Responsibilities of a Mentor

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Kelly

After visiting our regional, one of our sponsors proposed banning mentors from the pits.

So what does that leave as the role of a sponsor? Sending the team bags of money and applauding whatever happens next?

I've read this discussion, and have only this to add. Why was this sponsor not more involved with the team? Why did he not know what the competition was about, how the robots were built, how the teams are run? I think far too often teams have their key group of mentors, some of whom may come from school and some from a sponsor or two. But they forget to keep the rest of their sponsors informed of what is going on. Why should sponsors keep sending money if they don't know how it is being spent?

[Scott Ritchie]

Mentors:

should promote advanced skills building on those learned during the day.
Offer training in skills not yet approached in school.
force the development of communication skills in students.
show students how to work as a team of students and adults.
will show students how to efficiently approach problems.
will lead by example when showing how to handle disagreement.
will show passion about the process and try and pass it along to students.
will not take themselves too seriously.
will help students develop "Moral authority" (I love that statement for whoever said it in this thread)
Will help lay the building blocks of ethics
need to demand safety
need to have an open mind, even for new ideas
(stopped here due to time)

Students:

need to want to work with the best minds available.
need to crave more knowledge.
need to take iniciative.
need to demand a quality product after the six weeks.
need to spread the excitement of the program to the rest of the school.
need to realize they need help to expand on things that have been developed since the dawn of man.
should feel comfortable in telling their mentors want.
need to have and open mind, even for old ideas.
(stopped her due to time)

As I was making this list I realize a student needs to be at a certain level to appreciate it and expand on it. I think I would not have been able to understand some of this when I was in high school. I think I would have told you to flip sand instead of listen to the people around me. I do see however in some four year FIRST students the ability use their mentors as the valuable resource they are.

Now back to my job.

Hope it helps in some way

[Kelly]

I'm getting a bit annoyed by everyone who keeps insisting that our sponsor must be ignorant of how FIRST works if he would propose a crazy idea like expecting students to understand their own machines. He understands the policies about mentors, he just disagrees with them. And so do I, for the reasons I've outlined in this thread.

[JaneYoung]

The partnership potential involving engineers, professionals, students, sponsors, and parent support, creates endless opportunities for removing limits and allowing access to knowledge, experience, and the standards of excellence.

Students can do a lot, they can't do it all. They don't have the skill sets or experience. They won't gain those in 6 weeks but they can be exposed to them if they are working in partnership with engineers and professionals.

On the other hand, if adult mentors are doing it all without the benefit of partnership with the students and sponsors, etc., then they, too, are setting limits on what the team can do and can achieve. When I look at our HoF teams, it is very clear to me that these teams have figured out how to maximize their partnerships, their strengths, and their team potential. Each of these outstanding teams is unique - no two are alike - but they have these qualities in common. Everyone works together towards the same goal, achieving excellence, and setting the bar for the rest of us.

[Sunshine]

I believe that I am right there with you Kelly.

I'm not going to pound my beliefs or my teams' goals into others BUT................

Our robot will always be student built.

The only time you will ever see a mentor in our pit working is in an extreme emergency and then you will see them showing students how to fix the problem. We did 3 events this year. No mentor working in St. Louis or Milwaukee. We had a mentor helping/showing students how to fix major problem in Atlanta.

I have a problem with the thinking of some if they believe that this experience is not similar to a normal lab setting. Students do not learn from watching a teacher performing a tune-up in the auto shop. Students learn by doing that tune-up after they were given direction.

We were next to a team at an event that NEVER had students around except when they showed up to get the robot to compete. The mentors were constantly tweaking/fixing the robot by themselves. Again, to me, this is a major opportunity lost for the students.

For us, we have a model that has been successful for the first two years of our existence. It involves having the students take on the responsibilities of the team. We as mentors guide, direct, give instruction, teach, give demo's. But students do the work or it does not get done.

We will never build a robot, decide on its design, write a chairman's submission, create a web page or make a CAD drawing.

But we show students how to do all of these things, help with spelling and grammar and help them setup time lines so they can be successful.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Ideally, the students would have been so heavily involved with building the robot, they know how to fix it better than the mentors.

"Ideal" does not mean the same thing in all situations. Inspiration works just as well for some teams whose students are stretched past their competence levels as it does for other teams whose mentors did nothing the students weren't capable of doing on their own.

I don't see how heavier involvement from mentors helps FIRST change the culture any more. If anything, I think it does the opposite. Kids learn in school how to sit and watch and be detached from science while they follow advice (orders) from their elders. We already know that professional engineers can build robots. What's really culture changing is when kids can do it for themselves. (and they can, when the mentors step back)

I think you might be misunderstanding the difference between inspiration and learning. In order to "change the culture" we don't necessarily need to show people how to do something. We just need to show what is possible with the right training and study. That training and study is not all going to happen within the time constraints of an FRC season, but the relatively brief bits of inspiration can easily influence the rest of a student's educational career.

