|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Quote:
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
I know this is a touchy subject for many people but let me explain the way I see this.
1) No company is going to hire a student simply because they worked on a FIRST robot. 2) You can be inspired to be an Engineer without knowing how to build anything. My point is that if a student is very interested in being an Engineer they will go to college to do so. They will learn what they need to know in college. I'm not going to argue that you can't learn as much from FIRST as you can from college, but company's don't care what FIRST team you're from, they care about your degree. FIRST his in place to show you what Engineers do, not to teach you how to be an Engineer. Our Engineer is Richard Wallace, one of the smartest guys I know, and I would not for a second think that he could teach me everything he knows. Nor do I think it is his mission as a mentor to teach me everything he knows. But if he can inspire me by showing me what he does, what is career consists of. THAT is mentorship. You don't have to teach to inspire. Just my opinion. |
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Quote:
If you only understand the ends that someone achieves without understanding the means that got them there, you might get a very wrong impression of what they were doing and whether or not you'd like it. If someone doesn't like math but they like designing/working with robots, a career in marketing or sales might be a better choice than engineering. They'd still get to work with them and perhaps set specs for new robots, but they wouldn't need to deal with the nitty-gritty. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Quote:
Getting back to the thread at hand: Yes, it is great when the students have the time and opportunity to do the majority of the building. However, many schools do not have the time and/or resources to do this. Many lessons can be learned, including how *not* to build a robot from watching the engineers/mentors. (Those of you that saw 1070 at AZ on the first couple of days will know what I'm talking about.) In addition, the engineers/mentors actually get benefits from working on the robots. 1) They refresh their memory on the more basic engineering fundamentals. 2) They learn things outside their area of expertise. 3) They get hands-on experience which is absolutely invaluable. In order to be able to fix a process, you need to be able to see the mechanical issues at hand. In order to design an effective piece of equipment, you must understand how things are machined/manufactured. Don't see FIRST as only being for the students, see it as being for the present engineers/mentors, as well as the future generation. indieFan |
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Well first ill start out by saying that we had 2 robots.
the first one was built 75% mentors, 25% students, but 90% student idea. THe robot stank when we took it to the scrimmage, as it was topheavy and had indigestion (the loaded balls never reached the shooter). so our second robot was about 40% mentors and 60% students, but 100% student idea (at the time of shipping). The robot obviously performed alot better (after we had fixed a major shooter problem) and won us the regionals. I think that the mantors are the ones who take the responsibilty in the pits because the robots have to be fixed fast in rder to be ready for the next match. If we had students fixing our bot, i dont beleive we would be ready for the next 2 matches. the mentors are there when effeiciency of build is needed, as far as design of the bot goes its the students job. |
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
FIRST as an organization makes it so that every choice the team makes is totally up to the team. Therefore, each team is different when it comes to placing control in the hands of the mentors. While a student might learn a lot with 100% student built robot, they would learn even more if they worked with a mentor on a robot. On my team, we use a kind of 'board of directors'- 3 students and 2 mentors who make final decisions on the robot. People from the team can voice their opinions to this group who then choose. Actual physical construction occurs with about 80% student:20% mentor. We seperate our team into different sub-groups, with one or two mentors per 5-7 students. They will tehn show the students how to create the parts if they don't know how, and in general just help them. While I agree that 100% mentor-robots are not the best, I also think that 100% student robots are not the best. Students need examples from the mentors in order to learn.
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Our robot is 98% built by students. We built it in a classroom at our school with an everyday toolbox, a saws-all and some drills. Yet we still came in 23 at the Granite State Regional. I personally hate it when adults try to help. The idea is for students to build the robot. If im around and i see a parent or mentor with a tool i ask what needs to be done and i take the tool away and do it. I dont want to become one of those teams where all the work is done by professional engineers and the whole robot is made with a water jet cutter. We all know teams like that are out there.
|
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Just like Dean has said, or implied, multiple times, this program is for the students.
