When do mentors go too far?

[zarf]

My team doesn't have corporate sponsors. We have a budget just a bit larger than the allowable robot cost, but good tools. We meet at the US Coast Guard Academy, and we work in the engineering building's power lab.

We have one adult mentor, Captain Wilczynski, who oversees the project and makes sure we stick to schedule. His main role is to try and keep the Academy cadets from slacking off, taking on ideas more ambitious than they have time to do, and getting behind schedule. That and to teach us the last parts of the Mechanical Engineering curriculum here.

We have another adult mentor, Master Chief Griswold, who works in the machine shop, keeps everything orderly, and teaches cadets how to use the tools and build things. If you go to him and ask how to build a particular part, he can always suggest something. He also knows exactly where to go to get supply of any basic parts such as gears, springs, aluminum, etc.

This year we had three cadet mentors. Cadets are basically college students, with a bit of military weirdness thrown on top. We did most of the work, because it was hard to get all the high-schoolers together at the Coast Guard Academy. Also, there were safety rules about using the power tools, and the high-schoolers could not be in the lab without a cadet mentor. Among the high-schoolers' tough schedules, and the cadets never being permitted to miss a class or a military obligation, the high-schoolers could only work on the robot once or twice a week, for a few hours at a time.

So what we did is, first, in the brainstorming part of the project, we got all the cadets and students together and brainstormed ideas for the robot. They built small models with LEGO Mindstorms, we threw three main ideas on the blackboard. We split up and discussed techniques in groups, and then the cadets built prototypes out of wood. We met again with the high-schoolers to discuss what we actually wanted to build. We tried to keep them in the decision-making process, but it just wasn't possible to involve them in the full build. One place where there was a large amount of high-schooler involvement was in the programming; there was only one cadet (myself) who knew how to program, and there were a few high-schoolers and one parent. So we met more often than the building team--which I was also a part of.

So how did it work out? Probably about 10-70-20, adults-cadets-high-schoolers. Was it bad? I don't think so... The high-schoolers said we really made them feel like part of the team, and we built a robot that really was much like they'd discussed and planned. I think the biggest thing was attitude. Talking to the high-schoolers just like talking to the other cadets, and being calm but not fake.

At the Long Island regional, I saw a lot of good teams, but one memory that stuck out was a team close to the stairs down to the pit. One guy on the team was yelling at everybody around him, "If you're not building on the robot, get out of the pit! Get out!" Really stressing out.

Admittedly, the constant vaguely-pumping-up music and announcements on the speakers led to an environment where it was nearly impossible to communicate. I do wish that would change--the noise level felt constantly above safe levels. I spent most of my time there in ear plugs. The environment set up there was stressful and a little frustrating, when trying to get work done. I don't know why FIRST does that. I guess the music is supposed to add to the atmosphere, but the music is artificial, and the atmosphere generated by the (much less noisy) sound of tools, arguments, cheers, and robots is far more genuine.

We were a bit stressed too, having to put last-minute fixes on the robot to make it work at all in competition. The high-schoolers were involved a lot in the pits. I was proud of how we did, and I think we treated everybody on the team well. I was pretty badly sick at the time, but even so, was getting a good vibe from the team.

Do mentors go too far? I think they can... It's hard for students to get a good mechanical engineering experience when somebody else is doing all the engineering for them, or they have a professional lab building everything and solving the problems. You need to at least meet often enough to discuss problems with the students. If you're professional and you think there is a problem with their designs, you need to discuss that with them and show them why, instead of smiling, nodding, and rejecting the idea behind their backs. I think you have to talk like grownups--to the point, getting work done--but like grownups with respect. If students are doing nothing, you need to look for somewhere they can help. If students have skills, you should use them. But the students can't be there all the time, so you shouldn't be ashamed if you do more work.

[Andrew Blair]

Our team, from its conception, has never had an engineer even come to one of our competitions. During build period, we have either built or started to build our idea, and our engineer, a Mr. Overfield, will then come in to tell us whether or not he feels that it will hold up under competition conditions. (We have proved him wrong several times, but he's a nice guy so we don't say anything). We take his council into account while finishing our bot, and thats the end of it mostly, as far as engineer input.