If you want to focus on a "kids can do it for themselves" environment, I think you're going to miss out on a big part of the experience of having engineering mentors as part of the team. High school students should not be expected to have the same skill sets as professional engineers who have had years more of study, learning, and practice in the relevant fields. The same goes for machining, programming, team-building, fundraising, networking, recruiting, strategic planning, etc.

Mentors are the fundamental resource around which FIRST is built. To marginalize them would be to waste that resource.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I think you might be misunderstanding the difference between inspiration and learning. In order to "change the culture" we don't necessarily need to show people how to do something. We just need to show what is possible with the right training and study. That training and study is not all going to happen within the time constraints of an FRC season, but the relatively brief bits of inspiration can easily influence the rest of a student's educational career.

I think you're missing part of my earlier point. If we wanted to show students what professional engineers can accomplish, it would be a lot cheaper for teachers to just stick a NOVA special on the Apollo program in the VCR and pop out for a coffee. Programs like FIRST deserve to exist because they show students that THEY can become engineers and build cool things. Science has a bit of a stigma in our society and kids think they need to be super-geniuses to excel in it and programs like FIRST can dispel that myth.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

If you want to focus on a "kids can do it for themselves" environment, I think you're going to miss out on a big part of the experience of having engineering mentors as part of the team. High school students should not be expected to have the same skill sets as professional engineers who have had years more of study, learning, and practice in the relevant fields. The same goes for machining, programming, team-building, fundraising, networking, recruiting, strategic planning, etc.

To quote myself: "Build season is another story, that's when general engineering experience comes in handy, but at competitions it's all about knowing your machine." Mentors are wonderful during the build season and
I'm not proposing we eliminate them from FIRST entirely. I just think students should have a large enough role on the team that they can capably work on it in the pits.

[CommanderRachek]

I would like to reiterate what Kelly has said about our sponsor: he was not as involved as a team member or mentor, obviously, but he was not just some god throwing money down from Olympus. He knows what FIRST is. He just happens to disagree with the way the program is run in that regard.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I think you might be misunderstanding the difference between inspiration and learning. In order to "change the culture" we don't necessarily need to show people how to do something. We just need to show what is possible with the right training and study. That training and study is not all going to happen within the time constraints of an FRC season, but the relatively brief bits of inspiration can easily influence the rest of a student's educational career.

Here's where I think you're wrong. You do not need years and years of training to design and build a reasonably competent robot for FRC. You need years and years of training to build a perfect robot, yes, but I don't think the goal of FRC should be to produce perfect robots (and I don't think you think that either). As many pure student design/build teams (such as my own) have shown, it is possible for a group of high school students to produce a decent, functional robot with minimal (NOT nonexistent) engineering guidance from adults. Our engineering mentors have always acted as resources to be tapped, not dictators.

If I want to see what years of experience can get me, all I have to do is go look at my car. Or my cellular telephone. Or the ice maker in my refrigerator. I am literally surrounded by incredible inventions made by engineers. I don't need FIRST to see how wonderful and smart engineers are.

The thing is, just looking at the products of modern science and technology doesn't inspire much. The reason people shy away from technical fields is that they see it as some kind of black magic. Look, the engineer goes into his office, and then couple months later blueprints come out. Isn't that amazing? By having the mentors design and build the robot, the students don't get any more of an inspiring experience than taking a factory tour. All they see is magicians using tricks they learned in wizard school. However, by getting the experience of experimenting and modifying and implementing a design themselves, students realize that engineering isn't magic after all. It doesn't take a degree to make a robot; all it takes is you picking up a drill and actually building it. Even growing up in a family of scientists and engineers, that was quite possibly the best lesson I took away from FRC: being an engineer doesn't mean having a degree, it means having the patience to do the work; I can do this, too.

I can tell you right now that I would never, ever have joined my robotics team if I hadn't been allowed to be involved in the actual business of design and construction. "Watch Professionals Build a Robot Club" would have bored the stew out of me. Even if I had joined a team like that, I'm certain I would not have gotten nearly as much out of the program as I did. As it is, I am eternally grateful for my team and especially for my wonderful mentors. I think I am a much better person for having participated.

(Credit where credit is due: I didn't come up with the "black magic" analogy. One of my teammates did. It's the best way to explain it I've ever heard.)

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I think you're missing part of my earlier point. If we wanted to show students what professional engineers can accomplish, it would be a lot cheaper for teachers to just stick a NOVA special on the Apollo program in the VCR and pop out for a coffee. Programs like FIRST deserve to exist because they show students that THEY can become engineers and build cool things. Science has a bit of a stigma in our society and kids think they need to be super-geniuses to excel in it and programs like FIRST can dispel that myth.

