When do mentors go too far?

[SuperJake]

I've seen what you are describing, and have wondered to myself the same things that you are talking about. I had the opportunity to speak with several higher-ups in FIRST and got to ask them what they thought of the different team structures. Basically, it boiled down to learning experiences. FIRST is about teaching students about engineering and sparking an excitement for science and technology. That is a pretty broad brush to paint details with, so a lot of what that means is left up to team interpretation.

I know from close experience that some students are only allowed to watch the process of building the robot - from design to fabrication. In these teams, the idea seems to be "watch it done right, and you'll learn how to be a good engineer." I haven't had a chance to speak with students on teams like this, so I don't know their side of the story, but it seems that they are content with this approach. They still get to drive the robot and have fun at the competitions, and I am sure it is fascinating to watch engineers in their natural environment. Kinda like the Discovery Channel in this sense. And I've learned a lot from the Discovery Channel.

I was brought up on Team 365 where there is a good student-engineer relationship. Students and engineers work together to develop ideas with the engineers, everyone votes on the ideas, and the concept is done. The engineers then generate a CAD drawing of the team's ideas since most of the students don't have the knowledge of CAD to generate a model in the same time. Most of the fabrication is done by students unless the use of a few machines is limited due to DuPont's safety regulations. In that case, the mentors do that portion of the machining while the students watch. In the pits, student leaders from every sub-assembly build team lead maintenance of their part with the mentors keeping an eye on everything. The few times a lot of mentors are working on the robot are when the pit crew is out helping another team or there is too much grunt work to do in order to get the robot back together. In this system, the mentors act as a nice helping crutch - this allows the students to learn through experience while having engineers to guide them in the "right direction". I learned a lot here, and this experience has helped me in College to get into all of my internship positions.

My freshman year in College, I was asked to help out a local high school team. They were working out of the basement of their school with the help of their physics teacher. They were very limited in resources, and their only other mentor was a friend of mine from college. The students were clearly enthusiastic and interested in science and technology. In this case, the professor and college mentors only provide a watchful safety eye and encouragement as they learn with the students.

All of these examples promote FIRST's goal of inspiration in science and technology. The students are excited about technology and learning about how things work. To me, that is what FIRST is about. Building a robot is only the end goal of a long journey that is FIRST. The important part is the knowledge you gain from this experience and the ability to take your learnings into the world and pass it on. I don't think either one of these methods are more advantageous than the other, just different.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by plutonium83

I had the same thought when I was at the Greater Toronto Regional and the Finger Lakes Regional. At GTR, I saw three collaborators that where all designed by a GM engineer. To my knowledge the students had no involvement with the development process.

Well, this is interesting. A direct accusation against 1114, 1503 and 1680. I, like Karthik, can speak directly to the fact that this allegation is incorrect.

For the record, I assisted (in my spare time during a co-op term at GM St. Catharines) with the development of the pre-season prototype robot that would evolve into their competition design. (It did not include the tower and arm found on the competition robots.) The basic design was arrived at through brainstorming and discussion of various ideas, eventually resulting in a concept by first-year McMaster University student (and 1114 alumnus) Tyler Holtzman being chosen for development. (It was his idea to enclose the running gear in an aluminum box beam.) Though GM engineers Derek Bessette and Matthew Vint were quite involved (in their spare time) in the design and construction process of the prototype, so too were the shop teachers at Simcoe and Westlane (Greg Phillips and Ted Clark), and more to the point, so were a multitude of students at both schools, who fabricated parts and suggested modifications to the design.

To say that "the students had no involvement with the development process" is patently false. To further claim that an engineer was solely responsible for the design only compounds the fallacy, and takes credit away from those who were involved.