Why do teams voluntarily do FIRST without adult technical mentors?

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by phrontist

I see absolutely no value in an entirely engineer built robot.

I've been through 7 seasons of FIRST and I have yet to come across any robot that I could confirm was built entirely by engineers. Once again, I think a lot of people see robots which they assume are made entirely by engineers and run with it. And statements like this keep reinforcing it for the newcomers (even if you're only speaking hypothetically).

Originally Posted by Ryan F.

The more we allow for these professionally designed and built robots to dominate the FIRST competitions, the more it encourages student run teams to start letting the engineers design and build the robots. FIRST will start to discourage many teams from participating when they realize that the robot they spent six weeks on has no chance of success at the competition.

Originally Posted by phrontist

If we don't have a fair competition, it will quickly degrade into a sham.

Guess what people: this debate is nothing new. People (including me) were saying things just like this in 1995. I remember getting beaten by (what I thought was) an engineer-built bot and thinking it was so unfair. And I remember saying that the competition will not grow if it continues. Well, that was 10 years ago when there were 43 teams at the Championship and 1 regional. Guess what: I was wrong. Way wrong. FIRST has like 1000 teams now with 20-some regionals, and more coming every year.

FIRST seems to have found a formula for success, and that includes all the types of teams out there, not just student-built teams. Some of you are talking about mentors who are interested in the competition and engaged with their teams as if it's a bad thing. Frankly, some of the things being said in this thread are borderline insulting to mentors who volunteer up to thousands of hours each in order to provide this opportunity for you guys. Some of you are acting like we should volunteer all this time but do so solely to operate as babysitters and not "get in the way". I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is a lot of the great engineers in this program probably wouldn't be here if they were not given the opportunity to work on their robots alongside their students.

To all of you on here who are speaking so harshly about engineers who design parts of their robot: hopefully you don't use any of the kit transmissions, or kit frame, or parts from Andymark, or Skyway wheels, or anything else that isn't a raw material because guess what: those parts were designed by professional engineers. If your team buys a transmission and has students install it, is that really better than another team who has an engineer design their own transmission and their students install it?

[phrontist]

I've come to the realization that holding opinions on things publicly is a really, really, bad idea. Really. I'm not being sarcastic for once. Having received negative rep from people I really respect, I now realize that this navel gazing, while fun for a while, is ultimately divisive. Talk is cheap.

Originally Posted by Winston Churchill

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

Yes, great you stood up for something, what does it get you? Nothing. From the perspective of risk-management, holding opinions, espescially in arena's outside your control, is highly illogical.

Oh heavens, now I hold opinions about holding opinons. I'm meta opinonated! Ack! Wait, was that a judgemental "ack"... am I meta-meta-opinionated?

It's a downward spiral folks.

[Alexander McGee]

Originally Posted by phrontist

I've come to the realization that holding opinions on things publicly is a really, really, bad idea. Really. I'm not being sarcastic for once. Having received negative rep from people I really respect, I now realize that this navel gazing, while fun for a while, is ultimately divisive. Talk is cheap.
...
It's a downward spiral folks.

Please understand where everyone is coming from. A high percent of the people who have posted in this thread have never been a student on a team. You see it from your perspective, others see it from theirs. As I see it, students in FIRST fall into 4 categories:

Students on engineer-run teams have mixed emotions; some students love it and see the inspiration of a well engineered machine first-hand. Others see it as though the engineers don't listen to their input, or take control and it isn't really "the student's robot".

Students on student-run reams have the same thing; some of the kids love being involved 100% (or close) on all the decisions. Some hate it and are sometimes overwhelmed by everything and wish desperately for experienced guidance.

Having experienced both perspectives first-hand, I have come to the conclusion that it doesn’t really matter in the end. As many people have said, this isn't designed to be a competition; it is designed to inspire and motivate high school students into a career involving science, math, and technology.

As long as you remain involved because you LOVE what you are doing and the things that have seen, it doesn’t matter who wins and looses the "competition" and, it doesn’t matter who build or designed a robot.

Just remember some of the things that flat-out amazed you about robots. Chances are that an adult helped with it. Instead of criticizing the team, try to beat them! Come up with something amazing for the next year.

