. What do we need to do in order to replicate their successes? How can we get what they've got?

This started a fundamental change in how our club operates. Outreach became a vital part of our club's activities. We'll show off our robot to pretty much anybody at pretty much any time. We march in parades. We visit local tech companies. We go to elementary schools. We talk to the Chamber of Commerce and School Board. We know just how important our FIRST program is in our community and we make it our mission to make sure that the rest of the community knows it, too! We then ask for help. Sometimes we get help. Sometimes we don't. We always offer to come back, though.... We write letters to friends, community leaders, family members and so on. We make sure that everybody knows just how expensive it is to run a good club... And it is amazing how generous the community can be.

We now operate on a budget of well over $100K. We serve over 100 kids (but only charge $50 to participate for the year)... We have plenty of money for training materials, extra robots, etc. We have the monetary capacity to do anything we want to do in order to compete at the highest levels. It wasn't that hard: it just took patience, a little time and a little work.

Instead of being envious of teams that benefit from generous sponsors, go out and get them yourself. We look at our team as a small business. If our business is going to thrive, we need to maintain a strong and steady cash flow. That money is not just going to come to us. Rather, we need to actively seek it out.

[philso]

Originally Posted by Libby K

How are you, a student with basically the same knowledge base, inspiring someone to go into the career path they choose - are you lending them your industry experience? No. Giving them advice on university & internships? I sure hope not, you haven't been through it. You need some sort of partnership, even if it's just a little bit. Mentors are more than just Wiring101 teachers. There should be a connection there, helping foster something new in the students throughout the FIRST process.

I feel that one of the duties of a mentors is to provide perspective for the students while making their career choices. One of our students was saying last week that she wanted to go work for Google or Apple so she could "do cool things" and be able to have her own patents. I asked if she had considered entrepreneurship and described two friends who's startups (different companies) were purchased by a large competitor and would several Mega$ make up for working for a company no one has ever hear of. I also set her straight about who gets most of the financial benefits from a patent one is awarded when working as an employee. She still wants to go into the STEM field but now has a different and more accurate perspective. Can you students do this for each other?

Originally Posted by Libby K

How is it that you know what the students did vs. what the mentors did on that team? If you're not on the team, you don't know them or what they do.

Every time that I have personally heard someone say the phrase "the mentors built their robot" about one of our local powerhouse teams, the people saying it were jealous that they did not have the same resources yet they were not willing to work to get those resources. They were also wrong. I have spoken to all of our local powerhouse teams and in every case there were students who knew details that only the person doing the work could know.

Originally Posted by mentorDon

I don't have a problem with mentors helping students. You could bring every NASA engineer as far as I'm concerned. My problem is with NASA or other large corporations supplying the manufacturing time and materials for some of these robots. I wrote a letter last year to First expressing my thoughts about these $1,000,000 robots. If the rules were changed so that all materials and manufacturing time were included in the cost of the robot, that would level the playing field for all teams. Time to eliminate the free ride from major sponsors.

Life is not fair. What is wrong with the students learning to deal with unfairness in a creative and constructive way?

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

It's a competition. Level playing fields only exist literally, not metaphorically.

Except this year, there are bumps and noodles. Metaphorically, and literally.

Sorry, I know, not helpful - but we need a little comic relief in here. There are some great insights so far though.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Except this year, there are bumps and noodles. Metaphorically, and literally.

Sorry, I know, not helpful - but we need a little comic relief in here. There are some great insights so far though.

Metaphorical noodle might be a good band name...

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

It wasn't that hard: it just took patience, a little time and a little work.

Instead of being envious of teams that benefit from generous sponsors, go out and get them yourself.

I totally agree with your post. It is the same path that we think we are currently on.

I will say that this last sentiment though, isn't one that I am particularly fond of. My first year on the team I was very frustrated at how suggestions like "just go out and get sponsorship" and "it only takes a little time and a little work" were not at all helpful. The specifics of the 'how' and the 'what' it takes to secure multi-thousands dollar sponsorships are often very challenging. Some people are in much better positions to get in touch with generous corporations than others.

For us anyway, it took a lot of time and a lot of work. And "just going out to get sponsors" failed for a long time until we refined our approach, and we are no where near 100K, but are still comfortable financially.
For instance, all my high school team needed to do to get a couple thousand was to roll up to the school board and give a full presentation, robot demo, Q&A, and student testimonial. If it were that easy for my current team last year we would still be swimming in green

All of that said, there are currently tons of companies that make getting money as simple as filling out a grant application and maybe giving a presentation or two. And I cannot express how truly grateful I am to those organizations. Opening your doors to all teams is magnificently generous.




Sorry, that's probably a long rant to basically say that I agree with absolutely everything else in your post. I don't mean to derail the conversation!

[mentorDon]

OOOHHH! Life isn't fair I'm told. How many of you squawking that sentiment have access to a sponsor with CNC equipment? Consider yourself lucky. And I'm willing to make a large wager most teams don't. We had one once. But with the economy as it is, they couldn't support us any longer. So we adapted to what we have. And then there is the lack of machine shops. Kansas City use to have shops scattered throughout the city. Not any more. Most of that work has moved to Mexico or China. I started working in a machine shop back in 1974. I have seen and experienced the change. And I don't see NASA building a shop here anytime soon.

Getting back to the rules, for the Robot:

4.4 Budget Constraints
R9 The total cost of all items on the ROBOT shall not exceed $4000 USD. All costs are to be determined as explained in Section
4.4: Budget Constraints. Exceptions are as follows:
A. individual COTS items that are less than $1 USD each and
B. KOP items

R11 The BOM cost of each non-KOP item must be calculated based on the unit fair market value for the material and/or labor,
except for labor provided by Team members (including sponsor employees who are members of the team), members of other
Teams, event provided Machine Shops and shipping.

How many Squawkers here could build a robot for less than $4000 if they had to count CNC machining time at $100+ per hour and all materials? (Programming and run time for just 1 or 2 parts would be even more costly.) Very few in my estimation. I don't care if you continue to use your machine shop sponser, you just need to count it in your budget.

Do they have rules in other sports to even the playing field? Yes they do! Ever heard of "salary caps"? NASCAR has a host of rules to keep the cars alike. Do I need to go on?

So there you have it. Life is either the 'haves' or the 'have nots'. The 'haves' never want to change the rules because they would lose their advantage. Seems to work out the same in First.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by mentorDon

OOOHHH! Life isn't fair I'm told. How many of you squawking that sentiment have access to a sponsor with CNC equipment?

My team doesn't.

Guess what? We get by without it, and we keep on pushing for machining sponsors around us throughout the year. So far, no luck - but that doesn't mean we don't push really dang hard every year.

Life's not fair. Good things come to those who bust their butts and work for it. Does that always get you what you want? Certainly not, but at least you're better for having tried. I'd rather see continuous effort towards improvement (with minimal results) than keyboard-warrior complaints about what others have.

It's the same-old we see in this community every time a discussion like this comes up - raise the floor, don't lower the ceiling.