Why do teams voluntarily do FIRST without adult technical mentors?

[Alexander McGee]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

From the FIRST website...

The FIRST Robotics Competition is an exciting, multinational competition that teams professionals and young people to solve an engineering design problem in an intense and competitive way.

The program is not intended to be a high school event. It is intended to be a partnership between students and adults.

I had a college professor that once said there are three kinds of knowledge -

What you know
What you know you don't know
and
What you don't know you don't know

I think teams trying to work with no mentoring are in that third category and don't know what benefit they would receive from a good technical mentor.

**

FIRST is a great representation of many technical companies. Just like the FIRST plan of an engineer mentoring a student, we would never hand a new engineer a clean sheet of paper and say 'go design a new compressor, I will be back in a few weeks'. We would have that new engineer work with an experienced design engineer and learn what to do and how to do it. Corporate knowledge is passed on and the knowledge base continues to grow and that is how technical advancements continue.

Chris, I agree with your post. However, there are other kinds of "Adult Mentors" besides technical ones. There have been many successful teams without engineers on board, and there are many many many people who mentor in this program who are not engineers. No team can be run without adults; high school students can not manage a team without credit and other things that adults take care of "behind the scenes".

I agree that engineers are a wonderful thing in this program, however, I personally feel that some of them do not know where to "draw the line" and let the students get involved. I speak from personal experience.

However, in the end, it doesn't really matter. I was able to be inspired from being on a team dominated by paid engineers, and my students are inspired on my team which has none. As it has been said countless times in this thread, please understand that teams run things differently for specific and very valid reasons. And, this is OK as long as the students are inspired.

I have a high respect for engineers in this program. Many of the people whom I work with would never be able to dedicate half the time that people like you do to this program. Thanks for keeping us inspired guys!

[phrontist]

The fact that thread is still raging speaks volumes. Obviously, there is a serious rift in the F.I.R.S.T. community. It seems (to me) to break down in to two real stances pragmatically, regardless of which of the (numerous) supporting rationales are being used:

1. It is acceptable and commendable for teams to feild a robot that is, in part or in whole, designed by non-student team members.
2. F.I.R.S.T. robots should be designed by students, with non-students in supporting roles that are not-directly involved in design.

Questions of manufacturing are a whole other debate (is buying sub-assembiles from AndyMark kosher?) and should remain seperate from this issue. In my view what it comes down to is the balance between "inspiration" and "recognition". So there are two questions here:

1. Does allowing engineers to design FIRST robots further the goal of inspiring students to pursue Math/Science/Engineering careers?
2. Does allowing engineers to design FIRST robots further the goal of recognizing student accomplishments in the engineering challenge that is FIRST?

I think the former question is debatable, students being corrected by engineers or observing the thought process of engineers as they engineer solutions to these (fairly easy) problems is arguably more or less inspiring then allowing students to do it alone (with engineers providing lessons at a higher level, or not at all). But I can see no argument in the latter question! How can you recognize students for the performance of a robot they were only paritally responsible for? It robs non-engineer teams of any sort of fair competition. How can I be expected to beat out a professional engineers robot (I still intend to, mind you )? Should a debatable vehicle for inspiration come at the price of recognition?

Working as an intern in what is now our primary sponsor has given me the chance to work closely with engineers, having my designs critiqued because I (as a mere high-school student) cannot be unsupervised in implementing production code. No doubt, this is a valuable experience. But working on my team, which has no engineering mentors, has been an equally valuable experience in an entirely different way. The team sinks or swims based on how well the students work together and know their stuff. I derive a great deal of pride whenever our team wins, because it really is us, the students, winning. Our (non-engineering) mentors are fantastic, plying us with sage wisdom and keeping us organized to some extent, but I'm glad it stops there. Our mentors are there to bounce ideas off of, not to dictate designs from on high.

Some have advocated that each team should be allowed to run things as they wish. I feel that sort of liberty should always be strived for. However the pro-engineer design teams limit the freedom of the opposing camp by altering the nature of the competition. You simply cannot have a fair competition of student wits with engineer designed robots on the feild. FIRST needs engineers, not engineer designed robots.

