Why do teams voluntarily do FIRST without adult technical mentors?

[sciguy125]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

...its just that i feel there (with exception of drive train but even that...) few experiences that are applicable to building robots.

I understand where you're coming from. Nothing you learn can truly prepare you for everything that comes your way. One of our teachers (if you happen to read this, I apologize in advance) worked as an engineer for a very long time. It's my understanding that he was even a project manager for some time. I think he specialized in control systems. It is obvious that he has had plenty of experience and training. When it came to FIRST control systems, he didn't know how they worked. Hobby PWM is evidently not the same as traditional PWM. There were also a few other things that were new to him that I can't think of off the top of my head this late at night. The point is, however, that he still had the learn the system like everyone else. I, on the other hand, fresh out of high school, in my first semester of college, with "ENGR 10 - Introduction to Engineering" as the only engineering class under my belt, already understood a good deal of the system. I had been playing with hobby r/c equipment for some time. I had done some prior research on PICs. In general, I knew more about how to use the system than he did. (again, if you are reading this, i apologize and mean no offence...and yes, I may be slightly exaggerating)

As I pointed out in my previous post I don't completely agree with Oz's point of view on engineers' FIRST capabilities. My above statements are merely my interpretation of his opinion. Oz, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I see where he is coming from and understand how he may have a valid argument. But, again, I don't fully agree.

Well then, to what extent do I agree with Oz? I agree that nothing can prepare you for every situation you find yourself in. Sometimes, you'll have to learn something new. But I don't agree that being an engineer is not an advantage. As JVN and a few others pointed out, the work done to receive an engineering degree is designed to teach you how to think like an engineer, not teach you every skill you will ever need. I wholly agree with this. It's not possible to learn everything. Instead, you learn how to learn what you will need later. (Something about teaching a man to capture aquatic wildlife rather than giving him food for today) To this extent being an engineer does give you an advantage. However, as I also pointed out in my previous post, this isn't necessarily a good thing. (By saying that, I don't mean that it's a bad thing.) Some of the greatest innovations are from people that looked outside of the box. Take Relativity for instance. That's so far out of the box that you can't even see the box if you're sitting next to Relativity. "Hey, look Bob! If I move at 0.99c, time slows down and I get shorter!" If you don't have any training, you can more easily think outsize the box; mainly because you don't know that the box exists. (Don't try to argue that Einstein had training, because that's not what I'm trying to say.)

I'm not saying that all of us engineers should go out and trade places with an artist to ensure that we won't have any training in our new fields. It's just that a lack of experience isn't always a bad thing. As long as you're not trying to disassemble a bomb, you shouldn't feel bad about not knowing what you're doing. I'm also not saying that we should abolish mentorship (is that the right word? actually, is that even a real word?) and let the students run free. My personal view on this whole thing is that mentors should be there to help, not lecture. If someone runs into trouble, they should have a place to go for advice, but not have someone force knowledge into their head or take over their project. I'm not completely sure, but I suspect that this is what Oz was trying to get at.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by sciguy125

I agree that nothing can prepare you for every situation you find yourself in. Sometimes, you'll have to learn something new. But I don't agree that being an engineer is not an advantage.

Change that to "All the time" or "everyday" and you are close to what an engineer goes through each day. Force yourself now, today, to learn one new thing each day. When you lay down on your fluffy pillow at night, before you say your prayers, ask yourself if you have learned anything new. If the answer is "NO" then you better get up and find something. It is not the engineering that makes an Andy Baker, Paul C, Ken or JVN, it's the other knowledge too. If you ask a pointed question you will find that each mentor has found themselves a better engineer due to the constraints of this "game". I know that my coworkers wonder how I come up with some of the solutions I plan out. I know it is due to my involvement in FIRST.
As to engineers having an advantage in this robot competition, there is no doubt. We know it because of our experiences. You don't realize it yet, but you will. I can only ask that you open your minds a little and see things as they are. Step out of your body and come over to my side of the computer and see things from here. Yea, it's hard to do that, but give it a try. You have been doing hard things for a while, I challenge you to look at it from our point of view. Here is a little hint, each one of the engineers in this thread and most if not all of the engineers in this program want to teach you, help you and yes sometimes push you, to do your best. We are not going to be 100% successful getting you to be an engineer, but you you still have the potential to do great things. You have already taken the first few steps. With your eyes open, there are wonders to behold, keep them closed and all you will do is bump into walls.