I know it can be hard to make people understand what you have experienced, as no person has experienced every facet of every team. Just try to remember that we care only about you, not the robots and not about wining. We want you to get an engineering degree, make lots of money, and love what you are doing. Or at least I do!

-Alex

[phrontist]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

Now this is getting silly... why on earth are people negatively repping phrontist?

Woah woah woah! Don't jump to conclusions. Yes, they were mentors, but they had valid points. Most disagree with the delivery of the comments, rather then their contents.

I have not stopped arguing because someone said my points were invalid (dost thou thinkest me a coward?!). I stopped for the reasons stated above, nothing more, nothing less. The comments of mentors made me reconsider the whole endeavor.

[Chris Hibner]

Phrontist: First - don't feel bad about having opinions and making them public. You can't try to please all of the people all of the time.

For everyone on this thread: just be sure that you post due to logic - not emotion. I know there are people that disagree with some of Andy Baker's points (phrontist's posts and others prove it). The reason that Andy is so well respected is that he doesn't (okay - rarely) posts when his emotions are controlling his typing. He posts when he has thought about it very clearly and logically.

Originally Posted by phrontist

I see absolutely no value in an entirely engineer built robot. Is that really so insulting? I mean, if the students just watch the engineer do brilliant things, they might as well read a book about great innovators.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Okay, the reason for the post.

I'm going to disagree with the above statement, and I'm going to go DEEP into the FIRST rhetoric archives.

When Dean used to explain what FIRST was all about, he used to use the example of an NBA game. When young people went to NBA games to watch Michael Jordan, everyone left wanting to play in the NBA and be just like Michael Jordan. They were inspired. Was it because these young people got to play in the NBA game? Heck NO (duh!). It's because they watched greatness occurring in front of them.

FIRST used to preach this a long time ago. The message was that people ARE inspired just by watching - the NBA proves it. That doesn't mean that is the only way to run a team - but it IS a perfectly acceptable way.

[Ryan Foley]

Originally Posted by Ryan F.

I'll bite.

Here’s the big problem. How are high schoolers supposed to compete against professionally designed and built robots? This is where the true conflict is. The teams who believe that FIRST is better when the students actually build and manage the robot get destroyed in competition. FIRST is not supposed to be a professional engineering competition. If the engineering mentors want that, there are other avenues. FIRST is meant to Inspire the STUDENTS. The more we allow for these professionally designed and built robots to dominate the FIRST competitions, the more it encourages student run teams to start letting the engineers design and build the robots. FIRST will start to discourage many teams from participating when they realize that the robot they spent six weeks on has no chance of success at the competition.

Actually, I have seen all-student built teams win. Team 939 won at their regional (Sirbleedsalot who posted earlier in this thread is from that team), and my former team, 350, won the BAE regional with 121 and 126.

Sure, sometimes the student-built teams may not have the same resources that they would if they had engineers, and perhaps sometimes the bots are of the same caliber as others, but it doesnt mean they cant win. Keep in mind that strategy and alliances are a vital part of the game, especially this year. It's not just about who has a better bot.

[Ryan F.]

Originally Posted by Ryan Foley

Actually, I have seen all-student built teams win. Team 939 won at their regional (Sirbleedsalot who posted earlier in this thread is from that team), and my former team, 350, won the BAE regional with 121 and 126.

Sure, sometimes the student-built teams may not have the same resources that they would if they had engineers, and perhaps sometimes the bots are of the same caliber as others, but it doesnt mean they cant win. Keep in mind that strategy and alliances are a vital part of the game, especially this year. It's not just about who has a better bot.

Correct. I did over-generalize here. I know our team in the past has had great success at regionals as a student run team. But taking in the big picture, the "professionally built robots" do end up winning at a much higher level.


Another point...People, please don't take internet discussions too seriously. Many people will voice different opinions here, and they are not necessarily personal attacks.

[TonzOFun]

Our team has always prided ourselves as being a primarily student designed, student build and student run team. I believe that if students designs the robot, builds the robot, repairs the robot and are able to effectively compete, a team will take away much more than by following an engineer's example. If you come by our pit at a competition, you will see four to five students repairing the robot and a mentor standing back, allowing the students to repair the robot as they feel is best, and no engineer in sight. Seeing something that I helped design, build and compete with do well makes me motivated more than anything else.

