Student / Mentor, desgn/build Poll

[gburlison]

I voted, mentor designed/student built. I believe it is the best of two bad choices. As many have said, it is hard to design something that you have never built. As an electrical engineer, I have little practical experience in mechanical design. I remember the first thing that I designed in inventer. I spent a lot of time chamfering edges, filleting angles, in general making it look good. It was impossible to machine with the tools we had available.
By learning how things are made, a designer is better able to create workable designs in the future. I think that the best system would be for new team members (students and adults) to learn how to build the robot, and veteran team members (students and adults) can design the robot. This provides a progression from the novice to the expert and helps students learn how to be mentors, since the veteran students can be mentors to the new members as they learn how to build the robot.

[AmyPrib]

I vote neither. Because this topic has been discussed very thoroughly very recently and I don't like repeating myself.

See the 8pg Baker thread - which ironically was brought back to light the last couple days.

[JohnBoucher]

Compromise. One of the most important "skills" we learn in FIRST is to compromise. One of the keys to a successful team is to teach BOTH students and mentors to compromise.

My favorite part of my "what FIRST is all about" rant/speech is talking about the six weeks. Watch the reaction that people have when you tell them what your team has accomplished and will accomplish in six weeks. (Correction for those that are not in New England... Six weeks minus a minimum of 4 snow days) In the outside world, six weeks is nothing. We cannot do what we do without compromise.

Students need to learn what to ask of their mentors and the mentors need to learn that they are not the ones standing on that field with that robot.

Compromise

[Not2B]

Bah... no answer is good. I voted for engineer designed, student built.
Why?
1) Forces the engineers to remember they need to design for a set of builders who DON'T have the skills, knowledge, or ablities to design something amazing. Sometimes we design stuff that is just too complex.

2) Forces the students, many who have never picked up a drill, to see what all goes into building a complex device. The hope is that they learn what kind of amazing skill is needed to build something, so when they are designing something in the future, they don't make it too complex.

Of course I can also see it from the other side of the coin - this is just what I thought.

Cheers

[KenWittlief]

I would draw the line between design and build by looking at the engineering design cycle:

1. there is a problem to be solved. 1st you must clearly define the problem (understand it), understand WHY this system you are designing is needed, and specify WHAT your system will need to do in order to be an effective solution. This is design. (example: last year we decide our bot needed to pick tetras up off the floor and place them on the goals - this is WHAT our robot will do)

2. you brainstorm ways to create a system, and you decide HOW your system will do the WHAT. (example: we will create a robot with two wheel drive, with an arm that raises up and down, and with a claw. This is HOW our bot will pick up tetras and place them on the goal) this is still design.

3. you break up the system into mechanical, electrical, SW, sensors, user interface, and go through the WHY, WHAT and HOW for each of these subsystems. This is still design

4. you create drawings and SW algorithms, wireing diagrams, sensor schematics... of what needs to be built. This is still design

5. you have your subsystems fabricated and assembled: this is finally the build stage.

6. you test the system to see how it works, and if necessary go back to any previous point in the design cycle to make adjustments or modifications.

OK, looking at it from this perspective: how many students want to 'only' do design work, and how many only want to 'build' the robot?

BTW, there are 6 steps here, and for a well disciplined team, each step should take about a week!

[lukevanoort]

Well, from a purely competitive point of view, student built makes more sense. Since there are more students (I hope), the chances of not having one that worked on apart and can fix it are much lower. So, for durability, the students building seems to be a better alternative. But, we must remember that creativity peaks at ~13, so student designs would be, on average, better if they had the same knowledge/experience. So, say, if the student browses CD, and reads tech books and specializes in an area specific to FIRST, then designs in that area they would probably be more creative.

[Kyle A]

I did not vote.I would have voted though is there was a student design/ student built option. But if I had to vote i would probably go for ....... Well I guess i have to think it over a bit.

I believe another option should be considered. Our team, for expample, has a rule that the mentors never touch the robot. Thus, our robot is designed and built by students (and we learn more).

[gburlison]

Originally Posted by 114ManualLabor

I believe another option should be considered. Our team, for expample, has a rule that the mentors never touch the robot. Thus, our robot is designed and built by students (and we learn more).

