Poll on who builds your teams robot.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by keehun

Unfortunately Dean Kamen doesn't value it as much we do...

I think he does. He, Dave, and Woodie have pointed out repeatedly that it should be students working with mentors. Exact method of working with is up to the teams to find their own balance that works for them, and I agree with that method more than the "no adults building" policy of FLL (and FTC, if they still have that policy).

[JesseK]

I agree with the "no adults" policy of FLL and FTC. Those programs have kits and are restricted enough that students should be able to put the puzzle together themselves with limited mentor support.

The thing about FRC is that teams that are all students all the time with mentor support from the sidelines really don't know what they're missing. There's a whole world of processes, design and materials that industry mentors can bring to the table if they're proactive. Having that experience gemoetrically accelerates college learning past what it would have been without the experience. This doesn't mean that mentors build everything; it simply means that excluding and restricting them closes the doors to the opportunity of being inspired or taught in a way you didn't know you could be inspired or taught.

It's like running on dial-up after you've already experienced 40Mbps fiber optics. If you'd never upgraded to begin with, you wouldn't understand the hype. Yet once you understand the fundamental improvements by switching and all of the new opportunities you never would have had on dial-up, you'll never want to go back.

[NickE]

Originally Posted by JesseK

The thing about FRC is that teams that are all students all the time with mentor support from the sidelines really don't know what they're missing. There's a whole world of processes, design and materials that industry mentors can bring to the table if they're proactive. Having that experience gemoetrically accelerates college learning past what it would have been without the experience. This doesn't mean that mentors build everything; it simply means that excluding and restricting them closes the doors to the opportunity of being inspired or taught in a way you didn't know you could be inspired or taught.

It's like running on dial-up after you've already experienced 40Mbps fiber optics. If you'd never upgraded to begin with, you wouldn't understand the hype. Yet once you understand the fundamental improvements by switching and all of the new opportunities you never would have had on dial-up, you'll never want to go back.

This is the best analogy I have seen.

[keehun]

Originally Posted by EricH

I think he does. He, Dave, and Woodie have pointed out repeatedly that it should be students working with mentors. Exact method of working with is up to the teams to find their own balance that works for them, and I agree with that method more than the "no adults building" policy of FLL (and FTC, if they still have that policy).

I'd love to be proved wrong, but I think when Dean was asked if he's fine with a team that had only mentors touching the robot, I think he said he was ok with that since all he wanted was to inspire students, hence the I in FIRST meaning inspiration not like application.

Well, I'd love to be proven wrong and I'd love to see Dean say that it's not ok to only have the mentors work on the robot..

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by EricH

I think he does. He, Dave, and Woodie have pointed out repeatedly that it should be students working with mentors. Exact method of working with is up to the teams to find their own balance that works for them, and I agree with that method more than the "no adults building" policy of FLL (and FTC, if they still have that policy).

Just to make it fo' sho' on FTC:

Originally Posted by Coaches' Handbook

MY PROMISE:
2. The students do the work. This is their opportunity to learn and grow. The students on my team do all programming, research, problem-solving, and building. Adults can help them find the answers, but cannot give them the answers or make the decisions.

One of the most inspirational mentors I ever worked with followed this general principle, and it made our accomplishments as a team feel that much better...

FRC is intentionally different, though, and I don't mean for this post to indicate that I think that's a bad thing.

Originally Posted by keehun

I'd love to be proved wrong, but I think when Dean was asked if he's fine with a team that had only mentors touching the robot, I think he said he was ok with that since all he wanted was to inspire students, hence the I in FIRST meaning inspiration not like application.

Well, I'd love to be proven wrong and I'd love to see Dean say that it's not ok to only have the mentors work on the robot..

There's a quote on these boards somewhere where Dean Kamen explains to a sponsor or some other official about what he thinks of teams that have their mentors work on their robot. If I could find it I'd post it, but I can't right now, and I've searched for about 20 minutes...

[Denman]

I believe it should be a student project, and i think this post here kinda says everything with regards to who should be building the robot and generally mentor roles
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...70&postcount=5