GP? I think not.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Cory

I'd like to see the numbers backing your statement that half of FIRST was alienated. I for one applaud Dave's statement, and I have seen both sides of the equation.

For the record, if you were to go back and watch the video again, I believe Dave said something to the effect of "Hey, it's awesome that these students are capable of doing what they do--but imagine how much more they'd be able to do, and how much more they'd learn if they worked with professional engineers who have mountains of knowledge to share.

To categorically say that Dave's claims are inaccurate is exactly what you just said you were against.

Look at the responses to that comment from various others on this page. I'm not the only one who was offended. Or walk around the pits in Philadelphia or Chesapeake and tell me who you see working on most of the robots. It doesn't even matter if it was just one team that was offended by his comments. If you're coming back to kickoff, you obviously did something right, agree? Your kids got enough out of it to want to do it again. Why would you discourage that at all? At our local kickoff, a student-run team with a couple of teachers was sitting right in front of me. They looked like they had just been punched in the stomach when Dave said what he did.

And I've seen both sides of the equation too. From 2000-2002, Miss Daisy was built at an engineering facility. Our kids would go work there for a couple hours (I was one of them), but probably 80% of that machine was built by our mentors. From an engineering standpoint, what did I get out of that experience? Not much.

In 2003 we decided we had had enough, changed sponsorship, and teamed up with the local vo-tech high school to make something with more student involvement. We won a Chairman's Award, won Galileo, and haven't looked back.

Now, we are NOT 100% student built. We have several engineers (of which I am one) who help the kids all along the way. I agree with you that if money and resources were no object, an engineer-student partnership is the most effective sort of team. But when I walk by a pit with four engineers and no kids, I think they have swung too far the other way.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Karthik

By working day in and day out with talented mentors, students learn the value of their professions and aspire to be like these amazing men and women. You can't teach someone to be an engineer in 6 weeks, but you sure can inspire them and instill the desire in them to become one. That's what FIRST is all about. Remember, go back to the mission statement.

Not to mention that a lot of mentors always say that they learn a lot from their students as well. Its really a great balance most of the time. Mentors get out of this program almost the same amount as the students do and I'm sure many of the mentors on here can agree with me on that. For example, I've read how adults learn new things about team work, communication, making friendships, and just being better people overall.

-Akash

[Michael Corsetto]

After reading a few responses to my post, I can sum up what I understand in three simple statements:
Completely mentor built robots are ok.
A mix of mentor and student built robots are ok.
Completely student built robots are not ok.

Is there something I'm missing? If so, what is it? I used to think all three methods were acceptable, but it seems to not be the case anymore.

Mike C.

[Woody1458]

One thing Im noticing in a lot of the adult supporters posts is that they seem to imagine adults to be infallible. Something I just cant believe to be true. While there are great ones (look at every Woodie Flowers award winner ever) even they have flaws. My point is that a common flaw is that they want to build robots, not engineers. I think the ultimate mentor is one that can say "I think I am doing to much, and need to step back to allow student to be more involved". Anyone can watch Westcoast Choppers and see adults build things, but FIRST is great because it encourages kids to do the building and adults to do the watching. I like that, I think I found a new signature.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Abwehr

Look at the responses to that comment from various others on this page. I'm not the only one who was offended. Or walk around the pits in Philadelphia or Chesapeake and tell me who you see working on most of the robots. It doesn't even matter if it was just one team that was offended by his comments. If you're coming back to kickoff, you obviously did something right, agree? Your kids got enough out of it to want to do it again. Why would you discourage that at all? At our local kickoff, a student-run team with a couple of teachers was sitting right in front of me. They looked like they had just been punched in the stomach when Dave said what he did.

And I've seen both sides of the equation too. From 2000-2002, Miss Daisy was built at an engineering facility. Our kids would go work there for a couple hours (I was one of them), but probably 80% of that machine was built by our mentors. From an engineering standpoint, what did I get out of that experience? Not much.

In 2003 we decided we had had enough, changed sponsorship, and teamed up with the local vo-tech high school to make something with more student involvement. We won a Chairman's Award, won Galileo, and haven't looked back.

Now, we are NOT 100% student built. We have several engineers (of which I am one) who help the kids all along the way. I agree with you that if money and resources were no object, an engineer-student partnership is the most effective sort of team. But when I walk by a pit with four engineers and no kids, I think they have swung too far the other way.

