GP? I think not.

[GaryVoshol]

Is there Robot Envy? Certainly - everyone would love a slick-looking well-executing machine.

Is there Budget Envy? Who wouldn't want a $40,000+ budget that some teams have?

Is there Mentor Envy? Sure, but there are only so many Karthiks, Copiolis, Bakers and V-Neun's to go around.

But does this create despair? Not for me, and that's because of a very different mindset in FIRST - those that have help those that lack, those that can help those that can't. Rather than sink into despiration, we can choose to seek inspiration from those around us. And if we happen to beat a 33 or a 65 or a 47 in a match or two, that's icing on the cake.

As a parent, I'm very happy for the amount of hands-on activity my daughter and her teammates get. This team seems to have more direct student involvement than some other teams have. Yet we respect the contributions the mentors make. The students, and the non-engineering parents, realize that the ability to weild a screwdriver or power drill is important, but that doesn't drive the program. The ability to understand the engineering principles behind designs as explained by the mentors is worth even more. And as the students learn, they contribute their design ideas to the pool that becomes the robot. Not to mention the Chairmans, the fundraising, programming, and all the other sub-groups that make up a team.

It's my opinion that this team structure is the best for this team. Leav has his opinions. Other teams have their own opinions. The success of any of the programs cannot be determined by the robot performance on the field. The success will come much later, after inspired students go on to get degrees and they themselves begin designing or building or medicating or teaching or mentoring in their careers. The success of a now-17-year-old program will be felt many 17's of years later.

It may be a cliche, but inspiration comes in many flavors, and inspiring the students to change the culture is what this is all about.

[Joe G.]

I, like Leav, have seen both sides of this.

To put my view on this into one sentance: "Students make the decisions, mentors help make the decisions informed, students build as much as possible, but when it comes down to the monday before shipdate, who really cares if the guy with the drill is in high school or not" Read on for a description of why

(Warning: Epic description of FIRST experience follows.)

I started FIRST in 4th grade, with a rookie FLL team. I had owned a mindstorms set for a year and a half, so I had some idea what I was doing. However, we were unable to build an effective robot, due to starting the competition epically late, and various misinterpretations of the rules. We saw many other teams scoring very effectively, which inspired us to continue. We didn't score a single point throughout the competition, but I remember, as I left the gym, saying "I can't wait until next year." I was inspired, not through personal success, but through watching what is possible to do.

Over the next five years, I remained in FLL, doing better each year. Our team consisted of 5-7 kids each year, selected largely on how much, after seeing a past robot, they went "oh wow." We had no mentors, only two parents who knew little of engineering, and served mostly to help with team organization. However, at each competition, I began feeling a lot like you do. There were teams there who had MIT professors build there robot, with kids who clearly did not know basic information about their robot, who would win. I began thinking: Why should that be allowed. We, a group of 12-year olds, built a competitive robot by ourselves, why should they be able to do that? If we can do it ourselves, why not them? I still maintain that these teams did not act correctly, but read on.

We did very well in FLL, winning our state tournament in 2004, and making it to the 2005 world championship, where we placed 19th. At the time, we felt that this proved our feelings about student built robots to be valid. And to a certain extent this was true. But now, looking back on those years, I realize just how much of what I learned came from other teams. We would go to a pre-season competition, see something, say "cool, but that won't fit on our arm. What if we modify it in xxx way." Some of this came from the MIT teams mentioned above. So, without realizing it, we were inspired by mentors

In 2007, I entered FRC and FTC. Our team, from my point of view, had a little mentioned variant of a mentor-built problem, the senior-built problem. Everyone on CD jokes about freshmen in the quotes thread: "Freshman; go file something. NO! BAD FRESHMAN! GET AWAY FROM THE BLOWTORCH." However, as one of those rare freshmen who wanted to learn, I didn't want to clean our closet. I wanted to design a robot. I learned a lot that year, but wish I could have been more involved.

In september of that year, most members of my FLL team "graduated," and I went on to mentor a new FLL team, composed of the two remaining members from my former team, and a lot of rookies. Based on my experiences, I wanted to be a hands off mentor. I would try to lead the students to the solutions, without directly telling them. However, this team, like my former team, had a strict anti-mentor policy. If I lead them to something, it would usually get thrown out, because I had helped the idea along, or even just voiced my support of something that a student had come up with on their own. I was not allowed to attend all meetings, because I was not considered a member of the team. Needless to say, after 6 years of FLL as a student, I considered myself something of an expert on it. Having your opinion ignored for that very reason was quite disheartening. As a result, I am not planning on returning to this team next year, unless some changes are made.

