FAHA: Adult Coach on Drive Team

[Molten]

Originally Posted by dlavery

...before you answer, I would urge you to carefully research the entire referenced statement, and the context in which it was delivered. Don't rely on second-hand abstractions or someone else's recollection of what was said. Look into it for yourself, and get some direct knowledge of exactly what was being advocated before you form your opinion (he asked innocently, with a pebble resting in an extended palm).

I went into the usfirst website and loaded the kickoff video. I have below the applicable portion.

Originally Posted by Dave Lavery at Kickoff

The real message I’ve got is for those teams that have chosen to not have mentors participating in your teams. I want to ask you to think about it again. If you have chosen to do this problem without mentors on your teams, technically yes you are probably going to be able to compete and play the game. It’s going to be tough, it’s going to be harder but you can probably do it. It’s certainly reasonable. But if you have chosen to not have mentors on your team and to do this by yourselves, you’re missing an opportunity to work side by side with some of the best engineers in the world. You’re missing an opportunity to learn from some of those creative and innovative designers that are out there. You’re missing an opportunity to be inspired by some of the best problem solvers in the world. Realistically, you’re missing the point. What we want you to do instead, to all those teams and all the teams that already get it and understand the role of the mentor we want you to instead to dare to try to do something different. Dare to try to learn about problem solving and doing things in a different way. Get outside of your comfort zone. Let the mentors show you something that you’re not used to doing. We want you to dare to be exposed to new ways to think we basically want to dare you to be inspired. That’s what we want you to take away from this program.

Ok, the two bold parts are the parts I want to reference. The first part suggests that teams choose to not have mentors participate. To this, I'd like to meet the team that doesn't allow their mentors to participate. From my experience, it seems like the teams that can get a mentor choose to use them. They might not allow to participate in the way that you mean, but they make use of them in some way. The teams I've been on avoid having mentors work on the parts, heading the design, or out on the field. Does this mean they aren't participating? I don't think so. I avoid doing work for the students. I help them figure out dimensions, I open their mind to new ideas, I am a resource of information, I am there for motivation if they need some confidence, I am a mentor(as dictionary.com describes it). I am not drafting up the bot for them, I am not going out on the field, I am not designing the robot, I am not building a part, I
am not a student. But honestly, that whole debate doesn't bother me too much.

The second bold part is where your real question comes in.

Originally Posted by dlavery

I would be quite interested in learning how I, or Dean, or Woodie, am all wrong and missing the point of FIRST.

In short: "How could the creators not know the point of their creation?"

I want to go with the definition of the word 'point', because that is probably where are confusion lies. According to dictionary.com, the word 'point' has 91 definitions. The definitions that are relevant are 23 through 25 which I've quoted below.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

23.the important or essential thing: the point of the matter.
24.the salient feature of a story, epigram, joke, etc.: to miss the point.
25.a particular aim, end, or purpose: He carried his point.

The creators would definitely know the point by definition 25, however that is not the definition that I was originally meaning. I am referring to definition 23. This leads to the question of what is "the important or essential thing" of FIRST. Winning is the most important thing in the competition for some, so that is the 'point' of FIRST for them. For others, the 'point' is inspiration. For me, the 'point' is learning. The whole 'point'(using definition 25) I am trying to make is that there is no singular 'point'(using definition 23) for something as big as FIRST.

This is the only case that I sincerely feel you are wrong. Anyone that suggests there is one-size-fits-all 'point' for FIRST, is wrong in my opinion. There are just too many people involved in the program for all of us to agree upon what is important.

I apologize for my harsh wording in my previous post(especially to Dean for the mistaken identity quote), I honestly am not accusing the creators of any ignorance. I feel that each of the creators are quite intelligent, I just think you need to realize that FIRST has numerous benefits outside of your original intention. It went from having a specific point to having numerous.

All I really ask is that you allow us to define the point ourselves rather then telling us what it is supposed to be.

[kramarczyk]

Originally Posted by Molten

All I really ask is that you allow us to define the point ourselves rather then telling us what it is supposed to be.

You get to do that with your team. A team is a separate entity from FIRST and is therefore entitled to it's own perspective. A team may choose to participate in other activities beyond FRC (VEX,BEST, Bot IQ, etc.) for a variety of benefits. Consequentially, a team may have a vision and mission that is somewhat different from any one of the individual competitions.

I cannot recall any example of FIRST telling the team what it is supposed to be, so why should we be telling FIRST what it is supposed to be. If learning is a part of your team mission or student coaches work for you, great. Teams can take a different look at the world than what is contained in FIRST's mission; it's allowed. Just don't assume that all of your reasons for participating should be pushed back to FIRST.

Stated differently...
FIRST != Team
Team != FIRST



.

[epfaffli]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19
Over the past couple years in a large number of Dean's speaches we have heard him adress teams who are student run, no adult mentors. He says they're missing the point.


