GP? I think not.

[DanTod97]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

For all of you who think that "student run" is the best way to go.. why don't you put your ego aside and try talking to a professional engineer. Invite them to your build sessions. Ask questions. Sometimes what they say may seem backwards to you, but believe me what you say seems backwards to them. You NEED engineers' help! I cannot stress this point enough.

So Im on an ego trip because I have a different veiw of what method is best for learning...

You also seem to just say that you changed opinions when you became a mentor. Thats alright, but I hope you dont consider your opinion more valid just because of the fact that you are a mentor now, because as you said before, alot of students still felt as you did.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by DanTod97

You also seem to just say that you changed opinions when you became a mentor. Thats alright, but I hope you dont consider your opinion more valid just because of the fact that you are a mentor now, because as you said before, alot of students still felt as you did.

Alternate theory: Tom realized what he was missing in an all-student arrangement when he stepped outside his normal stomping grounds and the experience has made him better for it (in addition to changing his tune, which he is now humming for the group).

Experience is a wonderful thing. From my own experience, I can tell you that the best way to learn from folks to gain that experience is time. (The second-best way, as my signature indicates, is to have a lot of Amtrak points saved up...but that goes back to time.)

[Molten]

I have to agree with the original post to an extent. Often times, mentors do over step their bounds and do more of the work that the students should be doing. I am not saying that the mentors/coaches should sit around and do nothing. It is just my personal opinion that the students should do most of the work. And yes, that is an opinion. So, please don't go on quoting me about my opinion. To all of you out there, just think about whether or not you are overstepping your bounds. I'm not saying that you should change anything. Just keep in mind that it is possible and try not to do it. Granted, everyone's bounds are different. For instance, one mentors bounds might be not milling the parts, while another's might be just not controlling their robot themself. I am not saying that this is happening, I just think it is a serious possibility that all coaches/mentors ought to keep in mind.

[dez250]

I am not going to comment directly to this conversation, but would like to put out a challenge directly to both Dan and Woody.

Dan, your team, 97, if history repeats itself, is supported by MIT. I am going to challenge you on a time you have free, to visit and have a conversation with a bright professor there in room 3-435. He is insightful and i believe would be able to answer some questions and ideas you have on this topic.


Woody, the challenge i have for you is based off of a post, from you, earlier in the year.

Originally Posted by Woody1458

A little disappointed with our brain trust this year (I can only say that because I am design team head), we only came up with 2 plausible ideas, and are full-size prototyping one right now. Should have a robot mapped out (hopefully CAD'ed) by this friday.

From how it sounds, is that your team is all student based and run, with a direct lack of adult engineering support. I challenge you for over the summer to find an [even just one] engineer to support your team. Beyond this I suggest that you take your current students and new mentor(s) and redesign your 2008 robot to see what areas you can improve on. This work will help mold your team to know how to interact with adults for 2009 and to a point where you will see what insight an engineer can assist with.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

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.

I've only been in FIRST for a grand total of 4 years (incl. this build season), but what I have noticed is that most students that drive mentor-only built bots is that the students have no feel for the mechanical limitations of the bot. Therefore that type of team rarely does very well. Those kinds of teams do exist *cough* one our rookie team neighbors at VCU *cough*, but you rarely hear about them.

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Time constraints often dictate that the best person must work on the robot to get it fixed, and we've only got 20 minutes before we have to be headed to the Queue. That doesn't mean the students never worked on the robot and only watched or held parts for 6-1/2 weeks. While there may be such a team around, I'd guess that even the most mentor-oriented teams don't fall into a 100%/0% built ratio.

A co-worker commented on a photo of our pits this year at VCU and the fact that there were 2 students and 3 mentors working on the bot...why weren't there more students? He didn't accept the explanation I gave him, which is exactly in line with what you've stated here.

I found a photo for him and quieted him though; during the build season on the Saturday right before ship date we have a photo of 9 pairs of hands working on the bot. It wasn't an intentional or posed photo...it just so happened that there were 9 different things that could be done in parallel at that given moment. 7 of the 9 people were students, and it wound up that one of the mentors was just holding something in place (hate to say this, but many mentors are also physically stronger than most students...).