Corporations Build Robots

[aaeamdar]

Throughout my two-going-on-three years of participation in FIRST I've heard mutterings about teams whose basic setup is to have the associated corporate sponsor build the robot. So, I had a few questions about this:

1. Does this actually happen, or is it just a rumor that keeps circulating?

2. Is this something that is talked about in the community? In other words, is this post unbelievably awkward?

3. I understand that this is accepted by FIRST, the organization. But is it accepted by FIRST, the teams? The students, mentors, and parents that make up the teams? Basically, there are two parts to this question. First, if you want to personally answer feel happy to do so (better than just feeling free). Second, if you want to answer what you think many other people would say, or something in that vein, also please fell happy to do that.

I understand that FIRST does not provide a model for how teams are supposed to run; I'm not claiming this is some sort of rule violation, I'm just asking, well, the above questions.

Thanks,
Paul Dennis

P.S.: I did search through the forums, but found nothing that seemed to answer my question. If anyone can point me to a thread where this was previously discussed or help me refine my search terms, I'd be much obliged.

[synth3tk]

Hmm, this is news to me. Elaborate, someone?

[AndyB]

I don't think the controversy has been so much over corporation built robots but more-so the common debate surrounding mentor built robots. Many mentors represent business's though so this is possibly where this came from.

I know there isn't a place in the FIRST rule book prohibiting this from taking place. I am not going to argue that students do not still learn something from watching a build rather than building it themselves.

However, in my opinion, it is more beneficial for students to receive hands-on-learning. If you watching the whole time, why not just watch the discovery channel all day, or read a text book. If there is a student that wants to get involved hand's on, I don't see any reason why there should be any limit to his ambition. Then again, that's just how I've expierienced it. I have never worked in an environment where I've had to do everything myself without mentor aid, or in an environment where learning was occurring while observing.

[EricH]

AndyB is correct; this does partially fall under mentor/student build ratio discussions. It is also not prohibited from happening.

blakcheez, Paul is referring to a rumor that pops up from time to time that a given team (which team depends on who starts the rumor) has not included the students in their design and manufacturing at all. This is usually proven false as soon as it is introduced.

To answer Paul's questions:

1) I believe it's just a rumor and will continue to think so until it is proved true. I certainly hope that it never is. (personal opinion)

2) Not usually. The most common occurrence is an accusation. I think that your post is fine for now, as it could spark some healthy debate. As soon as it turns into an accusation/flame/mentor vs. student built thread, then it should be closed.

3) Personally, I don't think this helps the students at all. Unless the design process is explained to them, they are not really participating other than driving the robot. That would be like grabbing Joe-off-the-street to drive in NASCAR, or worse, lead the pit crew for that NASCAR team. He doesn't know a thing about performance increasers, race strategy, etc. The students don't really learn what being an engineer means. Chances are, they won't be inspired. (May be exceptions, of course.)

3b) I'm going to go out on a thick limb and say that a team that actually did something like this would be looked upon with displeasure by the FIRST community as a whole. This is based on the "mentor vs student built" threads and the large consensus toward a 50-50 split or fully student built robots expressed in them.

[Nawaid Ladak]

looks like FIRST needs it's onw MItchell Report... i'll just leave it at that

[Jonathan Norris]

This discussion falls under the mentor/student ratio debate which is by far one of the most heated debates in FIRST that can spark some fires from time to time.

Just a warning to take a look at older threads discussing this topic, if you feel you have anything more to add to the discussion feel free, but this is one of those topics that has been beaten over the head a couple times.

[Pavan Dave]

1. I think it does happen. This debate is brought up every year...

2. Usually topics are "hinted" at specific teams and these threads happen around the 6-wk robot "show off" period as well as after regionals/Atlanta.

3. FIRST is not about making engineers, its about inspiring people to become engineers, if not than at the very least it is about respecting engineers. ... I don't think this can be lawyered anymore than that? Just being part of a winning team can boost a person's spirit so if this false win (false because the students had very little to do with the robot itself) converts them to engineers than FIRST's overall mission is complete, right?

[=Martin=Taylor=]

I really don't care what other teams do, so long as they aren't blatantly cheating and ruining my team's FIRST experience.

I don't think an all engineer team would have much of an advantage over some seriously dedicated, smart, and talented students.

(Shady wiring practices, extra motors, little wedges, purposefully whacking other robots with arms, thats basically my list of don'ts)

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

(Shady wiring practices...)

Expand?

