Why do teams voluntarily do FIRST without adult technical mentors?

[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.