(end of long story)

So from this, I began seeing the mentor point of view. The mentors want to teach. Sometimes they can get a bit over involved. Sometimes they can flat out overpower the students. But if the students learn, it is okay. I know it sounds cliche, but FIRST's goal is to inspire students. Nothing more. Without realizing it until, quite honestly, halfway through writing this post, I got my inspiration from seeing other successful FLL teams. Yes, building a robot that made it to Atlanta was inspiring. But I would never have stayed in FIRST if I had had just our zero-point FLL robot to go on for what can be done with technology.

The mentors, in my opinion, should function to facilitate inspiration. This can happen in any range of ways, from sitting in a corner as I had to, to building a robot for the students. I believe that mentors should try to get students to come up with ideas by teaching them to think, or giving incomplete answers. However, if a mentor finds themselves telling students what to do, I think they have gone a bit too far. I agree with those who say FIRST isn't a science fair, but it isn't a lecture hall either. I have had great learning experiences through being taught, but also through personal discovery.



However, as Lil' Lavery has said multiple times, this is very strictly my opinion on this. FIRST has deliberatly not told us how we should adress this. Although I have had poor experiences on both ends of the spectrum, I am sure that others have had great experiences. As long as the team works towards what FIRST does say that it is, than I have no problem.

[Leav]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

And your opinion is a fair one based on your experience. But is it also your opinion that all other teams should follow how you would run your team?

ofcourse not... that's why I repeated "My Opinion is..." about 47 times.....





rocketperson44, I agree with you when you say that it possible to inspire in many ways - but My opinion is (zing ) that they should be inspired that they can do things... not that a mentor can.








this is important:

Both ways work:
Inspiration by perspiration
or
Inspiration by observation

it's just that every single student would want to be inspired by doing and not by seeing someone else do things.

If you don't agree with me ask a student - i'll bet you a dozen krispy kreams they will tell you the same thing....


-Leav

[JaneYoung]

This is kind of an interesting thread to read but at the same time, I think about alumni of 418 (and other teams) whom I've had the opportunity to work with and to get to know and I'm so tickled with their educational choices/careers paths, I sometimes just giggle.

We are a team who makes it work.
We are a very proud team because of how we make it work.
We don't really worry about other teams and who has what or does what, we just focus on what we can do and on keeping it healthy and fun for everyone, especially the students. We had our postmortem last night that lasted for a while and afterwards, the mentors agreed that we will continue to talk on the bus to Atlanta but that our priority is to keep the experience a rewarding experience for the students, keep the fun alive, and help them live out their dreams in pursuing their goals.

That's kind of what I think about as I read these posts.

[thefro526]

I've corrected numerous members on my team about this issues too many times to count. I try to explain to them that just because you have a good looking robot it's professionally built. This year we have a decent looking robot and we have 3 mentors and no engineers but, we do have an awesome designer (*cough* me *cough*).

One of the things that I strive for on my team is consistency and improving on idea that already works. I've studied some of the greatest robots ever and I've noticed that many teams build upon what they know. Some examples are: Pink's Telescoping arm, Beachbots Single Jointed arm, 254's and 968's "west coast drive", 25's gear drive, 118's swerve, Wildstang's Swerve and many many more. These teams create a standard mechanism design that can be adapted to nearly any challenge. And it may appear on the outside that these robots are professionally designed, but when you look at the up close you realize they are just cases of using what you know and improving upon it. I'm just saying if you built a *insert cool mechanism here* every year you would look professional too.

I also would like to add that many people who say "Team XXX has engineers build their bot" or "We'd be good if we had a $XX,XXX budget" or "those kids haven't touched their robot" have never even spoken to anyone on these teams. I've noticed with many teams that have a lot of mentors, that the mentors work side by side with the students. So just because the mentors are working on it doesn't mean that the students don't, you can't assume anything until you ask. And yes, there are teams out there who don't see the robot until a few days before ship but, don't assume because someone is good that they have engineers build their 'bot.