Originally Posted by Alexander McGee

The program is not intended to be a high school event. It is intended to be a partnership between students and adults.

It's the nature of that partnership that is all important, and to my knowledge, unspecified by FIRST. If it is, I'd love to hear it, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for change. FIRST is it's participants, and should change as the people change.

[Cuog]

In My Opinion a team should be run by the students. The students should begin the design and the Mentors job should be to keep the students on the right path and provide ideas/suggestions when the students dont know what they should do. I as a student dont like to see a team that has had no help from there mentors or has no mentors to ask for help. What also bothers me is when it is the mentors that do everything and the students only know from what the mentors have told them about the robot.

Our team is a small one(20 something students getting near 30 now) with only 2 real mentors, as well as some parents that help out when we need them. I like our team the way that it is larger teams cause each student to have less and less to do, as it is during build season we always have at least 2 people sitting and doing nothing at any particular point in time.

Well I've said my piece but feel free to think what you want,
Cuog

[Ellery]

I guess I have to jump on this thread band wagon like everyone else even though it's a few months late but I guess I should at least voice my opinion.

First of all, everyone should just take deep breath and relax since some people seem to be too adamant about their views on this issue. Remember that most of us mentors here are volunteers and we're participating in this to help give back to our community while having FUN doing it! (If I didn't have fun or enjoy meeting all the FIRST participants do you think I'd be spending more time on this program than work and my family put togther?) Every team has their own way of making their team work due to different environments and resources. There is no one right way. Balance is the key based on what's available.

Second, Keep in mind the main point of FIRST and it's motto "to inspire" and "partner with professionals". As long as your team even achieves to inspire a single person into a technological field or not that's great! NOT you say! what the hell am I talking about? Well I for one believe life is one big decision making process and if I can inspire someone to become an engineer Awesome but if that person realizes that this is not for him/her that's great too. I want to give the students at least the choice prior to college to make that decision instead of wasting time and $$$ and then find out it was not for them and switch majors completely or not even go to college. FIRST is just another program to give students more experience to allow them to make the right decisions for themselves.

As for "partnerships", I can care less if it's with engineers from a high tech company or your local machine shop. They are professionals none-the-less. I would have killed to get this opportunity when I was in HS but I had to wait till I got to college to really find out, and I'm glad I actually love what I do as a mechanical engineer. It's another reason why internships in many careers are available. If I didn't intern at the Federal State Supreme court one summer for a judge I wouldn't have known how boring it really was to me. But at least I worked within the legal system and professionals to gain the experiece to make up my mind.

As far as who designs and builds the robot I say as long as the whole team is involved in the process it doesn't really matter. Our team motto includes that we are a "back to basics team". Out of the 14 years of doing this (7 years personally) we've always focused on "Fit Form & function" and the FIRST objective. As a team you have to choose what path you want to take based on the ever changing resources to reach your goals.

If all our students are able to take every responsibility from every mentor on the team and prove to be the driving force I'd welcome it whole heartedly. I wouldn't mind just showing up to meetings and just answering questions with my feet up on the table but that is not the case pending the type of students and their personalilties. We actively recruit students who we believe would receive the most benefit from this program. For example if someone is already set on a particular career path then they will not be ultimately benefited by this program.

Oh well I could babble on and on about this and the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything but I realized I've become too overly engrossed in this thread which I really shouldn't be.

Ellery

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by phrontist

Questions of manufacturing are a whole other debate (is buying sub-assembiles from AndyMark kosher?) and should remain seperate from this issue.

Keep in mind that "sub-assemblies from AndyMark" could be replaced with "screws from Fastenal", "wheels from MSC" or "car jacks from your local junkyard". Why single out AndyMark, Inc.?

Originally Posted by phrontist

I think the former question is debatable, students being corrected by engineers or observing the thought process of engineers as they engineer solutions to these (fairly easy) problems is arguably more or less inspiring then allowing students to do it alone (with engineers providing lessons at a higher level, or not at all). But I can see no argument in the latter question! How can you recognize students for the performance of a robot they were only paritally responsible for?

