GP? I think not.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

Jim I'm sorry to be so frank but pretty much everything you described in the way you team is run is what I work so hard to keep from happening to my team.

This year at the Florida Regional, Jim's team was selected as the winner of the Regional Chairman's Award.

Originally Posted by The Manual, Section 5, Awards

The Chairman's Award represents the spirit of FIRST. It honors the team that, in the judges’ estimation, best represents a model for other teams to emulate, and which embodies the goals and purpose of FIRST.

It's too bad that what you see as negatives, are what FIRST celebrates and encourages. I'm not saying you need to change your ways, but perhaps take some time to think about the model presented by Team 1523.

[DanTod97]

Originally Posted by Karthik

It's too bad that what you see as negatives, are what FIRST celebrates and encourages. I'm not saying you need to change your ways, but perhaps take some time to think about the model presented by Team 1523.

I dont think he was attacking the entire way the team is run, just the specific things Jim described, which specifically had to do with the way mentors treat the build-time

[EricH]

Originally Posted by DanTod97

I dont think he was attacking the entire way the team is run, just the specific things Jim described, which specifically had to do with the way mentors treat the build-time

Which is part of how the team is run...

I'm actually inclined to agree with both.

Jim is right--it's not reasonable to expect a high school student to do college-level or post-grad work. That said, there are high schoolers who do college-level work. So Woody has a point there...and I myself have designed a system using basic trig.

But Woody seems to be describing a team without any mentors. Jim is describing a team with many. (Note: this is an assumption based on the respective posts.) So which is right? Both.

The ideal team is a balance between the two. Students who don't know the concept/math/whatever that the mentors do are taught what the mentors know and then apply that knowledge. My first introduction to integral calculus came before I learned about differential calculus. One of the programmers taught me the basic method while he worked out a problem.

I defintietly agree with this statement, though:

Originally Posted by Woody

Team students should keep in mind that we are there to learn from the Mentors, not dictate to them. Share you calculations and concerns with the team mentors. One of the mentors may just blindside you with brilliance when it comes to a simple solution.

Mentors should also remember: we are there to teach, not to dictate. Share your calculations with students and answer any questions they have. Students can have brilliant solutions too. Be ready to learn from them.

I remember a case where I came up with a solution to a problem, but a mentor simplified the solution. I also did a design for another mentor who had built a prototype but didn't know how to do it in Inventor. So it can go both ways.

In ideal reality, there should be no mentor/student debate. It should be that a team builds the robot, a team made up of both students and mentors, equal treatment and authority. Unfortunately, reality isn't ideal, so we have this debate.

[E. Wood]

Originally Posted by EricH

It should be that a team builds the robot, a team made up of both students and mentors, equal treatment and authority.

I agree completely. If only the world was perfect.

[James Mullenax]

Originally Posted by EricH
"It should be that a team builds the robot, a team made up of both students and mentors, equal treatment and authority."

Couldn't have said it better myself... To reiterate what was said thats the ideal situation in a perfect world!! again thats not the only ways its done but what makes a differance the students a learning(mentors for that matter too) EVERYONE has a GREAT time and the TEAM wins!!!!!

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by E. Wood

I agree completely. If only the world was perfect.

It isn't, but that doesn't mean teams of all configurations can't incessantly strive to seek that perfect equilibrium where adults and students get to "play with robots" and equally benefit from the experience.

I'm sure most mentors would love to have more eager and dedicated students to learn and work alongside them, as I am also sure most students would love to have more technical mentors to guide them along and accelerate their understanding and proper application of the engineering design process. Individual teams are challenged to find creative ways to push their programs toward this balance. So many lament how absolutely hard it is for them to "motivate students" or "get more mentors". But there's always a way. As someone said in a thread earlier today, "Nothing is Impossible!!!" Let me append to that the cautionary ".....unless you never bother to try."

Because for all you polarized opposites out there, how are you student-only students going to REALLY know how having more of those icky design and build time-stealing mentors will affect YOUR team.....how are you mentors-mainly mentors going to know how dealing with more of those pesky students who DON'T want to merely sit back and watch - who want to DO more - will affect YOUR team unless you actually GIVE THEM A CHANCE?

