Mentors on the team

[Joe G.]

I will speak as another former student. Let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time, I was an excited high school freshman. I'd been through five years of FLL, two years of VEX, and four years of working independently on a battlebot. I'd built some good robots for those events, and thought I knew it all. I had been counting down the days until I was old enough to join an FRC team.

The team at my high school was essentially starting fresh that year, with a new teacher, and almost entirely new students. The teacher was a laid back type. He said that the team would be mostly student run. I encouraged this, and helped to ingrain an attitude in the team that would come to haunt me years later. I did this because I was stupid, because I thought I knew all the engineering required to build one of these robots.

Build season that year destroyed me. It became apparent that I was in way over my head, along with every other student on the team. We put in many sleepless nights of work, but it wasn't enough to overcome our lack of knowledge. We had a dismal robot that year, and a lot of inter-team conflict over that dismal robot. I got excited about the chance to try again next year, and learn from my mistakes. But that's just my optimistic personality.

Next year, only 4 members of a 15 person team returned.

The next three years were filled with similar cycles. Sporadic successes were mixed in there, but for the most part, FRC went from a dream come true, to a stress-inducing chore. The team's situation did not improve, because of the "students only" attitude that I pushed so hard for my freshman year, that was too late to turn around. The majority of students left when the experience turned frustrating, and even those like me were immediately shunned upon graduation. Knowledge was gained and lost and gained again, each year. I learned much more from spending my spare time on Chief Delphi, than I did stumbling through four build seasons.

I can think of only a couple students whose life was turned towards engineering by that system.

I can think of many more talented individuals who were pushed away from engineering, because being thrown into FRC like a fish in the north atlantic made them think they were no good at engineering. I probably would have gone the same way if I hadn't had inspiring experiences pre-high school in other programs.

If a team makes students feel bad about their abilities, and discourages them from going into engineering, they are doing it wrong, no matter how much direct experience the students get.

I look back on high school and think. What if I'd worked with someone with more experience building that roller claw, instead of wasting a month, lots of PVC, and all our tubes on it? What if someone had told us our 2008 drive system was fundamentally flawed before we showed up at the regional unable to move? What if we'd worked with those great teams who would help us at the regional, rather than being told by our team's culture to shun them, because they did FIRST wrong?

And most hauntingly, I think things like this.
-What if Aaron had someone to help with that cool drive system he thought of, rather than getting frustrated and quitting?
-What if Mike was able to see all the long hours he put in on the bandsaw turn into a beautiful robot, instead of a pile of parts held together by zipties?
-What if Katie had been taught programming, instead of stumbling through it blindly?
-What if someone machined all the parts we couldn't, that Miranda CADded before she left? What if the next year, when we got some machining capabilities, there was someone who knew CAD?

Trust me when I say this. It's clear how an all mentor team is not inspiring. It's not so clear how an all student team can be even more dangerous. This post is intended to shed light on the dangers of extremes. A rigidly student run team is something many people seem to strive for.

I've lived it. I don't want you to.

Absolutes in life rarely make sense. They don't make sense with FRC teams either.

What is the maximum amount of mentor involvement allowed in a robot build, by percentage?

If design is a process of continuous improvement, the time to complete a robot is infinate. Therefore, work to be done is infinate. And therefore, students AND mentors should put in all the effort they possibly can. If either steps back or pushes the other away, the team will suffer.

[jason701802]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

This comes up every year (and it will come up again and again) and to be honest it doesn't matter what we say, People will see what they want to see and if they believe that teams that have mentors who build their robots (or even assist in any way shape or form) are the root of evil.
Perhaps the only way to deal with it is to let them stew in their own juices and take them off your pick list. Sometimes the best lessons come with a swift kick to the rear.

And what does that teach anyone? The teams that have the best performing robots are not necessarily the ones that do the most inspiration. Some of the most inspired (not excited) kids I have talked to are the ones that are on predominately student teams.

Originally Posted by Billfred

With that out of the way, let me ask some questions:

1) If a team can't press a pinion gear onto a motor properly, but a mentor can take it to work and get the operation done quickly and effectively, should the mentor "sit on the sidelines"?
2) If a team has four hacksaws, 40 feet of pipe that needs cutting, and three available students, should that fourth hacksaw just sit on the shelf?
3) If a mentor's demonstration can save the team valuable time and resources, should a student tear it down and start it fresh?

I submit the answer is no to all of these. Balance is the answer.

I agree that the answer to all of these is no. I think it is only okay for a mentor to work on the robot if every student is busy and every interested student knows how to do the task in question. By definition, a mentor is a counselor or teacher, not a doer. A mentor should never do something that could be done by a student, and if they do, they aren't really a mentor. The moment that a mentor takes an active role in the design, they have crossed a line. They can pass on a lot of knowledge, give guidelines for design, show and explain examples of good and bad designs, and offer critiques, but, again, if they take control, they are no longer a teacher or a counselor, and thus not a mentor.