If all participating FIRST students were like you, Bjorn, then I would agree with your logic. You already "get" the fact that you need to further your education and you already know that you will end up in some sort of technical career when you enter the workplace. You probably score between 700 and 800 on the math portion of your SAT's. You have good work experience and are probably graduating high in your class. Colleges are lining up to recruit you to come study on their campus. Also, in order to build a competitive FIRST robot, you don't depend on any adult professionals. You really don't need FIRST to inspire you to become a technical whiz.

Believe it or not, many students are not like you. They actually need help to build a competitive robot. To many of them (and us adult mentors), this is a difficult design challenge. They need resources in fabrication, design, and team leadership. They don't have a dad who owns his own engineering firm. Some of these students don't even know what an engineer is. Their only heros are sports figures. For many, FIRST is introducing engineering to them for the first time. I estimate that most FIRST students fit into this category.

Originally Posted by phrontist

You simply cannot have a fair competition of student wits with engineer designed robots on the feild. FIRST needs engineers, not engineer designed robots.

It's the nature of that partnership that is all important, and to my knowledge, unspecified by FIRST. If it is, I'd love to hear it, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for change. FIRST is it's participants, and should change as the people change.

As quoted many time by the FIRST founders, FIRST is a partnership between students and adults. It is also defined here. The fact that you don't agree with this does not justify your demand that FIRST should change to meet your likes. This partnership and involvement from adult engineers is the foundation of FIRST. This is not a competition to only pit students' wits against each other. It never has been. If that is what you seek there are plenty of other great programs offered to satisfy your needs. I suggest you look into these programs instead of changing FIRST for your liking.


Andy B.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

If all participating FIRST students were like you, Bjorn, then I would agree with your logic. You already "get" the fact that you need to further your education and you already know that you will end up in some sort of technical career when you enter the workplace. You probably score between 700 and 800 on the math portion of your SAT's. You have good work experience and are probably graduating high in your class. Colleges are lining up to recruit you to come study on their campus. Also, in order to build a competitive FIRST robot, you don't depend on any adult professionals. You really don't need FIRST to inspire you to become a technical whiz.

People should listen to this Andy Baker character, he seems like a smart guy...

Andy has hit the nail firmly on the head. When I look at these forums, I see some the best and brightest high school students from across North America. As Andy stated, students like Bjorn are near the tops of their classes and already on the fast track to higher education. These students are not a random sample of FIRST. The problem in North America today that FIRST is trying to solve, is that kids don't see the value in becoming an engineer. They don't look up to engineers as role models, it's just another boring career. FIRST was created to change these attitudes, and create a culture where engineers and scientists are valued, and treated like role models. That why this competition was conceived the way it was. By bringing adult engineers into High Schools, kids are able to be inspired by the work that these men and women do. Students who normally wouldn't give engineering a second thought, are now seeing engineers in action. Suddenly, they think to themselves, "Hey that's cool. Maybe I want to do that. Maybe I should take pre calc..."

If you don't have adult technical mentors, this inspiration process can't happen. Dean's said it before, and it's been repeated many times, but it clearly hasn't sunk in yet, so I'll say really loudly.

FIRST is not a science fair!

The FRC is not about determining which high school as the smartest aspiring engineers. Yes, it's not fair to have a bunch high school students on one team competing against a bunch of professional engineers. Clearly the team of professionals is at an advantage. But, it would be silly to exclude them, because they're directly addressing the mission of FIRST, and helping to achieve the desired culture change.

For all those students on teams who have voluntarily given up adult technical support, just remember that not all high school students know much about engineering. In fact, most don't even care about it. Just because you've already been hooked, doesn't mean that everyone else has. Just because you're ready to build a competitive robot on your own, doesn't mean that every other High Schooler is. These kids need to be wowed and inspired, and that's what the adults in FIRST are trying to do. To try and eliminate engineer led teams just so you can have a "fair student competition" is completely selfish. As Andy stated, if that's what you're looking for there are many other competitions out there for you.

I've seen many student only teams do very well over the years. It's not impossible. These teams are a welcome part of FIRST. Each team needs to be tailored to needs, wants and abilities of their students. Just remember just because one shoe fits you, doesn't mean it's going to fit everyone else. And trying to get everyone to wear the same sized shoe in the interest of fairness, is quite frankly, silly.