When do mentors go too far?

[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.

[StephLee]

Our team has 11 students and about 11 mentors. We share the work pretty equally, actually. The students design things, the mentors tell us if what we've come up with is possible and help us get it done. They step in if we can't do something, but if we can do it on our own, they let us. Still, it's mostly a partnership between kids and adults. I like it this way, especially since we're a rookie team and most of the kids don't know a whole lot yet(me included).

Are any other young teams set up this way?

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[StephLee]

I know I've already replied to this, but something seems to be missing from the posts. Maybe it was in other threads before.

Isn't one of the goals of FIRST to promote relationships between students and adults that may not have otherwise formed? I'm sure I remember that from somewhere. By working WITH the mentors, our team's students have formed bonds like this. That type of thing might not happen if one group or the other does all the work.

We correct our mentors almost as often as they correct us. Like how our head mentor never had his safety glasses on in the pit; the whole team was on his back constantly about that. The students generally know the rulebook more thoroughly than the mentors, too, so the adults ask us about rules.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Spikey

This problem has been going on for years, and I wonder what everyone else thinks about this subject of adult involvement.

This is not a problem, it is simply a different way of doing things.

If you don't see students on those teams complaining, why does it bother you how they're inspired?

The end result is the same. Students are inspired. That's all that matters in FIRST.

[KTorak]

I personally look down on Engineer designed and built robots becuase I always wonder: "What do students learn from sitting there and watching someone else o the work for them?" The answer probably is: "Very little, if anything." FIRST is designed to be a learning experience. An engineer has had numerous years of education and learning expeience. The students on the other hand have had very little, if any education in the engineering field. FIRST helps them gain some basic knowledge in the engineering field, such as trial and error, different design characteristics, assembly and manufacturing pocesses (milling), and much more that many of us already know about. When you have an Engineer or any adult member do all the work, it takes away from the students experience.

I'm proud to say to others that 1023 is all student run. A core group of vetern team membvers (4 to be exact) do alot of the decision making. They come up with ideas, such as a list of regionals to attend, and the rest of the team meets and dicusses our options then votes. When we build our robot, we brain storm after kick-off (at our lockin) to come up with ideas to use. Then we vote on an idea and design it using a CAD program (with some help from our lone engineer mentor). After that, we're more or less on our own. We machine 99% of our parts our self, and do 99% of the work on the robot. The only work that is done by an adult is complex machining (like making a spool to wind our belt lift on). After the robot is built, we test it and our mentor is there to give suggestions on how to improve it if we get stuck and need assistance fixing a problem.

We believe that this system works well because we (the students) learn alot during the build season. Its a great hands on experience to build a robot from virtually nothing. It's an even better experience to be at a competition with a Finalist robot and knowing that you labored over it to make it work. You remember all the hard hours of work that you put into it through out the season.

...Just my $0.02

[Cory]

Originally Posted by KTorak

I look down on Engineer designed and built robots becuase I always say to my self: "What do students learn from sitting there and watching someone else o the work for them?" The answer is: "Very little, if anything."

You are entitled to your own opinion, but who are you to say what a student is learning until you are a student on said team?

Maybe you wouldn't want to be on a team where engineers do more work than students, but that doesn't mean that others feel the same way.

[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

[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"