Mentor/Student Involvement Philosophies

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

That was a position taken to an extreme as a rhetorical device, not an accusation levied at a specific team. It is often useful to examine limiting cases of certain positions, specifically, the one quoted in the very first post of the thread:



There are two extremes here - the students doing all the work, and the mentors doing all the work. Observing differences between them provides useful insight into what happens when you trend in either direction. In this case, it can show why one maybe should care, in some capacity, about who does the work.



See above.

I don't think I'm getting my point across...The rhetorical device you're taking to the extreme is a straw man and is what is confusing the issue. There are not two extremes...There is one extreme (students do everything) and one case to the right of 50/50, but to the left of the extreme of "mentors doing all the work".

We can't have reasonable discourse about two different methods of running teams when actually nobody is doing the second method as stated and it's an inflammatory construct designed to push public opinion to the opposite side of the spectrum.

[Mr. Van]

One of the issues that this brings up is how FRC events are perceived by the viewing public. Over and over again, I hear people in the stands say "There is no way students made that by themselves." In just about every case, they are correct.

But that's the point. This is what makes FRC unique (for the most part).

It's very hard for the vast majority of the public to translate "Robotics Competition between high schools" to mean "Robotics Competition between teams consisting of professional engineering mentors, sponsoring companies and high school students" instead of "between high school students".

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Cory

I don't think I'm getting my point across...The rhetorical device you're taking to the extreme is a straw man

The quote that started this entire discussion was:

"Who cares who truthfully does the work?"

If someone takes the view "I do not care who truthfully does the work," then that would entail that they would not see anything worthy of consideration in the extreme case of "a team of professional engineers does the work."

Pointing out something worthy of consideration that might be lost in such a situation is not a straw man, and serves valid rhetorical purpose even if there are no teams that realize the hypothetical.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Could be.

What is the difference? It's not money, sponsors, machines, facilities.

Is it the students? They change every few years.

Is it the mentors?

Is it the coaches?

Is it where they live?

I was writing a post very similar to Adam's just now because I think it addresses a topic that often goes ignored in these debates.

Some engineers are better than others. The criticism that gets leveled against teams like 254/1114/et al is often couched in terms like "resources" and "CNC," and often gets refuted with notions of working harder, but a simpler, more likely explanation is probably that the folks on those teams are better engineers and better mentors than most. That doesn't make other people bad mentors, it just means they're less effective in certain areas than others. That's okay.

You could give my team all the money, manufacturing support and time in the world and, in the end, I think we'd still produce a product that is inferior to these teams and that's because they're better at managing an FRC team than I am. I'm not bad at it; they're just better.

[smistthegreat]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I'll throw out a scenario to think about.

Take any of the top 5 teams in FIRST, remove all their resources (machines, facilities, money, sponsors, etc...) over the summer. They have to start from scratch resource wise.

I guarantee they'll still be in the running to win regionals (or districts) the next year, and likely worlds.

Agreed 100%

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Cory

I don't think I'm getting my point across...The rhetorical device you're taking to the extreme is a straw man and is what is confusing the issue. There are not two extremes...There is one extreme (students do everything) and one case to the right of 50/50, but to the left of the extreme of "mentors doing all the work".

We can't have reasonable discourse about two different methods of running teams when actually nobody is doing the second method as stated and it's an inflammatory construct designed to push public opinion to the opposite side of the spectrum.

Could we have a discussion about the other extreme (Students do 100%)? I personally feel those teams are more against the spirit of FRC than the theoretical 100% Engineer Built team.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Could we have a discussion about the other extreme (Students do 100%)? I personally feel those teams are more against the spirit of FRC than the theoretical 100% Engineer Built team.

Sure. There are losses in both directions - I'm equally sure I wouldn't have gained anything if I had been on a team with no mentors at all that had hobbled together some barely-working box-on-wheels and not won any matches.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Madison

I was writing a post very similar to Adam's just now because I think it addresses a topic that often goes ignored in these debates.

Some engineers are better than others.

That's true. But I think it is not nearly the whole story.

I've spent some time reading and watching mentors on elite teams describing their process, and their analyses of various things about games and robots, and I don't really learn much new. What I haven't seen from them, is a frank discussion about how to motivate a team. I don't even know if it's possible, because I think some people are just natural leaders, and they don't really know how they do it.

I've had the opportunity to spend quite a bit of time hanging out with Fredi of 842. He seems to be one of those natural leaders, who can motivate a team to do things that no one thought possible. He's told me he doesn't really know how he does it. As food for thought....they didn't have an engineer mentor on their team until my son joined them in 2011.