Random side-note for some extra thought: many of the greatest innovation throughout history have come from people who have ignored standard practices and traditional thinking.

[SousVide]

I don't know how we are disagreeing... We are pretty much saying exactly the same thing. The students work with the Mentors... well, mentoring... and not adults as super-team-members who do everything while students are sitting around "being inspired".

The latter being what is being represented by Dean's words from the original poster (not the O-OP, but OP for the Dean's words.)

I just think some folks get confused about what mentoring is. It's a process where you have the person you are mentoring pick-up and learn the skill, and then they become mentors themselves in transferring those same skills and processes onto others - hopefully, maybe improving on them and doing something great with those skills.

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

I totally disagree. Dean certainly doesn't need me to defend his words, so I will just say I've heard him say similar things in the last couple of years, so I think he still believes what he said in 1998.

From my perspective, regarding the role of mentors on a team - this just isn't for "kids" this is for "future STEM professionals. This is the best STEM curriculum in the world, wrapped up in the form of entertainment and competition. If they are not learning and not being inspired, then it certainly doesn't meet the goals of FIRST. How that is done, however, is dependent on the "market" where this is practiced. There can be instances where telling students to do it all themselves could be totally uninspiring, leading to total frustration, and causing them to quit. Likewise, having them sit on the sidelines, and not get a chance to be involved can also sour them on the whole experience. What works for one team, in their community, may not work for another.

In my workplace, I manage a team of education professionals. They have all gone to college, some with advanced degrees, some with experience at other organizations - but when they join our company, they are assigned a Mentor for their first two years. At the beginning, they get to only observe the training events that our company provides, then a chance to teach more and more, finally they are allowed to "go solo." Some need all 2 years to get up to speed, others, perhaps half that. The mentors are there to make sure they have the skills they need to be successful in our organization. The mentors in our company want the new employees to be successful as quickly as possible, so they can contribute to our overall success.

The same is true on our FRC team. We mentor them, so that hopefully they have the skills to be successful STEM professionals. Our FRC team is probably a 60/40 split between students and mentors. If a mentor is doing something, it with as much assistance as a student can give. If the student can do the job, the mentor is there to observe and advise. On our FTC teams, it is probably a 90/10 student to mentor split and FLL is then 100/0 split. But each level has its own goals and its own focus. FLL is not FRC for really short people, and FRC is not giant legos. The different levels of FIRST meet the kids where they are, with what they can do, and at what level of development they are in. They should be viewed as a part of progressive journey, where the goal is to grow the best STEM professionals we can.

On our team, the robot and the competition is a bonus - the learning is the key. How that works, is up to each team to decide, and that may change from year to year.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by jason701802

The teams that have the best performing robots are not necessarily the ones that do the most inspiration. Some of the most inspired (not excited) kids I have talked to are the ones that are on predominately student teams.

I have had a completely different experience than you then. I have been most inspired to pursue engineering and perform at a higher level by the most dominant teams in FIRST, not by the teams who struggle to put a robot on the field.

There are different types of inspiration. A team who dominates and leaves you in the dust drives you and inspires you to reach greatness. A team who succeeds in achieving their goals with what little help they have inspires you do be humble and give help and advice where it is needed.

I have been a student on a decently well known team for 4 years (Team 11) and now mentor a rookie team that I co founded (3929). We have around 30 students and around 14-16 constantly active mentors. We have two bots. We have worked our butts off (students AND mentors) in hopes of reaching the level of our strongest opponents. Attempting anything else than greatness is in my opinion, mediocre.

If I was supposed to sit on the sidelines and give tidbits of advice as a "mentor" then I probably would not be mentoring an FRC team. Working alongside my students (they're mostly only 4 years younger than me) is the most amazing joy I have ever felt. When students are able to learn from me and accomplish something without me, that is a great feeling. But that cannot be achieved if I sit on the sidelines. We run our team the way we see fit. So far, our students have no complaints (trust me, we ask them at the end of each week if they would like to change something about the way we are doing things). If they didn't like our level of involvement, which I am not afraid to say is quite a bit, why would they still keep coming back and in larger numbers? Why would they volunteer to stay later at meetings to work with us to finish sub-assemblies of the robot? The relationship we have with our students is the most powerful tool of inspiration, and I believe that that relationship is unattainable by just sitting on the sidelines.

@nilesh

The real question is: why do you care? How does this affect you? Are the other teams taking something away from you? Or are you just very ignorant and jealous of others' success?

