For Mentors Only: Inspiring Youth

[dhitchco]

In the process of trying to inspire youth as well as inspiring fellow mentors, I am reminded of one thing:

In corporate life, it's a careful balancing act:
Product Quality
Product Cost
Product Schedule

You can have supurb-quality products that are "late to market" and cost too much and will FAIL

You can also have products that ship to meet the schedule (e.g. the holiday rush) but that have terrible quality and safety issues.

So, I find inspiration in students and mentors when you can look YOURSELF in the mirror and say "I did it all....quality, cost, and on time"

You have noone to impress but yourself........isn't it called "self-engraciating"?

[Taylor]

It is a delicate balancing act - when do we allow the students to try something we know will fail, but the experience will make them better. Especially this close to the end of the build, we as mentors are taking a more aggressive approach to putting forth our ideas. Not because of ego, not because of pride, but because time is an (the) issue and, at this point, our greatest foe.
I am in a unique position in that I am sponsoring a second-year team, but this is my first year with FIRST. I was able to attend the IRI in 2005, so I have a taste of what a FIRST competition is. However, as a teacher new to the school system and new to the programs, my knowledge of robotics is rather limited, so I try to apply common sense as a problem solver as I can. I know that I have learned ten times more from the students as they have from me. But the one thing I do believe I understand is the FIRST philosophy - gracious professionalism, co-opetition, celebrations of group successes and failures ("failures are a great thing, especially when they happen early" - Andy Baker), etc.
Before the school year started, I sat down with the returning team members and asked what they wanted out of this year. Their #1 concern was that the 2005 robot was completely student-designed and student-built, and they'd like that to continue. We as mentors are exactly that - the proverbial "guide to the side" rather than "sage on the stage". We must understand that FIRST is about recognizing innovations in science and technology from the youth. We've had our glory days, now it's our opportunity to pass on the values, virtues, and legacies on to the next generation of problem solvers. I think that some of the ego issues come about when individuals lose sight of the fact that FIRST teams are exactly that - teams. As I peruse CD forums, there are countless references to team 71 in 1999 or 230 in 2002 or 45 in 1776. I have yet to come across anything that said "remember that one blonde kid from 234 in 2000 and how great his design was?"
The purpose of FIRST is not to win awards or championships or become a hall-of-fame team. These are fringe benefits to a strong work ethic, positive attitude, and fun environment. Life's a journey, not a destination.
I want to add that I am cognizant of the fact that I am a newcomer to FIRST, that I undoubtedly do not and cannot see all that FIRST is, was, should be or will become, and in the grand scheme, my opinion is negligible. But I do know that I have the charge of growing a young team into one that is respected, well-liked, and successful (and hopefully has working robots). By sharing my thoughts with the CD community, I hope to gain a greater knowledge of my role, of FIRST as an institution, and feedback and friendships from trusted and renowned authorities on the subjects at hand.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by boiler

It is a delicate balancing act - when do we allow the students to try something we know will fail, but the experience will make them better.

That is a tough question. Ive seen so many engineering prototypes or concept demonstrations in which the designer shows you a system that is sort of doing what he says it can do

and there is always a reason why its not working exactly right (when we get the real optics the image will not be blurry, the real electronics wont glitch like that, its overheating but we will use a bigger fan....). When you hand them a bunch of money, and they build the 'real' system, guess what? The problems are still there.

An engineer should be able to tell you if something is going to work or not before it is built. Every system has inputs and outputs. If you cannot explain clearly how the outputs are derived from the inputs, then you have not thought things through all the way.

There is a time for tinkering and building mockups and experimenting, but at this point in the project you should have a clear path to a functional robot.

Small failures and setbacks along the way are ok, as long as you have a plan B. Showing up at a regional with a fancy 130 pound statue violates the prime directive for mentors: no matter what, dont let your team fail (show up at a regional with dead robot).

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Small failures and setbacks along the way are ok, as long as you have a plan B. Showing up at a regional with a fancy 130 pound statue violates the prime directive for mentors: no matter what, dont let your team fail (show up at a regional with dead robot).

I agree completely. Some time ago, someone posted a survey asking if the robot should be student-designed and mentor-built, or mentor-designed and student-built -- no other choices, pick one. To me, FIRST isn't an advanced shop class, better have the kids design it.

Originally Posted by Mike Shaul

I would have to agree with the sentiment that you can't allow things to just magically appear for the students, if they don't do it, we CAN'T do it for them.

In general I agree, but there is some room for exceptions. It's extremely important to have the kids see what goes into fabricating a part, including having them fabricate it themselves wherever possible. On occasion, we come across something that simply cannot be fashioned in the limited shop at the school, so it might be taken home or to work where the facilities are better. But, this is rare, and should remain so.

But the main point is this: If there comes a time where you, the mentor, must step in and guide the kids more aggressively, then do so. Let them fail until you hit the pointo of no return, and then prop them up. Like Asimov's 1st law, a [mentor] cannot harm a [team] or through inaction cause a [team] to be harmed.

It is a difficult balancing act - we're engineers because we like to solve problems, and to take a step back and let someone else solve it, with what may be a poorer solution, is darn hard. Letting a kid cut it, then cut it again ("it's still too short!"), when you're running ,ow on materials, is darn hard. BUT, if that's the last (or only) piece, and it's essential and more cannot be had before ship date, then make darn sure it doesn't get ruined, even if you have to do it for them. Hate it, tell them you hate it, but...

Don't let them fail at the end.

My 2 cents.
Don

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

Don't let them fail at the end.

Don

Failure is relative. Losing a match, or even a tournament may be a short term faliure, but lead to important lessons that lead to even greater success.

In 1999, the rookie team I mentored finished 192/212 at the Nats. The next year they won the Nats. There would of been no success in 2000, if not for the 'failures' of 99. What is the hardest thing for a mentor to do, is let them learn through 'small' failures, so that they can build upon small successes, and finally 'big' success. Guess what? There are very few big failures in FIRST competiton. A big "failure" is not shipping a robot. Fortunately, this happens very rarely.


In my book, if you as a mentor/coach, have got your team to ship a robot and show up at the competition. You're a big success. As a matter of fact, if you're alive, breathing, and reading this, a million, billion things had to succeed to get you here, starting from the big bang 15 billion years ago. So relax and have fun, and don't sweat the small stuff!