GP? I think not.

[lukevanoort]

I don't really care one way or another. I can see arguments for both methods (entirely student-run, and entirely mentor-run), but I think they are moot arguments. Before I say why I think they are moot arguments, I'll say what the arguments I can come up with each are:

I feel that students would miss out on some things with entirely mentor run teams. If the mentors make the design decisions, and all the students do is build it, then the students are missing out on learning a valuable skill - how to collaborate with others in the design of something (software, drive systems, transmissions, whatever). Students just learn machining. While machining is a valuable skill, as KenWittlief once said, FIRST isn't advanced shop class. Thus, I think students on entirely mentor-run teams miss out. I also don't think many, if any, teams are operated this way.

Entirely student-run teams instead miss out on learning from experienced and knowledgeable engineers. Just like in school, it is hard to learn about engineering when you lack a teacher. On the other hand, they gain the valuable skill of making use of (limited) resources to figure something out independently.

Now, back to my point. Both of the above arguments prove nothing, and are effectively meaningless. This is because both are predicated on the idea that FIRST is solely about learning engineering. FIRST is really about changing the culture to one where science and technology are celebrated, and making careers in engineering and science cooler than careers in sports and entertainment. Put simply, FIRST is about inspiring a populace. Personally, I think having the mentors teach students to design the robot, and then having the students do the actual design work results in the most inspiration; however, this is just my opinion, and as long as a team is inspiring, I couldn't care less how they do it. Whatever method they choose, the team is living up to the vision of FIRST and fulfilling its goals.

Now, I'm going to briefly mention a different issue that has been brought up in this thread. People often say FIRST isn't about the robot, and I disagree to a certain degree. The robot is a powerful tool of inspiration. Many of us have seen little kids look at a FIRST robot in awe/amazement/wonder/etc., and I highly doubt those kids would be just as amazed by a bunch of people standing around with lots of knowledge and great teamwork skills. Using the robot to achieve an ends - inspiration - is a very important part of FIRST, and to do that you need a robot. I didn't say a successful robot, just a robot. Our 2007 robot didn't win any awards, and it didn't play in any elimination matches. However, I don't think any of the kids who have watched in amazement as it whizzed around at demonstrations scoring tubes really cared how it did on the field. For that moment, technology was awesome, and those who built the robot were even cooler. Add up little inspirations like that and, regardless of how a robot does on the field, the robot is successful.