Our mentors are there mainly to do registrations, supervision and make sure we get the parts we need. Our mentors are there to help when needed, but help improve student designs than imposing their own. Our mentors are primarily there to do anything the students aren't aloud/unable to do.

Our engineer sponsors come in throughout the build season to check on our progress and help with any parts we simply don't have the machines to make ourselves. The engineers are ready to help if needed, but we try and avoid having any aspect of the robot engineer designed.

You want to see something interesting? A new mentor from a mentor-run team trying to work with a student-run team.

[ghansel]

Originally Posted by Cory

I could write an entire page about this, but really all it comes down to is the fact that there is no "correct" amount of mentor involvement.

This thread could go on for ten pages and I guarantee the only thing that will be agreed on is "to each their own"

In two sentences, Cory managed to say more of (perhaps ironically) absolute truth than all of the other posts in this thread combined.

I'll bite. Hard.

<ACID>
Being on a team with no adult technical mentors, to answer the question "Why do teams voluntarily do FIRST without adult technical mentors?" would require me to justify the actions of myself and my team to others. This is something I am loathe to do in a largely closed-minded (among other things) community with such a degree of homogeneity of thought as ChiefDelphi (so shoot me... and prove me right). But what I can say is that actions speak louder than words. The only students that left Team 19 after our extremely unsuccessful 2005 season were graduating seniors. I don't know if it would be the same with another team; I don't know anybody on another team personally. But I am proud of them for it. Our motivations are our own. The "inexplicable" fact remains that we voluntarily participate in FIRST without adult technical mentors.
</ACID>


To each person, their own goal in participating in FIRST. To each individual, due credit for their accomplishments. It's altogether wrong to say that the actions of any person or group of people are wrong when they harm nobody. This goes in life as well as in FIRST.

George Hansel.

[Alexander McGee]

Originally Posted by ghansel

In two sentences, Cory managed to say more of (perhaps ironically) absolute truth than all of the other posts in this thread combined.

I'll bite. Hard.

<ACID>
Being on a team with no adult technical mentors, to answer the question "Why do teams voluntarily do FIRST without adult technical mentors?" would require me to justify the actions of myself and my team to others. This is something I am loathe to do in a largely closed-minded (among other things) community with such a degree of homogeneity of thought as ChiefDelphi (so shoot me... and prove me right). But what I can say is that actions speak louder than words. The only students that left Team 19 after our extremely unsuccessful 2005 season were graduating seniors. I don't know if it would be the same with another team; I don't know anybody on another team personally. But I am proud of them for it. Our motivations are our own. The "inexplicable" fact remains that we voluntarily participate in FIRST without adult technical mentors.
</ACID>


To each person, their own goal in participating in FIRST. To each individual, due credit for their accomplishments. It's altogether wrong to say that the actions of any person or group of people are wrong when they harm nobody. This goes in life as well as in FIRST.

George Hansel.

This thread has more do to with answering the question as to why teams decide not to utilize engineers or "adult mentors". I think you have misunderstood what many people have been saying. There is nothing wrong with student-run teams, and there is no reason to try and justify why you do things the way you do them. Frankly, I am a bit confused at what your post is really about. I expect something more fundamental when you "bite hard". Are you announcing that you readily refuse this kind of help, or that you can make it without it? I am also bewildered as to how you can be involved with a team as a "engineer" but not have anyone labeled as an "adult technical mentor"?

This community is anything but homogeneous. There are all kinds of teams with all kinds of people, and you will not find a single team that runs like another. The one common thing that we share is FIRST. We try to remember what this organization exists for: Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. We universally agree, and we should, that Inspiration is the only thing that matters in this organization. As long as your students remain involved and inspired, then mission accomplished.

Props to you for being involved in a student-run team. I can tell you from my own experience that it is a lot of work and is 100% worth the effort, and I think you would agree. However, don't misunderstand what people are saying in this thread. No one is attacking student-run teams, they are just trying to understand why people do it the way they do it. No one was calling anything "wrong", and no one has that right.

