Responsibilities of a Mentor

[hallk]

There has been a lot of talk about what role mentors should play in relation to the build season. I don't care what area the mentor works in or what philosophy the team uses; mentors are supposed to be inspirational supporters. To me, it goes beyond FIRST. I'm going to be there for my kids whether they have questions about college or where to mount the controls. I realize what FIRST stands for; however, I think the most important portion is the inspiration part. Sometimes it seems like too much emphasis is put on the technology part. It is great if a kid learns how to use technology but I think it is more important they learn in general. Learn how to work on a team; learn to meet deadlines; learn how to work hard but still have fun; learn what they like or dislike; learn how to be a better leader; learn why helping others is important; and of yeah, learn how to build a robot .

[EricH]

Originally Posted by EricH

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.

I decided to find it... Turns out, Jane has a better sense of what I'm thinking of than I do.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=113 has the transcription (in a thread on mentors working on the robots).

[4throck]

It seems that many people are completely misunderstanding the "black magic" analogy that Kelly and Rachel have brought up. Perhaps this will clear it up.

The idea is something like this. Most people's conception of engineering is that an engineer goes into a room for a while, produces blueprints through black magic, which then [black] magically get turned into some really useful/cool technology. People understand that this happens, and they might even have a good idea of how it happens. You can watch a TV special on, say, the Manhattan Project, and look at every single step that they took when designing what they were working on. This would be roughly analogous to students watching a mentor designed and built robot. What would be more useful (and inspiring, perhaps), would be for the students to do it themselves. There is a big gap between watching someone else go through the process and doing it yourself. When the intellectual and technological burden is on you, and you are able to make a functioning and overall decent (at least) robot, you can see the engineering process as a whole, and, what's more, come out with the knowledge and confidence that you can do this, that you can solve the problem and work from there.

I was in the same class and team as Kelly and Rachel (1418, GMHS '07), and on my first year ('05), and every year afterwards I worked on the robot, I was able to look back on that bot and understand that the process of engineering wasn't simply the black magic of super-geniuses like Feynman, Oppenheimer, etc., but a process of solving problems that I could understand and work through myself.

If that ain't inspiration, then I don't know what is.

p.s. Way to default to masculine pronouns even when the person in question is named Kelly. Gender neutral at least, come on.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by 4throck

It seems that many people are completely misunderstanding the "black magic" analogy that Kelly and Rachel have brought up. Perhaps this will clear it up.

The idea is something like this. Most people's conception of engineering is that an engineer goes into a room for a while, produces blueprints, which then [black] magically get turned into some really useful/cool technology. People understand that this happens, and they might even have a good idea of how it happens. You can watch a TV special on, say, the Manhattan Project, and look at every single step that they took when designing what they were working on. This would be roughly analogous to students watching a mentor designed and built robot. What would be more useful (and inspiring, perhaps), would be for the students to do it themselves. There is a big gap between watching someone else go through the process and doing it yourself. When the intellectual and technological burden is on you, and you are able to make a functioning and overall decent (at least) robot, you can see the engineering process as a whole, and, what's more, come out with the knowledge and confidence that you can do this, that you can solve the problem and work from there.

How is that different from the analogy that your teammates are using and others are replying to? Engineer produces blueprints which become technology. The main difference I see is when the "black magic" happens--which side of the blueprints/production drawings it's on. And exactly when it happens doesn't matter for this.

I do not think that you see the engineering process from simply building a robot. I could go out there, grab a Kitbot, follow the instruction manuals on assembly and the wiring diagrams on the wiring, hook it up, and have a running, decent, functioning, halfway competitive robot. That is NOT engineering process! That's assembly. Now, I might need engineering process to make it rules-compliant, but I'm just as likely to try the seat-of-the-pants approach because all you need is a pole and some non-duct-tape tape, or some cardboard, and you can have a rules-compliant robot as well, no engineering process required.

Engineering process involves determining requirements that must be met, finding solutions to the objective that meet those requirements, analyzing to see which is best, and then detail-designing and building the solution. It's kind of hard to learn that without engineers. You're right, there is a big gap between watching someone go through it and going through it yourself, specifically that it's a whole lot more interesting when you go through it. However, if you go through it without guidance, then you may be like a traveler without a map or compass--you get out all right a time or two, but you need help the rest of the times you're lost.

BTW, there isn't a SINGLE robot in FIRST that I'm aware of that is mentor-designed and -built. If you can think of one, you're going to need proof that that is the case before you say they are. So your entire "video" analogy is not applicable to FIRST that I'm aware of.