Dave never said that mentors have to do all the work. Dave said that teams who have NO mentors are missing out--this is undeniably true. It is my opinion that he was not trying to discourage any teams by devaluing their efforts.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

What I was saying there is that what FIRST is preparing us for is BEING the elders.

You still have to work under them, correct?

Yes, FIRST may be preparing us to be the elders. They also recognize that, at this point, we aren't. Right now, the mentors are the elders we work under. The teams without mentors are at a disadvantage already, because they don't have the elders. The teams with mentors have those elders.

However, what has been described sounds like (on the surface) a case of mentors not being mentors. Without further information (like if DanTod talked with the students on the team, or other relevant context), we don't know what the real situation is. Based on what is described in the original post, we have mentors who are not following the advice given by Rich Kressly:

A mentor, by definition, provides a nuturing environment and, over time, makes themselves progressively unnecessary.

If so, then the team may wish to look at their method of work.

Speaking of Rich Kressly, teams that are competition-driven for performance should really look at this thread he started on Awards, Bandsaws, and Perspective.

And Rex--I think you've got it wrong. The mix is OK, yes. But completely mentor-built robots is OK in some books and not in others, as may be seen in this thread. Completely student-built is OK, but they don't get the full benefit of FIRST.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Karthik

You need to be careful about taking quotes out of context. During Dave's speech at kickoff, he was re-iterating the value of having mentors involved with a FIRST team. He was stressing the fact that FIRST is not just about students learning engineering principles, we have a much bigger mission here. "To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes."

I really believe that every FIRST team needs to examine this mission statement in detail. We're talking about changing the world! There's no way we're going to create an international culture change without involving strong adult role models. By working day in and day out with talented mentors, students learn the value of their professions and aspire to be like these amazing men and women. You can't teach someone to be an engineer in 6 weeks, but you sure can inspire them and instill the desire in them to become one. That's what FIRST is all about. Remember, go back to the mission statement.

Yes, there's plenty to be gained by being on a 100% student run team. But, there are plenty of avenues for those types of lessons. What makes FIRST unique from virtually every other extra-curricular program out there is the mentor involvement. If you choose to run your team with only students, more power to you, but you are missing out on one of the most unique opportunities you will ever have. This is the point that Dave was making.

I do understand the point Dave was making. But teams without a lot of engineering mentorship usually aren't that way by choice. Engineers who are willing to devote 6+ weeks of their year to helping kids are, sadly, in the minority.

Telling an inner-city team that they don't "get it" because they don't have engineers does no one good.

The rest of his comments were more appropriately worded, and make many valid points about what is unique about FIRST if you have the resources.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Rex114

After reading a few responses to my post, I can sum up what I understand in three simple statements:
Completely mentor built robots are ok.
A mix of mentor and student built robots are ok.
Completely student built robots are not ok.

Is there something I'm missing? If so, what is it? I used to think all three methods were acceptable, but it seems to not be the case anymore.

Mike C.

It's not that completely student built robots are not ok, it's just that they've blocked off an entire avenue towards inspiration and learning. Teams are free to operate however they wish and see fit. We're just pointing out an amazing opportunity that is being turned down.

Originally Posted by Abwehr

I do understand the point Dave was making. But teams without a lot of engineering mentorship usually aren't that way by choice. Engineers who are willing to devote 6+ weeks of their year to helping kids are, sadly, in the minority.

Telling an inner-city team that they don't "get it" because they don't have engineers does no one good.

Again, I don't remember the exact words of the speech, but if I recall correctly, I think Dave said something along the lines of "Teams who choose to go about this without mentors..." I'll dig up the transcript.