[wireties]

Originally Posted by jason701802

And what does that teach anyone? The teams that have the best performing robots are not necessarily the ones that do the most inspiration. Some of the most inspired (not excited) kids I have talked to are the ones that are on predominately student teams.

Jason - I hate to beat a dead horse in this thread. But you have made extraordinary claims and I have to ask: How many students did you talk to? How did you assess the % of student involvement on each student's team? How many students per team did you sample? Were these students first, second, third or fourth year? How did you gauge the student level of excitement? Did you record any of the observations? (not to reveal here but to make sure your year over year data was consistent) Did you query the correlating mentors?

Do you see what I'm getting at? One can't just make believable claims w/o supporting data. it just does not ring true.

Originally Posted by jason701802

I agree that the answer to all of these is no. I think it is only okay for a mentor to work on the robot if every student is busy and every interested student knows how to do the task in question. By definition, a mentor is a counselor or teacher, not a doer.

From the dictionary - a wise or trusted adviser or guide - One wants their "guides" to show them how to do things. One wants wise, trusted advisors to be "doers" if the advisor thinks it best.

Originally Posted by jason701802

They can pass on a lot of knowledge, give guidelines for design, show and explain examples of good and bad designs, and offer critiques...

Agreed - but how is this not playing an active role? You state one principle then gives examples of something very different.

Another thing - the term "mentor", as used in FRC, is not strictly the one from the dictionary. Your definition is far from complete. FRC teams are meant to resemble real-world engineering organizations where mentors are muuuuuch more than teachers or counselors. In a professional context, mentors are held responsible for the progress and success of a novice. It is a much more formal and collaborative role.

[SousVide]

I don't think any of us really have to debate or consult the oracle on what FRC/FIRST defines as a mentor, their roles, etc, etc... There's a guide for that:
http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...ng%20Guide.pdf

Originally Posted by wireties

Jason - I hate to beat a dead horse in this thread. But you have made extraordinary claims and I have to ask: How many students did you talk to? How did you assess the % of student involvement on each student's team? How many students per team did you sample? Were these students first, second, third or fourth year? How did you gauge the student level of excitement? Did you record any of the observations? (not to reveal here but to make sure your year over year data was consistent) Did you query the correlating mentors?

Do you see what I'm getting at? One can't just make believable claims w/o supporting data. it just does not ring true.



From the dictionary - a wise or trusted adviser or guide - One wants their "guides" to show them how to do things. One wants wise, trusted advisors to be "doers" if the advisor thinks it best.



Agreed - but how is this not playing an active role? You state one principle then gives examples of something very different.

Another thing - the term "mentor", as used in FRC, is not strictly the one from the dictionary. Your definition is far from complete. FRC teams are meant to resemble real-world engineering organizations where mentors are muuuuuch more than teachers or counselors. In a professional context, mentors are held responsible for the progress and success of a novice. It is a much more formal and collaborative role.

[artdutra04]

Something that I think needs to be thought about:

In general, teenagers think they know everything and have the whole world figured out. Some of these students wear their "were 100% student only" FRC team status as some kind of a badge of honor (at least while they are still high school students).

But one thing that needs to be addressed, and that's how these students think back and reflect upon their experiences a few years after high school. When I was in a student in high school, there were teachers who I regarded as very strict, but in hindsight I realized I learned the most from these teachers.

In the same regard, are there students who look back on their high school robotics experiences and wonder: as a student-only team did I miss out on learning valuable experiences and knowledge had we been more receptive to actively involved mentors?

When I look back on my high school FRC experience, I'm glad I was on a team with actively involved mentors and a 50/50 split in student/mentor experience. By working closely with teachers, engineers, technicians, machinists, and other skilled mentors, without a doubt I learned more than I would have if I was on a student-only team.

After I graduated and went on to college, I saw similar experiences. Many of the students from teams with actively involved mentors had a much better grasp of the fundamentals of engineering, the design process, and other good base-level general knowledge. In general, these students seemed to have a better grasp of what real engineering was like, and thus were better prepared for real engineering college courses.

In contrast, many of the college students from predominately student-run FRC teams had an exaggerated sense of their knowledge and capability, and not enough respect for the math and theory behind engineering. Many of these students either dropped out of college or changed majors after the first semester after they experienced for the first time what real engineering was about.

And that's why previously as a college student, and now as an engineer, I have continued to mentor teams in an actively involved manner. There's a big difference between simply bolting random parts together until it barely works and engineering an efficient and elegant solution, and it's the latter that I've always sought to help teach and inspire in students.

And with good mentors, it's always inspiring to me to see how much high school students can design, build, code, and accomplish.

TL, DR: You may be skilled at karate on your own, but imagine how much better you'll be with Mr. Miyagi mentoring you.

[davidthefat]

I am very hesitant to post, but I'll only speak for the software group.

