Why do teams voluntarily do FIRST without adult technical mentors?

[DB213parent]

Thanks so much for your warm welcome and kind words. My email requesting entry into NEMO should already be in your box. Elaine Giacomo

[sciguy125]

Originally Posted by DB213parent

Can I hear from some teams that have active parent organizations so we can find out if we're on the right track.

As it turns out, a good number of our parents are engineers. (Something about a fruit not falling far from where it started...) That means that they serve as both technical advisors and bringers of food. 1351 has decided that, as much as possible, "mentors" will only serve as "advisors". They will offer their advice, but it's ultimately up to the student who's in charge of the project to make a decision. They tend to get slightly more pushy when it comes to their own kids though. That's not to say that you have to be an engineer to help in the technical aspects of the robot. If you ask the right questions, you can help them better understand what's happening. Sometimes, just walking through a problem with someone will help them see it in a different way and may lead them to a solution. Until I got into FIRST, I didn't do much mechanical work. If someone asked me for help, I had to learn with them. Sometimes, I would ask a question that would turn on a lightbulb in their head.

Our new structure seems to indicate that this "advisor" role will be more strict. Our engineering branch is hierachry of students to manage the design and construction of the robot. From what I understand, their exact duties are still to be determined, but it's intended that the engineering leaders (high school students) have the final say in how their project is done.

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

Speaking strictly from actual experience being a engineer gives a mentor no advantage over a student when it come to building robotics.

I'm going to partially disagree with that. Being an engineer gives you an "advantage", but it isn't necessarily "better". From training, you have the knowledge and skills that a student doesn't have. This means you may have already run into certain problems that will come up and know how to fix them or maybe you won't make the same mistakes as a student. However, your training may cloud your vision. If you have a set way of doing something, you may not see a better way of doing it. A student, with less training, is forced to have more creativity. Something that is obvious to the student may have been blocked from the engineer's line of sight. I'm not saying that being a student is better for building a robot, just that engineers and students will each have their own views that could be better (or worse), depending on the situation.

[mechanicalbrain]

Originally Posted by sciguy125

I'm going to partially disagree with that. Being an engineer gives you an "advantage", but it isn't necessarily "better". From training, you have the knowledge and skills that a student doesn't have. This means you may have already run into certain problems that will come up and know how to fix them or maybe you won't make the same mistakes as a student. However, your training may cloud your vision. If you have a set way of doing something, you may not see a better way of doing it. A student, with less training, is forced to have more creativity. Something that is obvious to the student may have been blocked from the engineer's line of sight. I'm not saying that being a student is better for building a robot, just that engineers and students will each have their own views that could be better (or worse), depending on the situation.

Which is partially why it personally irks me to see a completely mentor run program. I like to see what kids invent. Also i agree with your view on a mentors experience its just that i feel there (with exception of drive train but even that...) few experiences that are applicable to building robots. Its just one of those things where few things trully can prepare you for the unique designing process involved (especially with the time schedules).

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

...Also i agree with your view on a mentors experience its just that i feel there are few experiences that are applicable to building robots. Its just one of those things where few things trully can prepare you for the unique designing process involved (especially with the time schedules).

i find this part of your statement very ironic. build season is meant to give you a taste of what a real engineer does. i've been working at Lear corp. for the last couple months, and it is like build season, only more so. everything we build/modify is done on a deadline, ranging from a year, to a week (Example: i had to repair a10 year old tester last week in time for them to ship out modules on friday. i had 2 days to fix it, and a day to run 180 modules) what we're doing here in FIRST is a very simplified version of what happens in the real world.

[mechanicalbrain]

Right but not everywhere is Lear. I know my dad is a aeronautical engineer and his company doesn't have to make their programs, electrics, web on top of everything else. Plus as i recall Lear is slightly larger than any teams i know of. In fact yes their are similarities and yes exceptions but still FIRST is VERY intense. All I'm saying is that a mechanical engineer has knowledge that would far surpass my own yet that doesn't mean they are better at say building a car. Anyway sorry if their some confusion. Normally when i post i just assume people understand I'm not trying to make my statements all inclusive (in fact i normally say so). From now on ill be even more clear on this.
NOTE: nothing in my posts is a given fact and only represents my opinion unless i say otherwise. I know! A little dramatic I'm just making it clear that its an opinion based on my knowledge thus subject to flaw. I still stand by it. Few companies as small as a FIRST team have to cover such a spectrum of knowledges. I understand where you come from but i think you are looking at it from the outlook of a large company. Most teams are close to 15 students.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

...a mentors experience its just that i feel there (with exception of drive train but even that...) few experiences that are applicable to building robots.