Not one of these posts suggests removing adult mentors totally from the team. I'm sure that Dean was talking about the total team makeup and not this ascept of the team. Adult Mentors are needed to teach and direct the team. They should also train team leaders that can then use these skills to direct the drive team as student mentors.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Molten

All I really ask is that you allow us to define the point ourselves rather then telling us what it is supposed to be.

Originally Posted by kramarczyk

I cannot recall any example of FIRST telling the team what it is supposed to be...

Above in my previous post I have a lengthy quote from kickoff that was given by Dave Lavery. This speech pretty well is FIRST telling us what the team is supposed to be. Now, the only question is Dave Lavery=FIRST. He is certainly a major spokesperson for FIRST.

Originally Posted by epfaffli

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19
I'm sure that Dean was talking about the total team makeup and not this ascept of the team.

Please read the thread in its entirety. We have already found that it was actually Dave Lavery who made this comment, not Dean. Also, the actual speech is quoted in a previous post I've made. Please read it before commenting on it.

[EricH]

Molten, what is FIRST's mission statement? Does it include a reference to mentors? Is not the mission statement to some extent a statement of FIRST's goals and methods?

FIRST's preferred method is to have mentors. They do not say what type of mentors, just that the program should have mentors. End of discussion, except that some teams don't read the mission statement and try to do the whole thing with one adult who pretty much is there so they can use their facility.

Anything beyond having mentor(s) that mentor (not shop-key-holders or accountants) is up to the team.

[Zflash]

So Mr. Lavery has pointed out that those teams that decide not to include Adult Mentors in the build process are missing the point. Never did he say that the teams that do not include mentors in build or do not have them on the field are not allowed to participate. A mentor is a great thing to have because they have already taken the tests of experience. And we all know that Mrs. Experience is a tough teacher because she gives the test first and the lesson last. So maybe a team is "missing" the point by competing a certain way, however since you are in FIRST your still coming out on top. By the way 1319 has a mentor coach, mainly because we strive to win. This is what the students want. Also winning will help when it comes to recruiting. When we won the Gailileo division in 2007 our enrollment jumped to over twice its size. Many of our now greatest students only joined because they wanted to be apart of a winning program. They are now interested in engineering fields and college in general. They were inspired and continued to be by our mentor lead team. To each his own I say that's why America is great.

[JaiM]

The 971 drive team chooses whoever they think is best suitable for the job, whether it be a student or an adult.

In 2004, 971 won SVR with an adult drive team coach.
This year, 2009, 971 won SVR (undefeated), Galileo, and Einstein with a student drive team coach.

I think it is unfair to say that an adult coach is inherently better than a student one. It all depends on an individual's actual abilities to be a coach.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Molten

Ok, the two bold parts are the parts I want to reference. The first part suggests that teams choose to not have mentors participate. To this, I'd like to meet the team that doesn't allow their mentors to participate. From my experience, it seems like the teams that can get a mentor choose to use them. They might not allow to participate in the way that you mean, but they make use of them in some way. The teams I've been on avoid having mentors work on the parts, heading the design, or out on the field. Does this mean they aren't participating? I don't think so. I avoid doing work for the students. I help them figure out dimensions, I open their mind to new ideas, I am a resource of information, I am there for motivation if they need some confidence, I am a mentor(as dictionary.com describes it). I am not drafting up the bot for them, I am not going out on the field, I am not designing the robot, I am not building a part, I am not a student. But honestly, that whole debate doesn't bother me too much.

I think this paragraph highlights the disconnect in our viewpoints. As indicated (several times now), my kickoff presentation comments have centered on those teams that knowingly and intentionally eschew the meaningful participation of adult mentors on the team. Your post indicates that you do not believe such teams exist. I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that they do.

My belief is based on information gathered from multiple data sets, including:
- review of the accumulated feedback provided to FIRST during the summer team forums (or whatever they are being called now) and similar sessions;
- review of 350-450 team-written self descriptions submitted each year as part of the NASA grant application process, in which teams describe their organization and mentoring structure;
- direct discussions with many teams over the years at the in-season and off-season competitions (current count is somewhere around 60 attended);
- review of the data gathered by the Brandeis University Study, and similar efforts, which examined the productivity, structure and throughput of FRC teams and their effectiveness at fulfilling the FIRST vision;
- and even the many, many posts that have accumulated here on CD from the many self-proclaimed "students only, they do everything, there are no adults involved" teams that decry contributions by any adults at all.

Based on the information gathered from these and other sources, many members of the senior ranks of FIRST have become concerned about the dilution of both the real and perceived role of mentors in the FIRST program. Teams that participate without meaningful adult mentoring exemplify the extreme case, and they exist as a large enough component of the total community to be considered representative of a real issue. The organization is focusing some real attention on how these divergent implementations affect the mission of FIRST.

If you truly believe that such teams do not actually exist, then please please provide me with some solid, concrete data to support that contention. Because if that is correct, then by extension we are wasting our time trying to address the issue of such teams and how they fit (or not) within FIRST. If that is indeed the case, then I think we will gladly welcome being corrected as we have many other things that we could be doing.

-dave


.