When do mentors go too far?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[davelu]

-Writing a program with me not included when i am the actuall programmer who is suppouse to do all this...i have waited for the entire year to program that bot and the mentors kindaof ruined it for me. I know they are trying to help out but they crossed the line when they do everything for you and leave you with no jobs to do. I thought the mentors were suppose to help out and teach the students how to do stuff but why are they doing it for us??? isn't it our job??
That was what really bothered me and espeically when you ask them for some help and they end up not helping you but ignoring your request for help.

[nobrakes8]

We had the problem of menotrs takeing over the team in the past. Our team's mentors kind of took a lead role, they were involved with team 228 since 1999 and when we split off in 2003 they had a general idea on how to have a competitive robot. Funding and organization was our problem in 2003 and 2004 along with the fact the students were mostly new to FIRST and didn't understand we couldn't do every challenge the game threw at us (like last year had so much to do).

In 2004 we had the final pieces in place of our team as far as organization for students, added 2 more mentors for 2005 and really gave a big foundation.

Most of the new teams probably go through what our team did, maybe even longer than 2 years if their mentors and teams don't have a background in FIRST.

On our message boards on the website the second week of the year we reminded our team that we are a "high school" built team not a Timken or Hamilton Sundstrand (our mentor's companies) built team.

All but one of our mentors really backed off this year, the mentors did come up with the overall design of the robot useing what the students felt the robot needed and then stepped back and let the students go to work.

It's only to the benefit of teams to let students do the work after a team forms that foundation, if you look at Team MAX over the past two years when were "mentor built" compared to this year when it was "student built" the results are so much different at the compeition and the students have a much more fun time I think, especially because once we're out of qualifing and into elmination rounds the only people who touch that robot on the field area is the drive team and 2 student pit crew members.

[S.Nickens]

As I read through posts like this, one thing is clear, this is an issue that can never be resolved. Some people think the other teams are doing it all wrong and their way is how all the other teams should do it. That’s funny, considering the odds of everyone on their own team agreeing on everything is pretty slim.
If every team was the same and worked the same way, then all the robots would be the same. What fun would that be? One of the best things about this program is seeing all the different solutions to the same problem.
While some mentors may not “get it”, don’t make assumptions. Your mentors are volunteers. FIRST is generating millions of dollars of FREE professional guidance, technical expertise and technology to share with you. Show me one program other than FIRST that is capable of making that happen without charging you thousands of dollars. If you have a problem with your mentors “getting too involved“, try to work things out. If you have a problem with another teams mentors, you’re focusing your energy in the wrong direction. Change the things you can, don’t worry about the things you can’t, and be wise enough to know the difference.

Good Luck and Best Wishes To All

[Daniel Brim]

A perfect post for this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...6&postcount=30

[KathieK]

Wow, didn't see a single post in this thread about mentors and the non-engineering aspect of a team... just a question, not meant to insult or inflame, just curious, on the student-led teams, how did you eat during your Regionals? Was one of your students in charge of figuring out where the team would get breakfast, make the bagged lunches, figure out what restaurant could seat you all for dinner? And did you put your hotel reservations on your credit card (to be reimbursed later)? Our team has a large mentor base. I'd love to talk to a team which is more student-based to see how you do it all.

[Andy Brockway]

We have a small Mentor base. This past year we were fortunate to have two Mentors spearhead our fundraising.

To continue with KatheK's line of questioning..... I am also curious on how many students lead their fundraising, set-up presentations at companies, follow-up on promises. Who makes sure the robot makes it to the presentation, cleans up afterwards and makes sure all materials are ready for the next presentation.

This is about more than building a robot, we cannot only do the fun things. If you are fully involved than you will be prepared to do anything in life.

[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]

Originally Posted by Andy Brockway

We have a small Mentor base. This past year we were fortunate to have two Mentors spearhead our fundraising.

To continue with KatheK's line of questioning..... I am also curious on how many students lead their fundraising, set-up presentations at companies, follow-up on promises. Who makes sure the robot makes it to the presentation, cleans up afterwards and makes sure all materials are ready for the next presentation.

This is about more than building a robot, we cannot only do the fun things. If you are fully involved than you will be prepared to do anything in life.

I am fundraising co-captain. It is my responsibility to make initial contact with a company and set up an appointment. If the robot is needed, the people attending the presentation will load and unload it and set it up. I set up the binders with team information and pictures and such. Of course, I couldn't do this without the help of the mentors/teachers. They drive us down and photocopy things and do all the things the students don't have access to. Seeing as I am in charge of fundraising, it's my responsibility to make sure everything runs smoothly and my responsibility to contact a company, set up an interview and try and raise money!

[thoughtful]

Originally Posted by KathieK

Wow, didn't see a single post in this thread about mentors and the non-engineering aspect of a team... just a question, not meant to insult or inflame, just curious, on the student-led teams, how did you eat during your Regionals? Was one of your students in charge of figuring out where the team would get breakfast, make the bagged lunches, figure out what restaurant could seat you all for dinner? And did you put your hotel reservations on your credit card (to be reimbursed later)? Our team has a large mentor base. I'd love to talk to a team which is more student-based to see how you do it all.