[BBnum3]

What you are talking about has almost definitely happened, but very rarely and I would think more in the past than currently. I seem to remember some horror stories (I think they were about old MN FIRST teams) where a team had to give their robot back to their sponsor at the end of the season to be dismantled because the company apparently didn't want their designs to be copied. I am not sure of the details of that situation, but it is an uncommon one.

I think the proliferation of teams has made it harder for big corporations (especially those who sponsor many teams) to be highly involved in the robot building process.

[Nawaid Ladak]

like i said in my post before, maybe FIRST needs to have someone independent run a report looking into this. I think it would be worth our time to do this and be better for the future of FIRST. Just like what happend with baseball today, maybe FIRST, or some of us should look into this

btw: this is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth to you

btw: anybody notice how none of the bigger teams have posted yet with the exception of 330?
(Eric gets some respect from me for his post.)

EDIT: my avove point was taken care of: many more big teams have responded.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I think this is an issue that needs to be carefully and sensitively addressed as FIRST expands and more and more teams are formed. To focus on one aspect of your question - I would like to point out what exactly corporate involvement might entail.

Corporate sponsorship of the technical sort is a different boat from standard small-organization sponsorship (e.g., a local company that earns a spot on the back of the team shirt). Let's look at some of the potential situations...

- Sheer monetary support: A corporate sponsor may fund the trip and registration fees for a team, or some of the material costs.
- Mentor support - an engineering firm (or university!) may provide a volunteer engineer who works with the team to provide support and teach key lessons to students.
- Ongoing interaction - This might be a step above the standard "providing an engineer" situation. The company might invite the students for tours, provide the team information on upcoming / unique internship application opportunities, or request to be represented at competition.

- Technical Interaction - Here is the clincher. Technical interaction could come in a lot of forms. A company may go from offering workspace to constructing the robot entirely, and that is the grey area. There are so many options for the company (listed above) that I feel can be more mutually profitable - without taking over the key task of this competition, the company can gain a valuable and talented potential future workforce, and / or a great deal of PR.

So yes, maybe this overwhelming involvement happens once in a rare while. However, there are so many ways that it doesn't lead to success, that I feel the problem has, in some ways, fixed itself over time while FIRST as a program remained smaller and more intimate. However, rookie teams now have a lot more experience to draw from, a lot more potential veterans in the area, and maybe, just maybe, a more solid image of what students alone are capable of in that short six week period in January and February.

[artdutra04]

Before we let our own personal convictions turn this thread instantly into a 200-posts-in-two-hours-type-thread, let's take a step back for a second and think about this.

FIRST makes no intention of telling teams how to run themselves. FIRST does not tell teams what hours to meet during or after school, or what brand of tools to build their robot with, or what food to eat during the build season.

There's a reason for this, and that's the certain level of responsibility and self-reliance that is laid upon every FIRST team to govern themselves and operate in the manner which they feel is most conducive to carrying out FIRST's goals of inspiring students.

I don't think any rules explaining exactly how teams can/should govern themselves are necessary, since overwhelming mentorship is a self-limiting in a team. If the students aren't being inspired in some sense (whether it's for engineering itself or just a greater respect and recognition of science and technology in general), they aren't having fun. If they aren't having fun, then why participate in robotics? If there are no students, there is no team.

Just remember, while you may prefer student-built or mentor built (or a combination of the two), there will always be teams who stand by the opposite, since that's the way they feel is best to inspire their students. Instead of opening up this same discussion for the ∞ + 1th time, let's just come to a conclusion that if students are being inspired by both models, we should just accept the fact that there is more than one road to success, and that as a community let's move onwards.

[Mike Schroeder]

My opinion :

WHO CARES

get the game, do what ever your team does to compete, what ever it is , lock yourselves in a shop for 6 weeks till its done, lock some engineers in a shop for 6 weeks, work together to build the robot it doesn't matter just do it

FIRST like life is what you make of it, if you would rather go through FIRST worrying about what other teams do to make their robots, then your destined for disappointment. if you go through FIRST making the most of it doing the best you and your team can then it doesn't matter what other teams do.


that is all

[Cory]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

btw: anybody notice how none of the bigger teams have posted yet with the exception of 330?
(Eric gets some respect from me for his post.)

Why should we?

I think collectively those "bigger" teams that do well every year have no reason nor need to defend themselves.

P.S. This comment turns the thread from discussion about the original topic to which teams have mentors build their robots. There's plenty of other threads that have done this, and they all have one thing in common--they've been closed.