And anyways who cares if someone builds a robot for a team. FIRST in itself is about inspiring, and these teams with "Engineer Built Robots", as people like to say, just inspire me to get to their level. And yes, I would like to have $XX,XXX dollars as a budget but, we do fine without it. And I will almost guarantee you that most of these kids on the teams with "Engineer Built Robots" are walking around with smiles and participating. I've found that there is no reason to bash a team better than you because there's no point. IMO, I think that those who say things about other teams without knowing how they run their team and built their robots is UN-GP.

[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.

[ttldomination]

Out team was like that earlier, out mentor was the main one with the ideas and he led the team. But then change came and now out team is student led. Ever since the change, the students are happier but we have not won a regional. Every since the change, the robot we have built have been more successful at their objectives than the previous ones.

I wouldn't say that it's mainly the mentors building. There are still teams out there with large number of students who perform amazingly. I feel the first comment was posted as an unfair way to pin a loss or frustration on a a great system. Many teams enjoy FIRST and what it stands for. Although there may have been only a few teams in the pits, there may have been many other students around. The pit is only supposed to have like 4-5 people max. You can't really have 50 people doing something in one pit.

I for one think it's great that mentors take part in this competition and i can't think about what this competition would produce if it wasn't for the mentors, engineers, and team parents that put effort into this competition.

[sebas2mil]

I would like to point out one situation that might strike one of the points DanTod was trying to make about the fact that during competition these teams are power houses well here it goes:

During the Florida Regional we were seated 5th and got picked by 233(after 5 years of having a team this is the first time that we were paired up with them) and we also picked 86

233 I believe is one of the power houses of FIRST and they deserve it given the fact that they have been in a lot of finals and also received recognition with things other than their robot but their program itself.
This year 233 has been a growing star from barely seeing them at the practice field on Thursday at Florida to being undefeated in Hawaii until they lost one match in the semis.

Well I'll get to the point during match 2 of the semi finals at Florida we ended up placing a ball at the last second that go us the win instead of the tie and allowed us to go to the finals and later on win the regional

what I'm trying to say is that no one team does it on their own, if we hadn't placed that ball up there maybe we would of tied and lost the regional which wouldn't of been the end of the world. the other alliance (79,801,348) was one of the toughest alliances there

Even 1114 who has been unstoppable with their 42-6-0 record this year has had help from their partners, during their first regional I don't think they could of done it without 1024 and it goes the other way for 1114

I believe that the strong teams that maybe be ran by NASA engineers are only as good as how you perceive them because after all they are man made and student driven so if you just think of it as "wow what a great machine" and sit there and analyze the parts and how the things are designed then you might get that spark to do something like that on your own as a high school student or college student

This is what I try to pass on to students when I mentor 1251 or LEGO league if you are intimidated by these teams and don't have anything better to do but call them unfair because they are winning and they have a great design then I'm sorry but you are jealous (my opinion )

Sebas

[EricH]

FYI: There is a spotlight somewhere on here about "your second year as a student is your first year as a mentor." So, if FIRST is for students only, then only freshmen are allowed on teams. This is not the case.

DanTod, the problem you see is not a problem necessarily. Remember, there is absolutely no rule about team makeup (other than drive team makeup) or who can work on the robot. Also, there may be factors such as a critical repair needing to be made and the students needing to be fed at the same time. There is nothing that can disqualify a team from competing based on makeup/who does the work.

I am with Leav, to a point. I am a mentor. I prefer to let the students do the work, but I will step in if something needs to be done. I was in the pit most of the time, but I was mainly observing. However, improvements sometimes need to be made. So, I step in with the students at least observing, if not actively participating in the changes. Would you disqualify a team because mentors help? I think not! Especially because that isn't what you said. Just some teams, the mentors seem to do the work, but do they really? As I said, there may be other factors.

I think that you should think about what others have said in this thread. There are many, many valid points on both sides of this issue.

[Joe G.]

Originally Posted by Leav

Inspiration by perspiration
or
Inspiration by observation
it's just that every single student would want to be inspired by doing and not by seeing someone else do things.

Agreed. I'd rather run a race than watch someone run a race, but I'd also like someone to confirm that I'm running in the right direction.

[gurellia53]

Well, its pretty clear that a lot of people have strong opinions on this issue (6 pages in less than a day).

Most of the responses have disagreed with the original post and many have good reasons for this, but the fact is that dissent against these "mentor teams" exists. It obviously does not bother the people in charge of FIRST, but some members of smaller teams (mentors and students alike) lose respect for teams like this.