[4throck]

Sorry, that was an editing mistake. Both sides of the process count as black magic.

Also, you just pretty much declared FIRST useless! Cheers!

[EricH]

Originally Posted by 4throck

Sorry, that was an editing mistake. Both sides of the process count as black magic.

Also, you just pretty much declared FIRST useless! Cheers!

If you don't take the time to READ what I wrote, ALL of it, then I won't waste my time.

I didn't say FIRST was useless, I said that I could build a robot, that would be competitive, using materials provided by FIRST, WITHOUT using engineering process. I said NOTHING whatsoever about relation of that to FIRST, likelihood of teams to do that, or any such thing.

Now, would I do that? NO!!!! That's because the engineering process tells me that unless I build something better than a boxbot, I'm going to get creamed. And then I use the same engineering process to build a robot.

I would suggest reading the full post before replying, in future.

[Kate00]

Originally Posted by 4throck

It seems that many people are completely misunderstanding the "black magic" analogy that Kelly and Rachel have brought up. Perhaps this will clear it up.

The idea is something like this. Most people's conception of engineering is that an engineer goes into a room for a while, produces blueprints through black magic, which then [black] magically get turned into some really useful/cool technology. People understand that this happens, and they might even have a good idea of how it happens. You can watch a TV special on, say, the Manhattan Project, and look at every single step that they took when designing what they were working on. This would be roughly analogous to students watching a mentor designed and built robot. What would be more useful (and inspiring, perhaps), would be for the students to do it themselves. There is a big gap between watching someone else go through the process and doing it yourself. When the intellectual and technological burden is on you, and you are able to make a functioning and overall decent (at least) robot, you can see the engineering process as a whole, and, what's more, come out with the knowledge and confidence that you can do this, that you can solve the problem and work from there.

If that ain't inspiration, then I don't know what is.

Well good for you. Have you ever considered that there is a viable middle ground to what you're suggesting? That that middle ground is actually what happens on most FIRST teams? Mentors and students work TOGETHER to design and build a robot. I'm pretty sure there are approximately 0 teams out there who do what you're suggesting - have students sit there and watch while the mentors do everything. I don't understand who you're accusing here, because there isn't anyone out there doing what you say is so bad. Sure, some teams have mentors in the pits - as other people have pointed out, you have no idea what's going on there. Ever heard the expression "don't judge a book by its cover??"

Inspiration can come about in a multitude of ways. I'm glad you were inspired. Just because you think your way works doesn't mean you can say other ways don't. Have you ever been on a team that you think mentors do all the work and don't inspire their students? I have experienced being on a team that has completely student designed and built robot, and working hand in hand with engineering mentors to design and build a robot as a student. Both inspire. In my opinion, I was infinitely more inspired by working alongside industry professionals to design and build a robot - having them share their ideas with us, us share their ideas with them and having help working through those ideas. But maybe that's just me. There is a big gap between seeing someone do something and doing it yourself - but there is also a big gap between being guided and helped along by a professional in the field and doing it yourself.

[JaneYoung]

Everyone's posts are clear. The trick is to go back and read each post and understand what each person is saying. I believe Alan said this earlier, we may be talking past each other. That can happen when we feel passionate about the topic and obviously, this is a topic that can become heated.

I'm not sure that we are still talking about what the OP had in mind in starting this thread though. If we still are, maybe someone can summarize and make some bullets of the key points.

Go inspiration!

[Akash Rastogi]

Yea please read the posts first to actually give useful information instead of adding an insult to another person's post. Thanks.

[CommanderRachek]

Originally Posted by 4throck

It seems that many people are completely misunderstanding the "black magic" analogy that Kelly and Rachel have brought up. Perhaps this will clear it up.

Originally Posted by EricH

How is that different from the analogy that your teammates are using and others are replying to?

It isn't. David simply expressed it much more eloquently than either myself or Kelly (who's a girl by the way. Don't know where that came from).

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Like "CommanderRachek", you're arguing against a position that nobody here has promoted.

Well, actually, "Alan Anderson," nobody needs to promote it to me because I have seen its effects with my own eyes. I can distinctly remember the Thursday night of my very first regional competition. My team was in the pits very late attempting to ready our robot for inspection. There were several other teams evidently in the same predicament, as even as late as a half hour before we were ejected from the building, there were other clusters of people gathered in several other pits. However, there was a striking difference between us and the other night owls. We were the only group of students there. Every other group still there consisted entirely of adults.

Clearly, the students on these particular teams were not sufficiently inspired to be bothered to even watch their robots get completed. This is not a theoretical possibility based on conjecture. This is what I have seen with my own eyes.