After attending several competitions, and seeing the engineer input many teams have, I realize that our team is missing out on some of what FIRST wants us to experience. We do not hear much professional advice, and therfore we have to build our robot entirely by ourselves. Sometimes this can be daunting, but in the end, and I do not intend to bash mentor run teams, I feel that a student built robot makes you learn more through trial and error. If you are constantly behind someone who knows all the answers, you tend not to learn as many answers yourself.

I do not know what having a constantly working robot and team would be like, as I have never had one, but I feel that lacking all the right answers and solutions and skills that a mentor has tends to show the true sides of people, and brings the leader out in them. If FIRST is not about building robots, but is to inspire, then student run teams do a good job of that. They always inspire, through trials and problems, and sometimes they barely build a robot. Thats seems pretty close to the definition of FIRST's objective.

Engineer teams out there, hold on to your engineers!!!! They teach a lot, I am sure of it. But students, make sure you learn, not just be inspired. The more you know now, the more you can know later. And just ask the mentors to move, I'm sure they will. It is your robot.

[JoeXIII'007]

AHHH!!! It's another touchy issue but I feel compelled to reply to it.

When you have a group of students and a group of mentors trying to work together to create that perfect blend of work, there is a small tweaking to the math behind it. In this case 1 team's work divided into 2 groups of people cannot and will never ever equal to 1/2. Why? First of all, the human aspect of the entire thing comes into play. Who wouldn't want to have fun with all sorts of cool new gadgets, widgets, cogs and what not? It effects all ages. Second, sometimes one side is right, the other is wrong and vice versa. Finally, in order for that perfect blend to happen theoretically, someone would have to plan it out, and whoever has control over that plan, their side has the small majority. (55/45 or 50.1 to 49.9, you get the picture).

Short: its impossible to get it perfect, but if you work hard, you'll get extremely close, and that's fine in my opinion.
*edit* On the other hand, if you don't learn anything, not even a nibble, there's a problem.

[Steve W]

I personally believe that a 50/50 split is the best way to go. That being said...

Last year Simbotics seemed to me to be totally engineer/mentor driven. I have had discussions with Karthik and even though I don't always agree with him, the preception was there. With the Niagara First trio I would have to say that there was a HUGE change from last year. Every time I ventured near their pit there were more students working on the robot than mentors. I give kudos to these teams for their student involvement this year. Was it perfect? Probably not but was your team perfect? After talking with the students on these teams, which you know I do, I could see the light in their eyes. These were their robots!!! Inspired? That would be a definate YES.

We will continue to debate all sides of this story but please leave Niagara First out of the descussion because they "get it".

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Andrew Blair

...students, make sure you learn, not just be inspired. The more you know now, the more you can know later. And just ask the mentors to move, I'm sure they will. It is your robot.

I agree with Andrew.

Much as my development-engineer's ego wants to push its own ideas, I have to say that my team made me very proud this year by telling me and the other mentors to step aside, and let them design and build THEIR robot.

They've done pretty well this year: regional Chairman's Award at St. Louis and semi-finalist at Buckeye.

I'm for inspiration, and for teamwork between mentors and students, too. But my experience is that nothing gives mentors more satisfaction than seeing students pick up the challenge and go with their own ideas.

[All that said, I won't stop pushing my own ideas next year.]

[KenWittlief]

When do engineers go too far?

1. when winning a plastic trophy is more important that winning a student's admiration and respect

2. when they start yelling

3. when students are only allowed to touch the robot with their eyes

4. when they put the robot in the back of their car and drive off to live in the mountains of Alaska, never to be seen again, because "you people dont understand, thats why!"

more here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=36384

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

When do engineers go too far?

1. when winning a plastic trophy is more important that winning a student's admiration and respect

2. when they start yelling

3. when students are only allowed to touch the robot with their eyes

4. when they put the robot in the back of their car and drive off to live in the mountains of Alaska, never to be seen again, because "you people dont understand, thats why!"

more here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=36384

Ken, I 1000% agree with you!! The student built vs engineer built robot debate is old, and will likely never end. I like 50/50 myself, but to each team their own... but you have hit the nail on the head... when the students arent included, or the mentors take it WAY to seriously, and yell at their drivers or other teams drivers, or when awards drive a team, that is when they have gone too far... not whether or not they built 0% or 99% of the robot.