[Jessica Boucher]

Is it just me, or did we recently take a sharp left into "Off-topic Land"? (No offense, they are excellent arguments, but I don't get the connection to Baker's original post, and if someone can explain it to me I would be happy to listen).

Baker, I think you have your answer already. Through the last few pages of conversation, it seems to be apparent that through this discussion people accept that although we may not completely agree on how teams should be run, there are a lot of different teams out there, and not one is better than the other because their methods (and thus, their priorities) are different. Many people made this point long before I ever thought of posting in here.

I was once asked what business model I thought FIRST was. In my opinion, it is two-fold: HQ in relationship to team leadership is a B2B (Business-to-Business). Just like your local coffee shop buys cups from a supplier, teams are paying for FIRST to give them a kit of parts and a means to inspire their local youth in a unique way (the competitions themselves).
However, team leadership to the students is a B2C (Business-to-Consumer). Just like you buy a cup of coffee from your local coffee shop, the team leadership is providing something to the student that the supplier can not do as effectively on its own - inspiring the student.
Back to the coffee shop example, there is no one way that selling coffee is fulfilling to the shop owner. You have establishments that thrive on product quality, some that focus on profit, others that make money off of ambiance, and even others that have a strong local following. All have different views of success. Similarly, you have teams that consider themselves successful that have varying student-mentor mixes.

So, what does that all mean?

Trust me, I would love to track team statistics to figure out the most effective mix of team aspects and encourage teams to adhere to said guidelines, because it may do a lot towards team retention. But that's not how FIRST works.
FIRST's competitive advantage to the rest of their industry segment is it's openness for innovative thought. FIRST isn't in the curriculum business - they're not promising in January that by May your students on the team will learn A B and C. FIRST is offering team leadership a chance to uniquely inspire their students to go into science or technology-based careers. How does that happen on a team level? It's up to the team leadership to think of the best way for that to happen in their area. And that's (one of the reasons) why FIRST is the Hardest Fun Ever, not only for the students, but for everyone involved.

Why do some teams feel strongly about one method over another? Conditioning. What they are exposed to goes a long way to shape their opinion on the matter. As it has also been shown here, as teams get older, people (and perceptions) change. Part of these changes are because of discussions that increase exposure...discussions just like this one.
All we can really do in terms of this discussion is keep talking about our different perspectives and celebrating that the differences still achieve the same goal.

[mechanicalbrain]

Originally Posted by sciguy125

As I pointed out in my previous post I don't completely agree with Oz's point of view on engineers' FIRST capabilities. My above statements are merely my interpretation of his opinion. Oz, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I see where he is coming from and understand how he may have a valid argument. But, again, I don't fully agree.

Actually your example is what i was trying to convey. Engineers are brilliant! They have to be! But brilliance sometimes doesn't compare to specific experience. All i want ed to say was that someone who has a good deal of experience in a field will probably be better at it than an unexperienced Engineer. I don't know what everyone else took it but that really is it.

So back to Mr. Baker's thread. I think teams will participate in robotics without technical mentors either because they don't have access to one or because they don't want one. I have not met a team that didn't want help from mentors so i assume most teams fit in the first category. Technically speaking you CAN build a robot without any mentor help (Its hard but the kits were made to be easy to some degree). I'm not saying they will have an amazing bot (though they could) but it can be done. If any team has enough interest in robotics to make a robot and compete without any technical mentors i say that they have some amazing devotion. I'm curious if anyone who actually knows some teams or on some with no technical mentors.