GP? I think not.

[Lil' Lavery]

Something I meant to post earlier, but somehow forgot.
The counter-argument is that the points raised by the initial responses (first page or so) we're "cliché" and they've been stated before. The reason you've heard them before is because they have merit. While there is often a certain degree of idealism in these arguments, they have a valid point and are backed by solid logic, and often evidence.
Even though 116 is the NASA HQ team, 116 has never been entirely mentor driven (nor has 116 been entirely student driven). In 2003 116 finished dead last (63rd of 63) at the NASA/VCU Regional, behind a team that never uncrated their robot. 116 doesn't pretend that this was the most fun they've ever had, but they don't regret the experience either. In 2004 116 returned to the NASA/VCU regional and defeated eventual 2004 FIRST Champion Team 435 in the quarter-finals. Let me re-iterate that point. 116 went from placing last place to beating the FIRST Champions in the span of one year.
Even the best can be beat.
Every single "elite" or "superpower" FIRST team I have had the pleasure and privilege of inter-acting with has been extraordinarily gracious and professional. Following a successful and proven design process is not in any means unfair, but rather good engineering. Some have even made their design process and philosophy open to the public (1114 has even posted theirs on their website). Almost any will be willing to talk to you about theirs if you ask them.

[Jared Russell]

Every team has the right to run their build process in whatever way that they see fit.

That's part of the beauty of FIRST. As long as the people in charge are thinking about what is best for the kids, there are any number of ways to approach build.

Do students get interested in science and technology by working closely with a large number of engineering professionals? Absolutely.

Do kids get interested in science and technology by working on the machine with more freedom and less supervision? Absolutely.

Two different philosophies, and both of them work. The first shows students the power of engineering - what professionals can do. The result is amazing machines year after year. The second lets students get more of a feeling of accomplishment - which is just as important. The result is pride that will never go away. Both are important.

Engineer-dominated teams tend to win blue banners and get the "oohs" and "ahhs" from the crowd. Student-led teams have different sorts of achievement criteria - kids who have never made a moving machine before have conquered a challenge no less impressive than a team of veteran engineers who can help win a regional.

Now, Chief Delphi is populated by far more of the former type of team. We go on here and praise the technical achievements of corporate teams. While some of what gets built in FIRST is truly amazing, I do think that we all tend to forget about the remaining 90% of FIRST whose major accomplishment is just having a robot at competition.

Anyhow - in closing:

There is no one "right" way to run a FIRST team. Both engineer- and student-led approaches are valid and have their merits.

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Every single "elite" or "superpower" FIRST team I have had the pleasure and privilege of inter-acting with has been extraordinarily gracious and professional. Following a successful and proven design process is not in any means unfair, but rather good engineering. Some have even made their design process and philosophy open to the public (1114 has even posted theirs on their website). Almost any will be willing to talk to you about theirs if you ask them.

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

For me, F.I.R.S.T. has been about helping all of us to rise to a higher level and achieve our potential. I saw this from the leaders and mentors on our team when I joined several years ago. Our mentors would willing help other teams rebuild on the spot and improve their machine. One year, we had a student help another team write their control code and got them running. I continue to see it from the "elite" and "superpowers" at every event we attend; we have been the beneficiary of some excellent help, including this year. This is what is different about F.I.R.S.T., this is gracious professionalism, do your best and help others do their best.

[ManicMechanic]

DanTod97,
Not every program is the right fit for every person. If you have a deep philosophical difference with a program, there are basically 3 options:

1. Try to work with the leadership of the program to change the philosophy. This is probably not going to happen in FRC -- the involvement of mentors is such an important component, this issue has been addressed so many times, and the conclusion has come back again and again to keep things as they are.

2. Try to accommodate yourself to the program. Tell yourself, "I don't like A, but B and C are so good that I'll tolerate it."

3. If the philosophical is divide is so different that you can't reconcile it, find a different program that is a closer fit to your philosophy. There are many other robotics programs out there: BEST, Robofest, Vex (now independent from FIRST), and FTC, for starters. Last year's FTC (formerly FVC) Championship Inspire and Winning Alliance captain was entirely without adult mentorship. Even in Atlanta, the all-student team came without a single adult to pay the bills and carry the snacks.

Our team was offered a NASA scholarship for FRC 3 years ago, but we knew it wasn't the right fit for us. We explored FVC/FTC instead and have had 3 wonderful seasons.