My team is student-run because I personally believe that more student involvement is a better outlet for the inspiration of my students. I have my way, others have theirs. The only thing wrong is when people tell others how to run their own teams.

I hope this helps clear things up!

-Alexander S. McGee

[ghansel]

My post was not clear enough (hey, for 11:30 at night...).

You say "We universally agree, and we should, that Inspiration is the only thing that matters in this organization." I agree completely and to contest this statement would be ridiculous because it's the second letter of FIRST.

I think, however, that it needs to be clarified. I think something like "We universally agree, and we should, that Inspiration is the only thing that matters to this organization and to every team leader." is more descriptive of the situation. Not necessarily that exactly, but it helps me illustrate my point. FIRST exists to inspire teenagers to pursue careers in science and technology... we all know this. But in that statement is a blindness to the sheer multitude of reasons that students join a FIRST program or found a FIRST program (forgive me, I have no personal experience with a school founding a FIRST team). In many lucky schools, the robotics team is an accredited course which gives the students time to do robotics stuff during school hours. In such a case, they might be motivated to join by a guidance counselor or a parent. Or they might join to look good to a prospective college. In other teams, the student might join just out of curiosity. In other cases, a student might join because he or she already knows they want a career in engineering, and robotics is the only outlet (such that it is) for their talent. Or a singer might join because the people on the robotics team are fun to be around, and she can do some PR work, despite having no interest in the robot itself (friend of mine). Whatever the dominant reason may be in a team (and this will be different in every team) the leader must adjust the way the team is run and the degree to which technical mentors are involved to best motivate, please, and inspire everyone on the team. That is the fundamental reason there is no correct amount of technical mentor involvement. Shame I only made it clear the second time through.

As to my team role of "engineer". You are not the first person to have been confused by that, but you are one of the people (perhaps the only one) who were tactful enough to ask without immediately demanding that I change it - on the grounds that "engineer" unambiguously means "adult technical mentor" or "professional engineer". Thank you. I am a highschool student on Team 19. By no means do I claim to be an engineer of any kind in real life. There are those my age who do; I am not one of them. But when school ends each day in January, February, and March, and I walk into the team meeting, or regional, I am walking into the fantasy of FIRST and into my "team role" of an engineer.

Thanks, I hope this clears something up. I hope to meet you (as well as many other people on these boards), because I'm a much kinder person in real life.

George Hansel

[Not2B]

I used to care about this kind of thing, but I don't anymore...

Run your team the way you want - I'm not going to care. It doesn't really effect us a great deal. I just hope your team is inspired, learning, and having fun like ours. If not, THEN you are doing something wrong.

[TimCraig]

I mentor a FIRST team because I think building the robots is fascintating, I have time to do it, and I think it's never too late to have a happy childhood.

FIRST teams vary all over the map. The high school where my team is has eliminated all vocational programs. Although we're in the heart of Silicon Valley, most of the students in the club don't seem really passionate about technology. If it wasn't for my efforts, I'm afraid a robot wouldn't get built for the competition in the last 3 years the team has been in existence.

I've thought about standing back and letting the team fail to deliver a robot much less a competitive robot. It's hard to separate the student's failure from mine in this instance. When I work on something, I expect excellance. When the robot is finished, it's handed over to the students for competition and I have no control over the outcome of the competition. I've told my students the one thing I can control is the "ooh and ahh" factor when people look at our robot. I take pride in what we build no matter how it finishes in the competition.

If the students in the club learn something from being around me and how I proceed at robot building, then I'm happy but that is largely up to them. I'm not a teacher. I'm not paid to spoon feed them or keep them entertained. I'm a mentor. I'm there to show them how the real world approaches problems, attacks them, and solves them.

The first year I was involved with FIRST I tried to stand back and wait for a "student designed and built" robot with me acting as a consultant. Three weeks into the build, there was absolutely nothing to show for the effort and we were lucky that Stack Attack was a relatively simple game so we managed to field a robot that by virtue of being reliable, was competitive. The team who had sponsored us as our mentor didn't really provide much support.

FIRST teams are organizations that have great turnover. The longest a student will be on the team is 4 years. Continuity is big factor of the mentors being available to carry the knowledge forward. Ideally, this knowledge would be passed from experienced students to less experienced students. While some of that happens on my team, it's not how I see the major knowledge transfer.