I think you have a good point. IMHO FIRST is about collaboration between mentors and students. Although, i may not have any right to make this statement but i think a team shouldn't be 100% student-built/led or 100% mentor-built/led. Students love to build robots, and i also know that they love to get guiudance from their mentors. Its about finding the best balance. However, its important for all of us to understand where some of these posts are comming from. Sometimes i have myself seen mentors scouting, building, strategizing and even moving(to/from matches) the robot!. This is disapointing for me, either the team's students dont care or they are not allowed to. Both of which are unacceptable in FIRST. If any team has a situation like this the best way is to communicate. All mentors are selfless, they take their precious time away form home/daily routine to come and help the students. If the students talk to them and explain their dilema they will co-operate.

Just my $0.02

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

In reality, my current team which I thought was so different from my old team really isn't that different at all. Students on both teams get plenty of opportunity to do hands-on work. The primary exception in raw part fabrication - we use Motorola's shop and because of that there's legal reasons why we can't let students use certain equipment.

Trust me, my team is aware of what some people think about the way our team is run. Even though they don't really know, it's still disappointing that that's what some others think of us (no, you did not say anything about my team, but if we had been at Finger Lakes then you probably would have been just as likely to say "Motorola" instead of "GM").

You are, to a large extent, describing "The Pink Team" as well as WildStang. Our parts are fabricated in a NASA shop which, like the Motorola shop, can allow only shop employees to operate certain equipment. Still, students help assemble the robot and, more importantly, students are heavily involved in deciding the functions of our robot, the type of drive base, etc. If you look at our robot up close, as with WindStang's, it is obvious that the machine's parts were not made in someone's garage with a hack saw and a file, but that doesn't mean the students don't learn anything and are not inspired. The students have great pride in, and feel "ownership" in our robot, even though they don't run the water jet machine that makes a lot of those cool looking parts.

There are compromises in all FIRST teams. To me, my team of several years, TechnoKats, has the best of all worlds in that they have their own shop with enough equipment to fabricate most of their parts. In that shop, students run mills, lathes, etc. and make many or the robot's parts. Still teams like my present team, and the opposite extreme of teams with no resources having to built their robot with "hack saws and files," can provide inspiration to the students. This year FIRST has done the teams with few resources a big service by providing the very good "kitbot" transmission that makes it easy for a team to have a decent drive base.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by KathieK

Wow, didn't see a single post in this thread about mentors and the non-engineering aspect of a team... just a question, not meant to insult or inflame, just curious, on the student-led teams, how did you eat during your Regionals? Was one of your students in charge of figuring out where the team would get breakfast, make the bagged lunches, figure out what restaurant could seat you all for dinner? And did you put your hotel reservations on your credit card (to be reimbursed later)? Our team has a large mentor base. I'd love to talk to a team which is more student-based to see how you do it all.

Don't get me wrong, I agree mentors, parents, and teachers are a VERY important part of a working team, from what you described to actually inspiring kids into science and engineering, but from what I have read, it seems that many people are disappointed in the whole "new train set on Christmas day" type scenario. I read this in a tour book once about if you are doing it for the kids or if you are doing it for yourself. Imagine you are 7 years old on Christmas (or any other holiday) day and you got a huge, new, shinny train set. You have the train, the track, the little people, the cool gates that go up and down when the train comes near it, even a faux tunnel! But before you get to play with it, your dad takes it downstairs to build it up, allowing you only to watch and see it in motion. Your dad thinks it's best if he sets it up and runs it, he thinks you'll get more out of it.

That's the thing I think people have problems with, the whole "engineers with toys" portion of it. The engineers don't have to be greedy or power hungry, just a little to excited to inspire. Is this analogy true, I don't know, I'm only part of one team so far. But I can see where these people are coming from.

[Rosiebotboss]

Originally Posted by Erin Rapacki

This is an issue that FIRST usually decides not to handle personally because FIRST is about 'Inspiration' and not exactly 'Education' (search for similar threads on CD, you may find a few). Every team has their own unique way of working together and its difficult to tell which method is better. One hand states that a student-built robot is better because the students get more hands-on work, but on the other hand a mentor-built robot gives students direct insight into more advanced design options and how 'real' teams get things accomplished. Basically, as long as students are being inspired (and the team follows the rules), either way is OK.

This only matters for awards though. A 50/50 student/mentor partnership is the best way to go when it comes to judges; however, I personally like all student-built robots.

And we know Erin LOVES Rosie!!


We include the high school students in 100% of the design decisions, 80% of the machining, 95% of the assembly, and 100% of the descision making for the team. The only reason for the small amount they are not actively doing is for schedule reasons. Simply because the mentors can work faster. The students do 90% of the work in the pits, 100% of all the interviews with scouts, judges and spectators.

BTW, with this set up we are KPCB Entrepreunership Award winners 2 years running AND have a grand total of 10 minutes actual repair time on our robots in the last 2 years. Nothing broke in 2 years.