The students on my team does a vast majority of the work. Mentors are there to keep us on track and do the stuff we aren't capable. Yes, we are spoiled with engineering help, but it's mostly done by the kids. The team captains run the show during design when all of the ideas came from the kids. The mentors step in when things get rough and start to slow down. During the build, the students do all of the CAD drawings and modeling. The kids put the thing together. We do ask for help making a part. This year, we fell behind and the mentors actually threatened to build the robot. Yes, it was a threat. The students do all of the animating on the animation team. The one mentor we have for that trains the new students how to use 3d Studio Max. Programming is done by the students as well. When things get complex and the students need help, the mentors are asked. Just like everything else. We don't care if our robot does well or not. The important thing is that we did it, not the adults. We're going to try to not rely so much on the mentors when it comes to making parts next year. There are going to be classes held training students how to use the mill, lathe, and other power tools, as well as a welder. Quote:
![]() People were amazed that we broke our shooter in one match, then had a whole new replacement in by the next. Last edited by Dan Petrovic : 16-03-2006 at 18:22. |
|
#24
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Quote:
These mentors are there so that you can strive to do well and perform professionally, and heck to hopefully teach you as much as they can along the way. Its definitely OK to learn proper methods of doing things along the way, and who better to teach you than a person who does it for a living. There are teams out there who have there bots water jet and cnced and what not just search " How we cut. " But even without professionals that will always exist there are schools with full machine shops and students who know how to use them. There are many teams who come up with very professional pieces of work that don't have much to work with and not much engineering influence. However, I'd rather have a job done right than by a student any day. If the student can do the job right than by all means I let them do it, but if he can't then you must do it properly otherwise no one gains anything from this situation. The fact of the matter is if we spend to much time complaining about our situations, then we've achieved nothing. If we work hard learn as much as we can and inspire as many as we can, then you've lost nothing. The measure of a successful man ( or team ) is not where he's gotten to, but where he's come from to get there. If you measure yourself by how much you were able to accomplish then you can never be unsuccessful. |
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
I have to say that I have done quite a lot of thinking on this subject.
My team, the Who'sCTEKS, is primarily a "student-work" oriented team. With guidance from one engineer and several other adult mentors, about 90% of the robot is student fabricated. The only items we do not machine in our shop are the parts for our custom transmissions. The only reason we do not make these in the shop is because we simply don't have the machining capability to do so. With that said, our team has a pretty straight forward philosophy when it comes to allowing students to do work. Any student is welcome to work on a project, as long as they are qualified and/or willing to learn how to do it. Our mentors care very much about letting students gain hands-on experience. Even if this means that the robot will not be 100% perfect, our mentors still encourage us to get our "hands dirty", so that we can have a chance to use and develop our problem solving skills. Personally, I agree with what many other people have said already - it is up to the team to decide on the structure that will allow them to best "inspire" the students. In the end, I think a healthy mix of both mentor input and student input creates the most functional team. A team with no technical mentors will have a harder time trying to learn how to design, fabricate, and troubleshoot properly. Likewise, a team who has mostly technical mentors doing the work will have difficulty teaching the students how to do the same things. In this way, both extremes result in similar problems. A student who never had a mentor to teach them will have just as much difficulty answering questions during inspection as a student who was never allowed to touch the robot. On a team where mentors actively guide the students, but still allow them to use their own problem solving skills, students are much more likely to come away with greater theoretical knowledge as well as hands-on experience. This is how my team has been run, and it has been a wonderful experience for me. I have had experience on both ends of the spectrum, however. I have done numerous independent engineering projects where I became very frustrated because there was no one there to guide me. For example, in my freshman year we had to independently build a mini race-car to compete at the science fair. I had alot of very good ideas for it, but became frustrated once I started building because I didn't have the technical knowledge to make it work. Years later, after gaining much more experience, I know what I did wrong and what I should have done to make it work. But back then, I would have been very grateful to have someone who could have guided me towards the right solution. In terms of the ability to inspire, there is no doubt that teams from all over the spectrum have been able to inspire students to choose careers in science and technology. However, I do think that the best way to inspire is through guided learning. It is frustrating and discouraging to not have anyone to mentor you, but at the same time, it is also discouraging when you are not even given a chance to learn for yourself. Discouragement does not amount to inspiration. In my opinion, the best way to inspire is to provide a hands-on, yet rewarding, guided learning experience for any student who shows a desire to learn. -- Jaine |