We're apparently talking past each other. I agree with what I see you saying, but it seems to be presented in an argumentative tone. Maybe I didn't word my thoughts as well as I could have, or maybe you're assuming a bias on my part that is coloring your interpretation of what I wrote.

Here's a minor revision to one of my earlier statements that might help clear things up: In order to "change the culture" we don't necessarily need to show people how to do something. We just need to show what they are capable of doing with the right training and study.

To quote myself: "Build season is another story, that's when general engineering experience comes in handy, but at competitions it's all about knowing your machine." Mentors are wonderful during the build season and I'm not proposing we eliminate them from FIRST entirely. I just think students should have a large enough role on the team that they can capably work on it in the pits.

I didn't accuse anyone of wanting to eliminate mentors, so I don't know why you chose to deny it. I certainly never suggested that students shouldn't be expected to work on the robot.

Originally Posted by CommanderRachek

I would like to reiterate what Kelly has said about our sponsor: he was not as involved as a team member or mentor, obviously, but he was not just some god throwing money down from Olympus. He knows what FIRST is. He just happens to disagree with the way the program is run in that regard.

If he disagrees with FIRST's emphasis on mentoring, I think he might merely think he knows what FIRST is. Have him get involved -- or at least watch a little more closely -- and take a while to reassess his opinion. Have him look at the results (number of students going on to pursue careers in science and technology) and then ask him again if he disagrees.

The thing is, just looking at the products of modern science and technology doesn't inspire much. The reason people shy away from technical fields is that they see it as some kind of black magic.

Inspiration doesn't come from seeing the products. It comes from seeing the process, from realizing that doing it is within (or just barely beyond) your grasp, and from being a part of it. The inspiration is from participating in the design and build and competition, with the mentors.

I can tell you right now that I would never, ever have joined my robotics team if I hadn't been allowed to be involved in the actual business of design and construction. "Watch Professionals Build a Robot Club" would have bored the stew out of me.

If anyone has misunderstood my position to be defending cases where the mentors do everything and the students merely watch, please correct that misunderstanding now. The FIRST experience can't be compared to a science lecture or a documentary video. FRC teams in particular should be recognized as close partnerships between students and mentors.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I think you're missing part of my earlier point. If we wanted to show students what professional engineers can accomplish, it would be a lot cheaper for teachers to just stick a NOVA special on the Apollo program in the VCR and pop out for a coffee. Programs like FIRST deserve to exist because they show students that THEY can become engineers and build cool things. Science has a bit of a stigma in our society and kids think they need to be super-geniuses to excel in it and programs like FIRST can dispel that myth.

If you're already motivated enough to want to build a robot; to believe that students can do a job as good or better than professionals, FIRST has run its course for you. A FIRST team can still teach you valuable technical and leadership skills, but its mission of inspiration is complete. You are not its target.

FIRST is for the kids that don't think that a group of students can do just as well as a group of mentors or that think they are not smart or capable enough to become involved in the process. FIRST is about reaching out to them, holding their hand and showing them what they can accomplish. Once they've taken those first few steps, we hope that inspiration takes hold and they become like you and other students that are driven to learn and do more.

For those kids, mentor involvement is absolutely necessary to overcome the expectations our society has placed on what it means to be intelligent, thoughtful and creative.

[JaneYoung]

Mentors are needed in the pits and on the field.
I had the privilege of being on the ref crew under the leadership of our head ref, Andy Baker, at the inaugural OKC Regional. Our emcee was Wayne Penn. Emcees are entertaining yes, but they work very hard to help keep the competition running smoothly and on time. They also use a lot of common sense in helping to support the efforts of the rest of the volunteers and in working with the teams.

Andy coached his ref crew, advising us to mentor the teams during this competition. Let them know when they did something right. Let them know where they could improve. If there were penalties, he would make sure everyone understood why. If they had questions, he made the time to answer them. The majority of the competitors were rookie teams and we all worked together to support the efforts of these teams, as did the veteran teams that competed at the regional. Mentors came in from all over the nation to volunteer in the pits as well as everywhere else, helping the teams understand the regional, the competition, and to achieve their goal - to play the game to the best of their ability.

At every regional, every competition, including the Championship event, there are rookie team members and rookie teams who need the added support and resourcefulness of the mentors. (There are veteran teams, like mine, who need that support as well.)

OKC was an amazing event because of everyone working together to make it one.

[Sunshine]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

If you're already motivated enough to want to build a robot; to believe that students can do a job as good or better than professionals, FIRST has run its course for you.

Wow,
Where did that come from? He never said that students can do a job as good or better than professionals when building a robot. You totally missed the point.

I believe that there are two simple points here. Students learn, grow and have fun learning by doing. They need to be active aprticipants.