Clearly from this statement you have a lot to learn about engineering (and guess what - your mentors should be able to provide you that knowledge!). If you think engineers don't have experience that are applicable to building these robots then I don't think you really understand what engineering is.

All I'm saying is that a mechanical engineer has knowledge that would far surpass my own yet that doesn't mean they are better at say building a car.

Are you suggesting that someone trained in mechanical engineering is no more qualified than you to build a car??? Yikes...

If that were true, then why would GM, Ford, etc. require job candidates to have a degree? Sorry, but I wouldn't be expecting any calls from recruiters for these companies any time soon... because someone who holds a mechanical engineering degree is FAR more likely to be better at building a car than you.

----

I posted earlier about posts in this thread being borderline insulting to us engineers. Your last few posts fall into this category in my opinion. It would be interesting to see how you feel about this after you've gone though the challenging process of earning an engineering degree yourself...

[mechanicalbrain]

You missed my point entirely! I'm saying that being an engineer in a specific field does NOT give you intimate knowledge of everything that field involves. Of course GM requires people applying to have degrees but does that mean that all mechanical engineer knows a car like the back of his or her hand NO of course not. As mentioned in other threads few colleges have open robotics courses and even fewer do robots to the scale we do (Their are small groups on most colleges that do advanced robotics but these are rarely open courses). You could get your mechanical engineering degree without ever having touched a robot. Anyway this conversation is veering from the thread so either we start a new thread or feel free to drop me a message.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

You missed my point entirely! ... but does that mean that all mechanical engineer knows a car like the back of his or her hand NO of course not.

That's not what you said. You said that "a mechanical engineer has knowledge that would far surpass my own yet that doesn't mean they are better at say building a car" to which I replied (and maintain) that most likely they ARE better at building a car.

You could get your mechanical engineering degree without ever having touched a robot.

You're misunderstanding the purpose of an engineering education. An engineering education is primarily about 2 things: learning a foundation of fundamental concepts (equations, theory, etc) and learning how to learn (because on any engineering job, you WILL need to learn additional skills beyond what you were taught in school). Learning to be a mechanical engineer does not teach you how specifically to build a robot, just like it does not teach you specifically how to build a car, or design a manufacturing machine, or a product housing, etc.

An engineering education is about the concepts and skills that apply to any engineering project. Your argument is that a mechanical engineering education (and, by extension, any other engineering education) is not relevant to building robots because they don't teach you how to build a robot in school. The point that you're missing is that nearly ALL of the concepts that are learned while pursuing an engineering education are applicable and relevant when building FIRST robots.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

You missed my point entirely! I'm saying that being an engineer in a specific field does NOT give you intimate knowledge of everything that field involves.

On 229, we taught our students:
"Engineering is Problem Solving."
"Engineers solve problems using the Engineering Design Process."

When you get a degree in engineering, you are being taught how to solve problems in a professional, methodical manner. This approach to problem solving through analysis and design is what makes an engineer an engineer. You are being taught how to find the tools you need to solve these problems.

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

As mentioned in other threads few colleges have open robotics courses... you could get your mechanical engineering degree without ever having touched a robot.

You can NOT get a mechanical engineering degree without learning how to solve problems like an engineer. This knowledge is the tool which grants engineers an "advantage" when it comes to participating in the FIRST program.

Your argument is flawed if you believe that if an engineer hasn't had a robotics course, then they haven't learned distinct skills that will help them in FIRST. (I have emphasized problem solving as a primary skill, but there are many more.)

The FRC design process is highly accelerated and very challenging, no one will argue with this. However the FIRST program is a strong parallel to industry. For you to imply that it is somehow "unique" enough that an engineer has no means for comparison outside of FIRST, is foolish.

Heck, I'll come right out and say it:
You are foolish to think that engineers do not have an "advantage" in FIRST. They do.

Who would best program my robot?

• Dave Flowerday - Motorola Enginerd
• Some HS kid who plays with C in his spare time

Who would best design my robot's gearbox?

• Paul Copioli - FANUC Robotics Enginerd
• Ken Patton - GM Enginerd
• Arefin Bari - HS-FIRST-All-Star

(Sorry Ary, I think Ken and Paul beat you out.)

But...
I bet Arefin wants to be like the Copiolster when he grows up, and THAT is what FIRST is all about.
Seeing the advantage, understanding the advantage. "Wow, so if I learn my trig, I can do THAT!?!"