Its true that these teams can be more successful and more helpful at competitions, but that isn't enough to sway everyone's opinion. Calls for change by people like Depreciation can go ignored, but the truth is is that he is not the only one with this opinion.

There seems to be somewhat of a split in FIRST between people who agree and disagree with mentor-dominated teams. The reason that its not quite so apparent on CD is that everyone who is against these mentor-dominated teams is promptly told that they shouldn't criticize how other teams are run. Often times, this is worded harshly and this person no longer speaks their opinion on this subject. Is this really a good way to deal with people who have this opinion?

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by gurellia53

Well, its pretty clear that a lot of people have strong opinions on this issue (6 pages in less than a day).

Most of the responses have disagreed with the original post and many have good reasons for this, but the fact is that dissent against these "mentor teams" exists. It obviously does not bother the people in charge of FIRST, but some members of smaller teams (mentors and students alike) lose respect for teams like this.

Its true that these teams can be more successful and more helpful at competitions, but that isn't enough to sway everyone's opinion. Calls for change by people like Depreciation can go ignored, but the truth is is that he is not the only one with this opinion.

There seems to be somewhat of a split in FIRST between people who agree and disagree with mentor-dominated teams. The reason that its not quite so apparent on CD is that everyone who is against these mentor-dominated teams is promptly told that they shouldn't criticize how other teams are run. Often times, this is worded harshly and this person no longer speaks their opinion on this subject. Is this really a good way to deal with people who have this opinion?

I dont think its a clear cut mentor vs student thing.
Our mentor (engineer) this year was the cheesy poofs website, 2005 robot photo where we tried to emulate and create our base from.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by gurellia53

Well, its pretty clear that a lot of people have strong opinions on this issue (6 pages in less than a day).

Most of the responses have disagreed with the original post and many have good reasons for this, but the fact is that dissent against these "mentor teams" exists. It obviously does not bother the people in charge of FIRST, but some members of smaller teams (mentors and students alike) lose respect for teams like this.

Its true that these teams can be more successful and more helpful at competitions, but that isn't enough to sway everyone's opinion. Calls for change by people like Depreciation can go ignored, but the truth is is that he is not the only one with this opinion.

There seems to be somewhat of a split in FIRST between people who agree and disagree with mentor-dominated teams. The reason that its not quite so apparent on CD is that everyone who is against these mentor-dominated teams is promptly told that they shouldn't criticize how other teams are run. Often times, this is worded harshly and this person no longer speaks their opinion on this subject. Is this really a good way to deal with people who have this opinion?

I saw a lot of specific examples and well phrased explanations behind virtually all of the opinions expressed in this thread. I didn't see many if any posts that were worded harshly towards Depreciation.

Unless someone has a good idea on how we should deal with this "split", explaining our views and the ideas behind the "mentor dominated" teams is the only way we can try and reconcile the difference.

I have already expressed my opinion here. There are many other competitions that are high school competitions. Perhaps if some people feel that strongly that their experience is being harmed by mentor dominated teams, then maybe FRC just isn't right for them. I love FRC and I don't like even suggesting that people leave it, but members of FIRST leadership have already expressed their thoughts on this issue, and change does not look to be on the horizon. Science and technology inspiration can come from many other programs as well and if things just aren't working in FRC maybe that is the best direction to go.

[AdamHeard]

straight from FIRST's mentor handbook;

I Do You Watch
I Do You Help
You Do I Help
You Do I Watch

[David55]

I have no desire to jump into this discussion (partially because I haven't decided what side I'm on yet), but I wanted to point something out to everyone who says "don't try to convince other teams that your opinion is the correct one".

IMO, if everything was left the way it is without attempts to initiate a change, we wouldn't get very far (this applies to FIRST and society in general). More participating members and teams means more insight and constructive criticism. If Leav thinks that the students in his team have a better experience as the actual working members on the team, he is entirely entitled to suggest and even try to convince other teams to adopt this system. If Sean believes his system provides the most inspiration and benefit to the students, it is great that he is trying to convince people to use it.

One more thing that bothers me: when people say that the "team" should decide what works best for it, that would be the ideal case if all teams were democratic and keen to changes. However, most teams developed these systems when they are founded and are often run the same way for many years, while the current students don't really have a say in it. Because the program is intended for high school students (the mentors and engineers are there to support the program), I think their opinions should be given considerable weight in such team decisions, which we all know does not happen (most important decisions are made by the mentors from what I have heard).