Edit:// Found the transcript. (Parts bolded for emphasis)

Originally Posted by Dave Lavery, 2008 Kickoff Transcript

DEAN MENTIONED ALREADY IF YOU THINK THE PROGRAM IS ABOUT ROBOTS YOU'RE MISSING PART OF THE MESSAGE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF TEAMS OUT THERE, AND I KNOW I'LL HEAR BACK FROM THEM ABOUT THIS, THERE ARE A LOT OF TEAMS OUT THERE WHO ARE BUILT SOLELY OF STUDENTS AS A STUDENT-BUILT, STUDENT-RUN, STUDENT-ORGANIZED TEAM FROM END TO END TO THE PROCESS.
I CONGRATULATE THEM WHAT THEY'RE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH AND DO.
THEY'RE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE WITH NO PROBLEM AT ALL.
DO THE TASK WE'RE SETTING OUT FOR THEM.
IF YOU THINK THE TASK IS ABOUT BUILDING A ROBOT.
MY CHALLENGE TO THE TEAMS IS, PART OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET YOU EXPOSED TO REAL WORLD TECHNOLOGIES PRACTICES, PEOPLE WHO ARE PROFESSIONALS.
IF YOU'RE DOING THIS WITH YOUR TEAM YOU'RE ABLE TO BUILD THE ROBOT AND ABLE TO COMPETE AND BE ABLE TO BE A PARTICIPANT IN THE PROGRAM BUT I THINK YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN ENGINEERING ON YOUR TEAM OR TWO OR THREE OR FOUR BECAUSE YOU AREN'T TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPOSE YOUR TEAM AND YOUR STUDENTS TO REAL WORLD ENGINEERING PRACTICES TO LEARN TO BE INSPIRED BY THE PROFESSIONALS TO WHICH YOU HAVE ACCESS.
SO IS THIS A HARD PROBLEM?
YES.
IT'S SUPPOSED HARD.
WE'RE MAKING IT HARD BECAUSE WE WANT YOU TO BE ENCOURAGED TO GO OUT AND GET PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING HELP FOR YOUR TEAMS TO HELP SOLVE THIS STUFF.
THAT'S HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE MOST BENEFIT OUT OF THE ENTIRE PROGRAM.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Rex114

After reading a few responses to my post, I can sum up what I understand in three simple statements:
Completely mentor built robots are ok.
A mix of mentor and student built robots are ok.
Completely student built robots are not ok.

Is there something I'm missing? If so, what is it? I used to think all three methods were acceptable, but it seems to not be the case anymore.

Mike C.

I think that you are twisting things a bit. Mentor bots are OK but not ideal. If students learn and become inspired great, if not then it is no good. Mixed bots are the best scenario as the students are working side by side with engineers, how can you lose. Student bots are OK as the students will learn or crash and burn (also a learning experience). This is not as good as mixed bots as there is no real engineering experience being taught by engineers.

I guess my thought is why do you go to school? To learn from those that have learned. There are good and bad teachers as there are good and bad engineers. What would a school be without teachers and were would FIRST be without engineers?

[DanTod97]

Originally Posted by Karthik

It's not that completely student built robots are not ok, it's just that they've blocked off an entire avenue towards inspiration and learning.

If completely student built robots are blocking off an entire avenue towards inspiration and learning, how is it not true that completely mentor built robots are as well.

[DanTod97]

Originally Posted by Steve W

What would a school be without teachers and were would FIRST be without engineers?

And what would a school be with teachers who did all the work?

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Cory

Dave never said that mentors have to do all the work. Dave said that teams who have NO mentors are missing out--this is undeniably true. It is my opinion that he was not trying to discourage any teams by devaluing their efforts.

Ok, I do agree with this.

I sincerely do not think he was trying to devalue anyone's team, but it did come across that way to some people.

And I am 100% behind you - and everyone here - in that every team should have mentors to help guide the way if possible.

254 is one of the teams blessed with a cadre of amazing volunteers. My team is another. But many teams - and especially newer teams - simply aren't there yet.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by DanTod97

If completely student built robots are blocking off an entire avenue towards inspiration and learning, how is it not true that completely mentor built robots are as well.

Nobody ever said otherwise. However, I would note that an all-engineer robot would still facilitate some interaction between students and engineers (the students have to know how to operate it), albeit perhaps at a less-than-desirable level. Technically, then, all-engineer robots aren't completely blocking off entire avenues for inspiration--they're just mostly blocking it off.

(That's me playing devil's advocate--I'm all for a blend.)

[Woody1458]

I'm just noticing that a large number of the pro-adult posts seem to be made by adults, and nearly all pro-student posts are made by students. No opinion behind this one just a comment.

[DanTod97]

Originally Posted by Billfred

Nobody ever said otherwise.

I disagree.

and again, if student built robots are blocking out most of it then how are mentor built robots not likewaise