I want to be like Paul, Ken & Flowerday,
JV

[Arefin Bari]

Originally Posted by JVN

[/list]Who would best design my robot's gearbox?

• Paul Copioli - FANUC Robotics Enginerd
• Ken Patton - GM Engineerd
• Arefin Bari - HS-FIRST-All-Star

(Sorry Ary, I think Ken and Paul beat you out.)

But...
I bet Arefin wants to be like the Copiolster when he grows up, and THAT is what FIRST is all about.
Seeing the advantage, understanding the advantage. "Wow, so if I learn my trig, I can do THAT!?!"

I want to be like Paul, Ken & Flowerday,
JV

Darn proud of it to say that I would lose to Paul and Ken but you know what the advantage is still mine. I am learning, they already know how to do it. woooo

[sciguy125]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

...its just that i feel there (with exception of drive train but even that...) few experiences that are applicable to building robots.

I understand where you're coming from. Nothing you learn can truly prepare you for everything that comes your way. One of our teachers (if you happen to read this, I apologize in advance) worked as an engineer for a very long time. It's my understanding that he was even a project manager for some time. I think he specialized in control systems. It is obvious that he has had plenty of experience and training. When it came to FIRST control systems, he didn't know how they worked. Hobby PWM is evidently not the same as traditional PWM. There were also a few other things that were new to him that I can't think of off the top of my head this late at night. The point is, however, that he still had the learn the system like everyone else. I, on the other hand, fresh out of high school, in my first semester of college, with "ENGR 10 - Introduction to Engineering" as the only engineering class under my belt, already understood a good deal of the system. I had been playing with hobby r/c equipment for some time. I had done some prior research on PICs. In general, I knew more about how to use the system than he did. (again, if you are reading this, i apologize and mean no offence...and yes, I may be slightly exaggerating)

As I pointed out in my previous post I don't completely agree with Oz's point of view on engineers' FIRST capabilities. My above statements are merely my interpretation of his opinion. Oz, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I see where he is coming from and understand how he may have a valid argument. But, again, I don't fully agree.

Well then, to what extent do I agree with Oz? I agree that nothing can prepare you for every situation you find yourself in. Sometimes, you'll have to learn something new. But I don't agree that being an engineer is not an advantage. As JVN and a few others pointed out, the work done to receive an engineering degree is designed to teach you how to think like an engineer, not teach you every skill you will ever need. I wholly agree with this. It's not possible to learn everything. Instead, you learn how to learn what you will need later. (Something about teaching a man to capture aquatic wildlife rather than giving him food for today) To this extent being an engineer does give you an advantage. However, as I also pointed out in my previous post, this isn't necessarily a good thing. (By saying that, I don't mean that it's a bad thing.) Some of the greatest innovations are from people that looked outside of the box. Take Relativity for instance. That's so far out of the box that you can't even see the box if you're sitting next to Relativity. "Hey, look Bob! If I move at 0.99c, time slows down and I get shorter!" If you don't have any training, you can more easily think outsize the box; mainly because you don't know that the box exists. (Don't try to argue that Einstein had training, because that's not what I'm trying to say.)

I'm not saying that all of us engineers should go out and trade places with an artist to ensure that we won't have any training in our new fields. It's just that a lack of experience isn't always a bad thing. As long as you're not trying to disassemble a bomb, you shouldn't feel bad about not knowing what you're doing. I'm also not saying that we should abolish mentorship (is that the right word? actually, is that even a real word?) and let the students run free. My personal view on this whole thing is that mentors should be there to help, not lecture. If someone runs into trouble, they should have a place to go for advice, but not have someone force knowledge into their head or take over their project. I'm not completely sure, but I suspect that this is what Oz was trying to get at.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by sciguy125

I agree that nothing can prepare you for every situation you find yourself in. Sometimes, you'll have to learn something new. But I don't agree that being an engineer is not an advantage.

Change that to "All the time" or "everyday" and you are close to what an engineer goes through each day. Force yourself now, today, to learn one new thing each day. When you lay down on your fluffy pillow at night, before you say your prayers, ask yourself if you have learned anything new. If the answer is "NO" then you better get up and find something. It is not the engineering that makes an Andy Baker, Paul C, Ken or JVN, it's the other knowledge too. If you ask a pointed question you will find that each mentor has found themselves a better engineer due to the constraints of this "game". I know that my coworkers wonder how I come up with some of the solutions I plan out. I know it is due to my involvement in FIRST.
As to engineers having an advantage in this robot competition, there is no doubt. We know it because of our experiences. You don't realize it yet, but you will. I can only ask that you open your minds a little and see things as they are. Step out of your body and come over to my side of the computer and see things from here. Yea, it's hard to do that, but give it a try. You have been doing hard things for a while, I challenge you to look at it from our point of view. Here is a little hint, each one of the engineers in this thread and most if not all of the engineers in this program want to teach you, help you and yes sometimes push you, to do your best. We are not going to be 100% successful getting you to be an engineer, but you you still have the potential to do great things. You have already taken the first few steps. With your eyes open, there are wonders to behold, keep them closed and all you will do is bump into walls.