The mentors I had my rookie year were not very hands on, but they nudged me the right direction and handled all the IT work. We had the same mentors last year, but they rarely showed up and we were pretty much on our own. Their mentality was to not interfere unless we asked, or something was going seriously wrong. I understand what Arthur wrote, but in a sense, not having an imposing pair of mentors really helped me grow. I was going out of my own way to find things out and challenge myself. The mentors were former students and they had similar experiences as me as students. They were mostly left alone until they sought after help. Now, since they do not have the time this year, another mentor replaced the pair. The new mentor is a father of a student who graduated last year, really nice guy. He is also hands off, but he is more of a manager than a mentor, I would say. All the software for the last 3 years has been done by students. I can't speak for any other groups though.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by GW Kalrod

Yeah man, you've got FIRST nailed.

Should they receive a reward instead for insulting other teams since you seems to have a better idea what should be done than I?

And what does that teach anyone? The teams that have the best performing robots are not necessarily the ones that do the most inspiration. Some of the most inspired (not excited) kids I have talked to are the ones that are on predominately student teams.

Life is the greatest teacher of all. If you go on your (pick your social media of choice) and say your boss is a big jerk and they find out and fire you, do you believe they are unjustified for doing so? For every action there is a consequence.

[45Auto]

I bet nileshp37 has seen the Star Wars and Batman movies. FIRST mentors are like Batman and Obi-Wan Kenobi. Perhaps a few examples from those may help him understand how mentoring works.

Batman is Robin's mentor. That doesn't mean that Batman stands there watching Robin get his rear end handed to him by the bad guys.

Obi-wan Kenobi mentored Anakin Skywalker and his son Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars series. That doesn't mean that Obi-Wan stood there and watched Anakin and Luke get stomped by the Dark Side.

Both took an active part in the trials and tribulations their students were going through.

[Brian C]

Just to add another perspective.

My son and I mentor 5 different teams in our area. He is a former student team member of a now defunct team and we have been involved with FIRST since 1999.

Our level of involvement as mentors differs with each team. Our personal goal is to have the team complete at least 85% of the robot build. There are some areas where we get involved mainly to get the robot completed at the end of 6 weeks. We believe that it's important for the team to have a machine operational at some level when they get to a competition.

We have found that our level of involvment is directly related to the teams abilities and resources. We respect the wishes of the students on each team and encouragge them to create on their own with guidance from us. As can be expected some teams are better at this than others.

The main goal is to guide as much as possible and help when necessary.

Remember an old mentoring mantra:

You watch me do it, We do it together, I leave you to do it.

[jwfoss]

Originally Posted by nileshp87

@team buzz person:
You do not need to invite me to see how your team operates, I have already witnessed it in the pits last year at the competition. I will leave it at that.

nileshp87,

I can see and understand your frustration, however I do not understand turning down the chance to see how other teams opperate. As a current professional mentor who was formally a student, and college mentor I have seen a large range of team operations and been involved in every level of mentor involvement.

Also take some time to listen to the EWCPcast with 1114: Team Spotlight - Featuring 1114

I noticed that your team is registered for the Suffield Shakedown Scrimmage and I hope all is going well with the construction of your robot. Please take the time to stop by and talk to the students of FRC2168 (Aluminum Falcons) or for that matter any number of teams attending.

[Brandon Holley]

The only thing I will add is this:

If you think you have a full understanding of the way a team operates/functions/conducts itself after spending a total of a few minutes observing them at a competition, you don't.

Every team has its own philosophy and approach to it's existence. If you want to have an informed opinion, you need to know the facts. Basing the facts on small observations of a team from a distance does not create the basis for an informed opinion.

If something about another team truly concerns you, don't air the issues publicly without knowing the facts. When a team then offers to show you why your view of the team is incorrect, take the offer and truly learn about that team. The team doesn't have to do that, but the fact that they are shows how classy a team they really are.


I'm surprised to see some of the comments here kind of just thrown out there without realizing the impact those comments will/could have.

-Brando

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by Brian C

...
Remember an old mentoring mantra:

You watch me do it, We do it together, I leave you to do it.

Further realize that the "it" is a variable for every team and team member! AND that there are thousands of "its" involved in the process of making a robot and thousands more involved in making a team. Finding the way through that thicket is both the fun and the frustration of FIRST FRC activity. There is ample evidence that this is fun for the vast majority of those of us involved, so the prospect of eventual frustrations is not enough to stifle us. Mentoring has to be learned, too.

[Walter Deitzler]

I believe that mentors should be able to help as much as possible, as long as students are there with them to learn what they are doing. This is how it works on 3397. If a mentor is building, we try to have a student there learning about what is going on, why the mentor is doing it., etc. This way, us students get the most out of working with engineers.