PS. If any of my students read this, please tell me. While I've pushed that Chief Delphi is a valuable site, I suspect that none of you visit here regularly if at all.

[Katie Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

Why do FIRST teams start with the intention of this being a "student design competition"?

Because some teams don't want to turn into the "our-engineers-build-99%-of-our-robot powerhouse" they've seen dominate the competition time and time again. But instead of asking for help from mentors who may have a better understanding of what's going on, these teams go from one extreme to the other. Personally, I was a little like that when I started in FIRST. I'd like to think that, in the past five years, I've grown a little wiser. After being involved for awhile and seeing teams on both ends of the spectrum, I don't think either extreme does anyone much good.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

But the mentors already know everything. The point is not always to get the robot done fastest, it is for you students to learn something.

I'm mentoring a team this year, and I sure don't know everything! Especially when it comes to engineering. I know enough to get by in a pinch, and I know what I learned from my years in FIRST. For me, part of the fun of FIRST is coming back and learning so much new stuff year after year - not just from other mentors but from high school students as well! But math is, by far, my worst subject, and - though I think engineers are so awesome - engineering really isn't my thing. The primary reason I'm joining this team to help with team organization and fund-raising (... raising funds - sorry, Schuff ) When the time comes, I'll help out with the robot but it won't be with my ability to do mind-boggling physics. It will be helping the students on the team figure out the best way to attach piece A to piece B. It'll be me saying, "hmm I'm not sure if we can do that - let me check the rules" when someone has a question about the legality of what they're about to do. No, I don't know everything and honestly, I don't want to.

Originally Posted by RbtGal1351

One thing that's up to debate for me and my team is who should be running the organization and the managing of the team -- students or adults?

Both.

When I was on team 93, the mentors took care of travel arrangements, running some team meetings, issues with the high school and getting food to the team during the build and at competitions - they oversaw students taking care of the majority of everything else, organization-wise. Ordering shirts, picking out swappables, getting buttons made, setting up and running fundraisers, setting up meetings with potential new sponsors, doing demonstrations ... even ordering materials (with mentor approval!) was sometimes done by the students. The mentors were always there to make sure we didn't screw up too badly - but they did, occasionally, let us screw up and learn from our mistakes. One of the most important things Sean Schuff ever taught me was how to fail forward. There's a great book by John C. Maxwell on the subject called Failing Forward: How to Make the Most of Your Mistakes - check it out!

Originally Posted by phrontist

I see absolutely no value in an entirely engineer built robot. Is that really so insulting? I mean, if the students just watch the engineer do brilliant things, they might as well read a book about great innovators.

Perhaps watching an engineer build a robot doesn't inspire you personally, but what if that's all the students on the team are looking for? What if they are inspired by watching someone else?

Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone learns the same, thinks the same, and is inspired in the same ways as you.

[Katie Reynolds]

((I split the above post and this one, because as a single post it was just too long!))

Alright, back to the beginning:

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

Dare I ask... Which "team" is better? What defines "better"?

When I first started in FIRST I would have said, "A team that is 100% student-run is the best way to go!" The last few years on my high school team I realized, "No, having a perfect balance of student and mentor contributions is the best way to go!" Now, I don't think either of those statements is correct because there is no best way.

Rich pointed out before that the key is flexibility. What works for team A doesn't work for team B. Similarly, what works for team A one year, might not work for them the next.

Let's take a closer look at teams A and B:

Year One

• Team A is almost entirely student run. The students have elected other students to lead individual subteams, and everything seems to be running very smoothly. The mentors decide to help out, but take a back seat when it comes to the majority of the work. Ship day comes along, and while the somewhat frazzled students struggle to get everything packed and ready to go on time, they make it. Team A competes at two competitions and places thrid and eighth, respectively. At their team banquet, they reminisce about the great year they had and everyone is sad that the student-elected leaders will all be graduating. In the end, the students have inspired the mentors with their fantastic designs (some of which the mentors would not have thought of themselves!) and the students were inspired by other students on the team for taking such a big leadership role.
  