For what it's worth, our infamous sponsor from upthread was there too.

[Kate00]

Did you actually talk to those teams to determine if there were no students there? I know many students who have been mistaken for mentors because they look older than they are. Did you actually look and try and see what they were doing? Maybe those "clusters of people" were just doing routine repairs, or putting things away, or tidying up the pit. Maybe their only issue for inspection was getting the robot to fit in the sizing box, and the mentors kindly offered to do the hour of filing necessary so the students could get some food and rest. Perhaps the students on the team had a curfew that they couldn't stay past - maybe their bus left early, and all of the students had to be on it. (Yes there are legal issues with mentors driving students places, unless the proper forms have been signed.)

There are way too many variables in this situation for you to EVER make a judgment about a team based on one observation. You can't judge the level of inspiration of their students by one quick glance at their pit. What you are saying is absolutely a theoretical possibility based on conjecture. You have no idea what goes on on those teams. Stop pretending to, and maybe next time go ask what's going on. The answers may surprise you.

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by CommanderRachek

We were the only group of students there. Every other group still there consisted entirely of adults.

Clearly, the students on these particular teams were not sufficiently inspired to be bothered to even watch their robots get completed. This is not a theoretical possibility based on conjecture. This is what I have seen with my own eyes.

I've never seen exclusive mentors-only for the entire pits at any of the regionals I've ever attended, so you do have an interesting story.

My team has been guilty of leaving mentors behind alone on occasion, but only for critical issues. Most often repairs or corrections just wait for the next day.
School policy demands that students travel as a group and they have to be back long before the pits close on Thursday. Policy also forbids me to drive students anywhere.
Sometimes we've been able to keep select students back by signing them out to their parents if their parents can stay and transport them, but unfortunately that's rarely the case for the pit crew students.

I actually had comments for the original poster, but this thread has been hijacked so far off course (on a path the OP specifically requested we not take) that they won't make any sense now...

Please just stop being nasty to one another.

BTW: Jane, the official Kickoff transcript is at: http://robotics.nasa.gov/events/first/08transcript.php

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

BTW: Jane, the official Kickoff transcript is at: http://robotics.nasa.gov/events/first/08transcript.php

Oh there it is. yay!
Thank you, Mark.

Jane

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Commander,
I feel a need to interject some fact here so there will be no misunderstanding in the future. As a lead inspector, I have worked long and hard with teams in the pit and have seen those rare occassions when mentors were left working on robots. In many of those cases, they chose to stay while releasing their students to travel back to school, participate in another school activity (testing, band or orchestra concert, prom) or allow them to finish some school required homework prior to the rigors of competition. I know of several teams where the lead teacher assigns work that must be completed by the end of the weekend in addition to other school work. In all of those cases, this was a TEAM decision. I know of at least one school where the students had to travel by public transportation to reach the regional each day. That was a 2.5 hour ordeal to the inner city each way. I applaud the mentors and teachers who help teams make those decisions.
Eric, unfortunately, there are robots designed and built by adults in this competition. Each team decides for itself how it must be run. I for one stand on the side of the fence that promotes team decisions and adults working side by side with students. Although there are some decisions which should be reserved for team leads, most others should be by the team.
We as mentors should balance our decisions and statements on the benefit to the students. All too frequently, people forget this simple fact. If a decision by a mentor(s) adversely impacts the students on the team, then that decision needs to be rethought. I think that teams can have a great time when they have a competitive robot and try their best. For student only teams, they lack some of the experience that engineering mentors can bring to the team. Conversely, mentors need to learn from the students and the competition. I often astound my fellow engineers by using techniques I have learned in this competition. Students inspire me to do better and learn more. I hope that I am returning that favor.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by CommanderRachek

David simply expressed it much more eloquently than either myself or Kelly...

Who's David, and what did he (or she) say? I find no expressions, eloquent or otherwise, attributed to anyone of that name in this thread.

Well, actually, "Alan Anderson," nobody needs to promote it to me because I have seen its effects with my own eyes...Clearly, the students on these particular teams were not sufficiently inspired to be bothered to even watch their robots get completed. This is not a theoretical possibility based on conjecture. This is what I have seen with my own eyes.

This is based on conjecture. You're assuming things for which you have no evidence. In your example, you see clusters of apparent adults in teams' pits late on a Thursday, and you conclude from your observation that the students were not sufficiently involved in designing and building the robots. Several other plausible "theoretical possibility" explanations of what you saw have already been proposed. Without talking to the teams you're referring to, we can't know what was actually the case.