[Sarah Johnson]

As I was reading through this thread, and I have read several others like it around Chief Delphi, it struck me that most of the people posting were debating how mentors can or cannot be too involved... and I personally have a totally different opinion on the whole thing. I think that on my team for one, the mentors and engineers let the students do TOO much.

I am on team 573, and although many of my teammates would disagree, I feel that our mentors often step back in situations where our robot could have turned out a lot better. Our teachers are proud that they are never in the pits and that the students operate the whole team by themselves. I'm not saying that because every student on the team knows how to maintain and fix the robot, it is a bad thing. What I am saying is that the mentors should be involved and working with the students, to engineer the robot. More often than not, actually.

I love how our team has excellent student involvement and dedication. What I am concerned about it how our mentors feel that this is "the students" team and not a collaboration of engineers and students. I think that if we had a cooler robot that was designed better than students could do (virtually) alone, we would be more inspired and I am sure we would love our robot just as much... if not more.

I am always amazed by the robots the big powerhouse teams have. I find myself wondering why we can't have a robot like that. I always come back to the fact that students could never have built those robots with even minimal engineer involvement. The teams who build those kind of awesome robots definitely do not step back and let the students take over. The engineers play a big role on those team. I feel more inspired by those robots. I get excited when I see them. I even cheer for them (at times) more enthusiastically than my own robot. Like in the elimination rounds.

I think that when a robot can do that for someone who hasnt even taken part is building and designing it... you know they are pretty darn inspiring. I love my team and our robot, but I just wanted to say that not all students like to build the robot ALL by themselves. Also, that mentors CAN do "too little" as well as "too much"

[neilsonster]

For us I'd say 100% of the electrical, programming, and fundraising work is done by students. We have five engineers that help us with the fabrication of the robot in terms of teaching students how to work with the machines, and helping us get different parts. Overall at least 60% of the robot's fabrication is done by students. I am really happy with how we do things.

For teams who have their mentors and engineers do everything, all I have to say is that it means a lot more to EVERYONE for a student built robot to be a champion than otherwise. It also provides a LOT more inspiration and recognition of science and technology.

[mathking]

I have hesitated to post in this thread, or any of the others like it, because I don't want to confuse my preferences with "what is right." That said, here are a couple of observations.

The purpose of FIRST is to inspire students to study science and technology. There are a LOT of ways to do that. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the way your team does it is "the right way" just because you like it.

If students really aren't doing any of the real work on the robot, they are not being inspired as well as they could be. Sorry for the blanket statement, but it isn't just opinion. It is a well established fact in educational research. Students will realize that they are spectators rather than participants in FIRST. But don't make the mistake of assuming this is what is going on by observing a team for a couple of minutes at a competition.

I am betting that a lot of the teams who seem like they have a completely engineer built robot don't really. I also bet there are a lot of teams where the students don't really have substantive involvement in the design and building process.

This doesn't mean that a 100% student built robot is the best either. You don't learn as much doing everything on your own as you do when you learn from a professional. A mentor should be guiding the students to be able to do more. Mentors should be offering their professional guidance.

Don't use the "you can't learn engineering in 6 weeks" as an excuse to let students not do/learn anything. You can learn a LOT in 6 weeks. (Particularly 6 weeks of FIRST with perhaps 20 hours or more in a week spent working on the robot.)

Don't be afraid of mistakes. A mentor should point out problems with a design or idea. That is part of learning. But don't think that the mentors should do everything just because they will do it better. Mistakes are powerful learning tools.

One of the most effective ways to inspire is to give students involvement from the start. This should be seen as a central duty of mentors. Involve the students. Challenge them. Ask them questions. Make them defend their answers. Students should learn through their involvement. When students learn more and start to do more work they will feel they have earned something. This is a key to inspiration.

The post below is an example of the philosophy I would, as a teacher and team advisor, look for in a mentor:

Much as my development-engineer's ego wants to push its own ideas, I have to say that my team made me very proud this year by telling me and the other mentors to step aside, and let them design and build THEIR robot.

They've done pretty well this year: regional Chairman's Award at St. Louis and semi-finalist at Buckeye.

I'm for inspiration, and for teamwork between mentors and students, too. But my experience is that nothing gives mentors more satisfaction than seeing students pick up the challenge and go with their own ideas.

[All that said, I won't stop pushing my own ideas next year.]