I think some people are overlooking the intent of this poll. The question was not, "What is the best way for the team to build a robot?" This poll is supposed to be, "Pick what you think is the best of two almost equally bad choices and if you want to, tell us why."
Its kind of like asking:
"What is better, chocolate or peanut butter?
and all of the answers are: "Peanut butter and chocolate mixed together is the best".
While this is a still a good answer, it doesn't answer the question.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by gburlison

I think some people are overlooking the intent of this poll. The question was not, "What is the best way for the team to build a robot?" This poll is supposed to be, "Pick what you think is the best of two almost equally bad choices and if you want to, tell us why."
Its kind of like asking:
"What is better, chocolate or peanut butter?
and all of the answers are: "Peanut butter and chocolate mixed together is the best".
While this is a still a good answer, it doesn't answer the question.

I think that the question as asked is unreasonable. I will not choose between two bad options when a better one is available. FIRST is about partnerships, and neither of the available responses recognizes that.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by gburlison

I think some people are overlooking the intent of this poll. ...
This poll is supposed to be, "Pick what you think is the best of two almost equally bad choices ...

seeing that you are not the person who posted the poll, dont you feel a little odd telling us what his intent was

or what the poll is suppose to be?

[gburlison]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

seeing that you are not the person who posted the poll, dont you feel a little odd telling us what his intent was

or what the poll is suppose to be?

Since I dont know Steve W personally, I assumed that the statement:

Originally Posted by Steve W

I am posing 1 question with only 2 answers allowed.

Meant: I am posing 1 question with only 2 answers allowed.

Since most of the responses were a 3rd answer, I assumed that those people were missing the intent of the question. I have since seen the error of my ways and have decided to interpret the statement as:

Pay no attention to what I asked, just tell me what you think.

[seanwitte]

Of the two bad options, how can anyone pick Mentor Designed/Student Built? Do we want students leaving the program to feel like engineers or machinists? In the current global economy, which do you think is more valuable: the person designing the product or the person building it? I would rather see a team spend 5 weeks on design, have THEIR parts made for them, and spend a day assembling than spend 1 week on design and the rest at the mill. Fabrication is fun and rewarding and requires skill, but it should not be the primary focus.

That said, FIRST is not life. As an adult volunteer its fun to get in there an get my hands dirty since its not part of my regular job. I'm sure most other adults feel the same way. The third obvious, but unavailable, answer is full collaboration throughout the lifecycle.

[Adam Richards]

Originally Posted by seanwitte

Of the two bad options, how can anyone pick Mentor Designed/Student Built? Do we want students leaving the program to feel like engineers or machinists? In the current global economy, which do you think is more valuable: the person designing the product or the person building it? I would rather see a team spend 5 weeks on design, have THEIR parts made for them, and spend a day assembling than spend 1 week on design and the rest at the mill. Fabrication is fun and rewarding and requires skill, but it should not be the primary focus.

That said, FIRST is not life. As an adult volunteer its fun to get in there an get my hands dirty since its not part of my regular job. I'm sure most other adults feel the same way. The third obvious, but unavailable, answer is full collaboration throughout the lifecycle.

Alright then, here's a hypothetical situation for the two bad answers:

Rookateam just started this year. They have no clue what they're supposed to build. Their engineerig sponsor, Bigasponsor, has sponsored another team in the past, and knows what the average robot for FIRST looks like.

Who probably should design a basic concept, Rookateam's student members who have no idea nothing about engineering and will have Bigasponsor build off their plans, or Bigasponsor's engineers who know what they're doing and will have Rookateam build off their plans?



Learning through mistake takes much more time than learning through example, and the mistakes have probably already been made by others who are willing to share their lessons.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Adam Richards

Alright then, here's a hypothetical situation for the two bad answers:

Rookateam just started this year. They have no clue what they're supposed to build. Their engineerig sponsor, Bigasponsor, has sponsored another team in the past, and knows what the average robot for FIRST looks like.

Who probably should design a basic concept, Rookateam's student members who have no idea nothing about engineering and will have Bigasponsor build off their plans, or Bigasponsor's engineers who know what they're doing and will have Rookateam build off their plans?

The answer depends on whether you think FIRST is:

A. a contest to see which sponsor/HS team can build the best box stacking, ball handling, tetra flinging... robot in the world or

2. A program designed to show students what its like to be an engineer, by doing actual engineering for several weeks.

?

If the goal is to build the best robot in the world, then there should be no students on the team AT ALL! let them come to the competition and watch professional battlebots games, and then go home inspired.

The mentors / sponsors goal determines how their team is organized and run.