• Team B is mostly run by mentors. The students have a hand in some PR stuff, and occasionally are allowed to cut basic parts in the machine shop. The robot is finished by week four - mostly built in the main sponsor's workshop. The robot is brought to the high school where the mentor's show off their creation. The students are amazed at what an awesome job the engineers have done - not only does the machine run perfectly, the welds are immaculate and the graphics are perfect. Team B competes at a few regionals and takes first place, then goes on to win the Championship. Even though the students didn't have a huge part in builidng the robot, winning the competition and seeing what a great job their engineers did excites them and inspires them to pursue a more active role in the team and in engineering itself.

In both instances, the students are inspired to continue with FIRST and engineering. Both teams had "good years" and did well in the competition. For these two teams, the way their respective teams were run worked. Now, check this out:

• If team A were run like team B, the mentors would run the show. No student elections would be held, because there would be no student leadership positions to fill. Students who were once eager and willing to take the lead either quit or don't do much of anything, since they've been given the distinct impression that they are not needed. The engineers come in with their robot and, while some of the students ooh and ahh over it, the majority of students think, "Why did they do this thing, this way?" They question the engineers and get the answer, "Because this is the way it will work best." Conflict arises when the students think they have a better solution, and since the robot is finished two weeks early they still have time to implement what they want to do. The engineers won't have it, and take the robot back to their shop to make sure the students don't "mess with it". The students have no time to practice driving and end up placing last at all of their competitions. They have no team spirit and a lot of the students aren't sure they'll come back the next year. The only way the students have been inspired, is to go to the other extreme and make sure they're in charge next year, because "they know they'll do a better job."

Case in point - what works for one team doesn't necessarily work for another.

Going back to teams A and B; the teams are in their second year now. The rookies on both teams are hearing how wonderful FIRST is and what a great time the teams had the previous year.

Year Two

• Team A holds the student election but the elected students aren't all that concerned about their positions. The mentors start to worry when it's week three and practically nothing is done. Concerned about thier team, the mentors start to step up and help with design and building of the robot. Unfortunately, they are met with resistance from students on the team who were around during year one. These students insist that they can build the robot on their own again so the mentors back down. Week five comes up more quickly than anyone expected and all the robot consists of is a shoddy frame, some wires and a couple of half finished wheels. The mentors finish the robot - again, with much protest from the team veterans - and the team goes on to compete at two regionals. They place 20/22 at their first regional and dead last in the second. The team goes on to the Championship but doesn't do well there either, since everyone is so physically and emotionally drained. The end of the year banquet isn't nearly as fun, because everyone is thinking, "wow, where did we go wrong? It worked last year - what happened?" No one is inspired and half the team quits because they had such a miserable time.
  
• Team B goes on being mostly mentor-run. Like the previous year, the robot is done in 4 weeks to allow the students more drive time and the students are yet again amazed and what their engineers have come up with. This year, the students are allowed to take a slightly larger role with PR and are allowed to put together the Chairman's Award presentation. Again, the team dominates the competition and places third at the Championship. At the end of the year, the team celebrates and thinks, "this works for us - it's the way our team should be run!" The students have been inspired by the engineers' design and by the fact that they did so well - again - in the competition.

Team A is a good example of "what works for a team one year, may not work the next." Had the students stepped back a little bit, and realized that they did need help, they might have done much better and had a lot more fun.

Team B is a good example of "just because a team is run by mentors, doesn't mean the students come away uninspired." Team B found what worked best for them and ran with it. Both years the students walked away feeling inspired and wanting to know more about and do more with engineering. They're two for two on successful* years.

Bottom line:

The cases above are just two ways things could go. There are a thousand different scenarios and a thousand different ways to run a team, and neither of them is "the best way." There is no formula to figure out what will inspire people the most, what will win you the competition the easiest, or how to run the team as smoothly as possible.

The "best" way to run a team isn't by having it all student run, or all mentor run. It's not splitting the "power" 50/50 and having students do their half and mentors do theirs. It's about finding what works best for the team - finding what inspires team members and having the ability to realize that you may have to change the way your team is run slightly, from year to year.

As soon as you can do that, you've truly found the best way to run a team.

* = successful, as the students on the team were inspired by what they saw and learned.