I know we've had several coaches/faculty advisers over the years, but the same couple of mentors. Our robots and game playing have varied drastically from year to year, depending on who was coach, and which students were on the team. Our best performance was with a team heavy in seniors, who had been coached by a very enthusiastic coach their freshman and sophomore years. When they graduated, the team seemed to fall apart.

I talked about "magic" on the Einstein thread, and got no response. I still believe there is magic on some teams. I don't know what it is, and I doubt the folks on the teams know what it is, either.

[waialua359]

Threads like these make you feel either terrible for building our program ground up on our own (no school support or regular education budget), OR very proud that while being in pretty much the most rural part of our State (and middle of the ocean) to be able to compete in FIRST Robotics.
I can understand why there would be frustration/misunderstandings/anger for other "better" teams. But I guess for us, we decided a long time ago that if we were going to continue, we better figure out how to keep getting better.
I think we arguably spend the most amount of money on Robotics.
I always complain about FIRST rules and issues that prevent us from competing like the other teams.......but its never been to dumb down the playing level so that we could compete.
For 16 years now, we keep trying to get better despite the dynamic challenges that we all face as FRC teams.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but when I look back at old robots, even some of the better teams...........I cant help but think they all look outdated. Raising the bar is what it's all about, and the best part of going to competitions is seeing all of the cool robot designs we never thought of.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I talked about "magic" on the Einstein thread, and got no response. I still believe there is magic on some teams. I don't know what it is, and I doubt the folks on the teams know what it is, either.

Once we know how magic works it's no longer magic; it becomes science.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

One of the issues that this brings up is how FRC events are perceived by the viewing public. Over and over again, I hear people in the stands say "There is no way students made that by themselves." In just about every case, they are correct.

But that's the point. This is what makes FRC unique (for the most part).

It's very hard for the vast majority of the public to translate "Robotics Competition between high schools" to mean "Robotics Competition between teams consisting of professional engineering mentors, sponsoring companies and high school students" instead of "between high school students".

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Why does FRC require that high school students drive the robots? After all, if you take the "inspiration" maxim to its logical conclusion, there's no particular reason that they should. The only real reason I've been able to think of is that it would look really bad to the viewing public if adults were driving the robots.

Here's something really controversial - has anyone ever dared to consider that, in this case, the great unwashed masses might have a point?

[dubiousSwain]

Originally Posted by robochick1319

Socioeconomic disparity is a real thing in the real world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Raising the bar is what it's all about, and the best part of going to competitions is seeing all of the cool robot designs we never thought of.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants! This is how we learn and grow!

Sometimes what we try works, sometimes it doesn't - but this should be a learning opportunity for everyone, mentors and students. Who spends how much, who has what equipment, who built what part, who has access to this or that ... If that's your focus, you've missed the point. We say the robot is the bonus. The learning, however it happens, is why we are here.

[Nick Lawrence]

So, here's a thought. How is having a robot that is somewhat mentor-driven any different from a team full of students purchasing COTS items and utilizing great products such as the AM14U2? Many of the products from vendors like AndyMark, BaneBots, IR3 and VEXPro are designed by active FIRST mentors for the teams.

Food for thought. In the meantime, maybe we can work on building ourselves up to each other's levels rather than tearing each other down from them.

-Nick

[Siri]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I've had the opportunity to spend quite a bit of time hanging out with Fredi of 842. He seems to be one of those natural leaders, who can motivate a team to do things that no one thought possible. He's told me he doesn't really know how he does it. As food for thought....they didn't have an engineer mentor on their team until my son joined them in 2011.

One, I think you're exactly right. And two, the bolded statement blows my mind. For those of you not yet playing at home, the legendary HoF Team 842 did this:

2003 - SoCal Delphi Award & Semifinalists
2004 & 2005 - Arizona EI
2005 - World Championship EI
2006 - Arizona Chairman's, Worlds Chairman's HM
2007 - Arizona Finalists & Chairman's, Las Vegas EI
2008 - Hall of Fame, Championship Division Finalists, Las Vegas Finalists, Arizona Chairman's & Safety & Semis, Los Angeles & Las Vegas Entrepreneurship
2009 - Arizona Judges' & Safety
2010 - Las Vegas Creativity & Semis, Arizona GP & Semis

...without an engineering mentor.

With so many stories of current struggle, there are others who did in fact make it. Oh, and sometimes those guys end up with a feature-length movie about them starring George Lopez and Jamie Lee Curtis.