I believe that there is an underlying concern that few are willing to address/talk about. Some mentors and students are turned off by the perception that there are teams out there where the robot is totally built by the mentors. You can attempt to justify this any way you want but student teams get turned off thinking that they will never do well because they are competing against engineers NOT other students. .

I'll have nothing to do with this passive involvement of the students. If we can not motivate and educate them to produce a functional machine, we have failed.

[Alan Anderson]

(This response really ought to have been sent as a Private Message, but Sunshine has chosen not to receive PMs. Apologies to everyone else for making you read it.)

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Where did that come from? He never said that students can do a job as good or better than professionals when building a robot.

Actually, he did:

Originally Posted by Kelly

Ideally, the students would have been so heavily involved with building the robot, they know how to fix it better than the mentors...We already know that professional engineers can build robots. What's really culture changing is when kids can do it for themselves. (and they can, when the mentors step back)

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I'll have nothing to do with this passive involvement of the students.

Whether or not you intend it, you're coming across as overly defensive. Like "CommanderRachek", you're arguing against a position that nobody here has promoted.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

EricH,
This may not be the one you were thinking of but it addresses some of this discussion.
Jane

You're right, it's not the one I'm thinking of. The one I'm thinking of was DURING the Kickoff, later transcribed here.

Kelly, could you answer my question from my first post in this thread? It might make it easier to communicate. We'll at least have a better idea of where we each stand.

Sunshine, read the rest of the post. She also says (right after the part you quote, BTW) "A FIRST team can still teach you valuable technical and leadership skills, but its mission of inspiration is complete. You are not its target." I think you missed her point.

Also, I remember someone saying (this is in the spotlights) "Your second year on the team is your first year as a mentor." Tell your sponsor that. Live it. It's true. Students are mentors. Now that's something you don't see too often outside of FIRST.

[Kate00]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Wow,
Where did that come from? He never said that students can do a job as good or better than professionals when building a robot. You totally missed the point.

I believe that there are two simple points here. Students learn, grow and have fun learning by doing. They need to be active aprticipants.

I believe that there is an underlying concern that few are willing to address/talk about. Some mentors and students are turned off by the perception that there are teams out there where the robot is totally built by the mentors. You can attempt to justify this any way you want but student teams get turned off thinking that they will never do well because they are competing against engineers NOT other students. .

I'll have nothing to do with this passive involvement of the students. If we can not motivate and educate them to produce a functional machine, we have failed.

I think what Madison was trying to say was that FIRST is trying to change culture by getting more students interested in engineering, making science and technology professionals the heros of our culture. Obviously, you who argue that students can build a robot, that you really respect engineers, already understand that. FIRST really wants to inspire those who would never have thought about engineering - who would never have even dreamed of it as a career - who never even thought about all those cool gadgets CommanderRatchek mentioned in his post and where they came from. I was one of those students. I had never even dreamed of engineering as a career before I joined a FIRST team. I decided against going into it because it's not where my strengths lie, but FIRST made me seriously consider engineering as a career. That is how FIRST is changing the culture, not by giving students who already know they want to be engineers an chance to play with robots. Without mentors, those students will not get any exposure to what engineering really is.

I've probably told this story before, but it's a really telling one. One of the students a year older than me on my old team (which was basically completely student run - we had mentors who we used as "tools," like you're describing, who never got involved in the design/build process) had never really thought of engineering before joining FIRST. Once she joined, she thought about it a bit, then discarded the idea, because all she knew was the process we were muddling through - she thought that was "engineering," and wasn't really into it. She went through two years on the team, but didn't have any exposure to mentors, and applied to university for Biology. At the Greater Toronto Regional in 2007, we had the chance to work closely with engineers on 1114, who designed ramps alongside us - worked with us through the design procedure, and gave us fantastic ideas on how to make it work, that we as students never thought of. They designed and built our ramps with us, and I remember after the experience, she turned to me and said "That was so cool, that's what real engineers do. I really wish I had applied to engineering at university." She is currently attempting to switch into engineering, but that is an extremely difficult thing to do. If we had had mentors who helped us design and build our robot, worked through the engineering process with us, her life would be completely different.



Rachek: This debate has gone on through plenty of threads, and all I will say is this - by having the mentors design and build the robot ALONGSIDE the students, they can understand how that "black magic" works. They can go "oooh, cool, maybe I want to learn how to do that." Without that "black magic," things don't work very well, or not nearly as well as they could. I doubt there are many, if any, teams out there that have the engineers design and built the entire robot with no input from the students and no exposure of the students to the process. I don't think anyone in this thread has advocated mentors designing and building a robot in complete secrecy from the students on the team.

One thing in your post I will take a big issue with - it DOES take a degree to be an engineer. If you do not have an engineering degree, you are not an engineer. I seem to remember a thread on this from a while back, but my limited ability to search seems to not be able to find it.


Okay, that was excessively long. Whoops.