The mentor-student relationship has the potential to be a powerful influence on the student. (and the mentor) However your team operates, remember that fact. The satisfaction a mentor gets from watching students gain confidence and assert themselves is tremendous.

[omutton]

I like the way my team works. We try and be as student driven as we can. We have engineers and teachers at our side when we have problems or questions. At our competitions, you will see the mentors standing back and letting the students do the work. Our 2 drivers, human player and coach are all students. A lot of teams have adult coaches, which I don't agree with. When they have questions or need a hand, they will ask a mentor. The engineers already know what their doing and are supposed to be there to guide and inspire the students, not do all the work while the students watch.

Our team has created 2 FIRST Robotics courses in our school for next year. These courses will allow our team to be even more student run then it already is. In one of the courses, students will handle finances and deal with administration.

In short, I don't think that a team would be able to function without the help, support and guidance from our dedicated teachers and mentors. I do however think that students should essentially run the team and call on the mentors when they are needed.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I have little to actually add to this conversation, I'm sure I've extensively posted my thoughts elsewhere. I'd just like to note something I always notice when these threads pop up from time to time.

1. Someone comments that some team has a 100% engineer built robot.

2. People quickly point out that FIRST is about Inspiration, and there's no limits put on how that is achieved, so 100% engineer bots are perfectly alright.

3. The same person or other people often say that the original poster isn't being fair to the team they're talking about. Sometimes the original poster is said to be accusing the team of something, or somehow maligning their good name.

This seems inconsistent to me. The original poster possibly has misconceptions about said team, and should be corrected. It's not something to get defensive and upset about if one is said to have an engineer-bot, right?

Just something to think about.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

This seems inconsistent to me. The original poster possibly has misconceptions about said team, and should be corrected. It's not something to get defensive and upset about if one is said to have an engineer-bot, right?

The defensive response is because the original poster and some follow-ups implied that such teams are somehow cheating their students out of an opportunity, by asking questions like "What is the point of robotics if adults are the ones designing, engineering, building, and servicing the robot?"

The fact that these conclusions are reached on false information (that the robots in question actually are not 100% adult built) is simply salt in the wound.

[Collin Fultz]

I'm bored...so I'll post.

I was a student on Team 234 for 3 years. we're viewed (i think) as one of the middle of the road teams, possibly more on the engineer side. we have some really great engineers and teachers. we also have some really amazing kids. i can back that up:

98% of student's on 234 have attended college
60% for technical or scientific degrees (sounds like FIRST in a nutshell to me)
4 students now work for Rolls-Royce (a sponsoring company); many others work elsewhere
Last year, Purdue University awarded 2 scholarships, one for 30K and one for 28.5K...they went to two 234 students
This year, another Purdue scholarship (8K) went to a 234 student

2 former student's now work with teams other than 234, and one works with 234 and indianaFIRST.org
(if you want more information stop by 234's pits in ATL...they'll hit you with some knowledge)


I am now a freshman at Purdue University, in Mechanical Engineering. I've just begun to crack the tip of the iceberg of what engineering is. To think that one can "learn" engineering in 6 weeks while under the strain of building a robot too is proposterous. FIRST isn't about teaching. It's about inspiring.

Talk to the kids. Find out if they're inspired. I bet you they'll say yes.

[Spikey]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

The defensive response is because the original poster and some follow-ups implied that such teams are somehow cheating their students out of an opportunity, by asking questions like "What is the point of robotics if adults are the ones designing, engineering, building, and servicing the robot?"

The fact that these conclusions are reached on false information (that the robots in question actually are not 100% adult built) is simply salt in the wound.

I'm in no way trying to present false information, I am just reporting my experience through interactions with other teams and mentors. I have talked to mentors who have advised teams that have the students tell the engineers what they want, then the students see the finished product a few weeks later.
I'm not saying that these students should feel cheated, they are free to feel however they want too. Maybe they like having an adult built robot that performs well and wins all the time.
I acknowledge that part of FIRST is about inspiration, but inspiration cannot have a full effect without interaction. Teams that truly inspire students to pursue engineering involve those students in the process. Hands on experience is the way robotics inspires students to get involved in engineering. Even if some students choose not to build their robot because they deal with other aspects of FIRST seeing other students work on the robot can be inspiring as well.