[Jessica Boucher]

Is it just me, or did we recently take a sharp left into "Off-topic Land"? (No offense, they are excellent arguments, but I don't get the connection to Baker's original post, and if someone can explain it to me I would be happy to listen).

Baker, I think you have your answer already. Through the last few pages of conversation, it seems to be apparent that through this discussion people accept that although we may not completely agree on how teams should be run, there are a lot of different teams out there, and not one is better than the other because their methods (and thus, their priorities) are different. Many people made this point long before I ever thought of posting in here.

I was once asked what business model I thought FIRST was. In my opinion, it is two-fold: HQ in relationship to team leadership is a B2B (Business-to-Business). Just like your local coffee shop buys cups from a supplier, teams are paying for FIRST to give them a kit of parts and a means to inspire their local youth in a unique way (the competitions themselves).
However, team leadership to the students is a B2C (Business-to-Consumer). Just like you buy a cup of coffee from your local coffee shop, the team leadership is providing something to the student that the supplier can not do as effectively on its own - inspiring the student.
Back to the coffee shop example, there is no one way that selling coffee is fulfilling to the shop owner. You have establishments that thrive on product quality, some that focus on profit, others that make money off of ambiance, and even others that have a strong local following. All have different views of success. Similarly, you have teams that consider themselves successful that have varying student-mentor mixes.

So, what does that all mean?

Trust me, I would love to track team statistics to figure out the most effective mix of team aspects and encourage teams to adhere to said guidelines, because it may do a lot towards team retention. But that's not how FIRST works.
FIRST's competitive advantage to the rest of their industry segment is it's openness for innovative thought. FIRST isn't in the curriculum business - they're not promising in January that by May your students on the team will learn A B and C. FIRST is offering team leadership a chance to uniquely inspire their students to go into science or technology-based careers. How does that happen on a team level? It's up to the team leadership to think of the best way for that to happen in their area. And that's (one of the reasons) why FIRST is the Hardest Fun Ever, not only for the students, but for everyone involved.

Why do some teams feel strongly about one method over another? Conditioning. What they are exposed to goes a long way to shape their opinion on the matter. As it has also been shown here, as teams get older, people (and perceptions) change. Part of these changes are because of discussions that increase exposure...discussions just like this one.
All we can really do in terms of this discussion is keep talking about our different perspectives and celebrating that the differences still achieve the same goal.

[mechanicalbrain]

Originally Posted by sciguy125

As I pointed out in my previous post I don't completely agree with Oz's point of view on engineers' FIRST capabilities. My above statements are merely my interpretation of his opinion. Oz, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I see where he is coming from and understand how he may have a valid argument. But, again, I don't fully agree.

Actually your example is what i was trying to convey. Engineers are brilliant! They have to be! But brilliance sometimes doesn't compare to specific experience. All i want ed to say was that someone who has a good deal of experience in a field will probably be better at it than an unexperienced Engineer. I don't know what everyone else took it but that really is it.

So back to Mr. Baker's thread. I think teams will participate in robotics without technical mentors either because they don't have access to one or because they don't want one. I have not met a team that didn't want help from mentors so i assume most teams fit in the first category. Technically speaking you CAN build a robot without any mentor help (Its hard but the kits were made to be easy to some degree). I'm not saying they will have an amazing bot (though they could) but it can be done. If any team has enough interest in robotics to make a robot and compete without any technical mentors i say that they have some amazing devotion. I'm curious if anyone who actually knows some teams or on some with no technical mentors.

[santosh]

Having a fully built student robot is very commendable in my opinion.
I personally would be happier with a robot that was built by the students at Wheeler High School and the help of the students at GT that didn't do so hot vs. a robot that was built by a set of engineers that did well.

Would I personally be inspired by engineers building my teams bot? Not really.

Would I be inspired by the fact that a group of students could put together a functioning robot. Yes. Maybe thats just me.

To me, as long as I am having fun, then everything is fine with me.