Don't knock it until you've tried it. See how "the other side" operates. Keep an open mind and LISTEN. You may be surprised at what you discover.

[James Mullenax]

I have been with team 1629 since the team has been started... i was reading over these comments and i will agree... just because you see what is going on in the most hecktic times at the comps DOES NOT mean that the robots are completly mentor built. this just means that the mentors can fix the problem quicker because they are more experianced... if your arm, shooter, claw etc. breaks between a match you only have a few mins to get it up and running again... its a compitition no one likes to lose but i dont believe anyone has gone undefeated forever we all lose which means no team is COMPLETELY dominate no matter who works on the robot for instance (not saying they are mentor built just avery good robot!) we competed against team 1024 a GREAT robot they won i think 3 regionals BUT our alliance did beat them in our first match again EVERY TEAM IS BEATABLE ITS A LEARNING EXPERIANCE

[DanTod97]

Originally Posted by James Mullenax

I have been with team 1629 since the team has been started... i was reading over these comments and i will agree... just because you see what is going on in the most hecktic times at the comps DOES NOT mean that the robots are completly mentor built. this just means that the mentors can fix the problem quicker because they are more experianced... if your arm, shooter, claw etc. breaks between a match you only have a few mins to get it up and running again... its a compitition no one likes to lose but i dont believe anyone has gone undefeated forever we all lose which means no team is COMPLETELY dominate no matter who works on the robot for instance (not saying they are mentor built just avery good robot!) we competed against team 1024 a GREAT robot they won i think 3 regionals BUT our alliance did beat them in our first match again EVERY TEAM IS BEATABLE ITS A LEARNING EXPERIANCE

Well I feel if they built it, they would most likely be able to fix it just as quickly with an equal amount of mentor help as before. I also feel these are the moments that are the most fun and where the thick of these great experiences are found. I also understand that there are many scenarios and good reason mentors may be the only ones working on the robot at a specific time, I was just using it as an example, perhaps not the best one.

[AdamHeard]

I've been through seasons where I didn't have a choice; I had to do the work without mentor help. I've also been through seasons with plentiful mentors that really knew what was going on.

Fact is, I'd take the mentor help as much as I can.

Look at the base that 294 and 687 used for 2007. That was designed off season by a mentor from each team with input from me. I discussed with them what I liked concept wise, and they did the details. Once they got it done with me watching, I quickly learned and made it my own; I designed better wheels for it and a 3 motor gearbox. After that, I fully designed an awesome (I really think it's warranted) 6WD that 294 made as a prototype and as their season base for this year.

If I had just set out on my own to build an awesome base, I wouldn't of got there nearly as fast. But the fact that I knew nothing in terms of actual detailed CAD design 2.5 years ago, and can now turn around and teach a student on the teams I mentor how to do the same thing, really says something about the process.

[MrForbes]

I finally got a student to teach me the very basics of Inventor, and I cadded the crate this year! woot!

[s_forbes]

oof. This thread is like a car wreck, I don't want to look, but...


Really this is one of those issues that is best worked out as a compromise of the two extremes. The students don't learn much about how projects are engineered in real life if they just build robots on their own. In fact, they don't learn too much of anything. (this part failed! I guess it just wasn't strong enough...) You need the mentors there to tell how things work, and why they work that way! It's difficult to learn from just experience when the knowledge you are trying to absorb is so incredibly vast.

On the other side of things, having mentors build the whole robot without keeping the kids in the loop doesn't teach anything either. I doubt there are any teams that actually take this route, but obviously it doesn't do much inspiring if the kids don't get to play.

You need a mix of these extremes, though how you mix them depends on the team. I'm a fan of the 'kids get ideas, mentors suggest design philosophies, kids implement them, kids get design reviewed/criticized, repeat' strategy. This year has run incredibly smoothly for our team. We get ideas, the mentors advise, the kids get building, and the process repeats. I don't think we could have had a better build season. It actually ran so well that I don't think a mentor ever had to even touch the robot in the pits during the competitions; the students had it all under control!

Originally Posted by squirrel

I finally got a student to teach me the very basics of Inventor, and I cadded the crate this year! woot!

That's coming from team 1726's one and only mechanical mentor!