|
#26
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Team 66's build components:
-100% Student and Mentor Design concept (50/50) It is a very good and educational blend -Roughly 75% of the frame is student built. All the parts are cut, and screwed together by students, and partly done by mentors. -Electrical, the team has not really had a student really interested in doing that in a long time, so that is a void the engineers fill. But, if a student wants to learn about it and do some of the hands on stuff, I am more than sure the mentors would be willing to make some room for them. -Programming: I am one of the programmers on the team. What I basically get is updated programming stuff from the adult programmer, and I read it and try to make sense of it, and if I spot a possible problem, I tell them. The mentor on our team uses english a lot in his programming, so interpreting it is not very hard at all. Just an understanding of how C works is required. The result is that I have been given the capability to build programs if I ever wanted to. It doesn't have to be robotics related, I could do it right now due to how good the mentoring is. -CAD: there are some conflicts here primarily with the school cirriculum, which uses Autocad and Inventor, and GM, which uses something call CADkey I think. However, from what I've seen the engineers do with the CAD there, I am 100% sure it can be done in AutoCAD and inventor, if not easier than in their software (no offense to GM by any means). It all comes down to the FIRST program and student ambition. If the program is set up right where the resources are available to learn what students want to learn without screwing up the robot, 2 thumbs up. Same if the students want to build themselves. The learning experiences available are ~ equal. However, it is ultimately what the student makes of it that will slant their P.O.V. |
|
#27
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Quote:
I'd like to request that this thread be moderated, as it has started to have very vague and general accusations thrown around, without reason or facts. Not to mention that some previous threads on this topic have become or almost become flame wars. |
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Being a mentor on 233, 1592, and 1897, I have seen both extremes first hand. They both have their pros and cons. With 233, students get to see what is possible with today’s top of the line machinery, and engineering expertise. They get to be involved in operating an amazing machine, and get inspired. With team 1592, and 1897, students learn how to use regular hand tools, how to troubleshoot problems, and how to stick with the process even when their designs don’t work as plans, and overall, get inspired. With both of the rookie team that I helped start (1592 –2005 Florida Champs, and 1897 - 2006 Arizona Champs) we try to have the students do as much as possible, teach them as much as possible, but make sure in the end that they have something that they can compete with. This approach has proven to be a recipe for success for us, and it is always fun to beat the “233’s” of the world with our homemade bots. With that said, I think USFIRST is great because of the diversity in how each team runs their program, and as long as students learn in the end and become inspired, I believe that all these methods create learning opportunities for students.
~Shea~ |
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
Our robot is 98% done by students because we had a mentor help with the panals on our harvester. Our instructor only helped with supplying his garage for a weekend build and make certain cuts with big panels on the table saw with whatever measurements we make. But in general, students completely designed and built the bot and our instructor would stand by with helpful advice and take care of financial things of the team. There's no scheduling build times. If the students want to build, they build. We just have to tell our teacher we're working on the robot and he'll keep the shop open for us.
|
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Percentage of Work Done by Students.
I agree with the idea that the mentors should only really come in if you're doing something stupid, or with general advice like, "You might want to try putting a washer on that", or "watch out for side loads on those bearings." In fact, the parts that were mostly student built (drivetrain, electrical) this year were the most reliable, finished the quickest, and performed the best. And, I know I learned more and was more inspired by "have you thought about using and X because Y and Z", than "here's what we're going to do." And, if inspiration isn't the point what is?
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| When do mentors go too far? | Spikey | General Forum | 95 | 08-01-2009 14:22 |
| Who built your robot? | Wayne Doenges | General Forum | 101 | 14-02-2003 23:24 |
| Need Help, from high school students for research | Steve Shade | General Forum | 0 | 24-02-2002 22:18 |