GP? I think not.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by 1885.Blake

Folks,

Whether the original author realized it or not, making a point about students vs mentors in the pits (and extrapolating backwards from that point into the build season) was the core of the original comment. Let's please temporarily forget that the author muddied up the water by extrapolating forward from the pit situation to winning/losing on the field.

With that in mind, would someone please explain to me which of the two possibilities I list below describes the "better" FIRST scenario.

• Option 1) Mentors draw on experience to do X; and students learn by watching and asking questions.
• Option 2) Mentors teach students how to do X; students do X with support and guidance from mentors.

[...]
PS: If someone wants to point out a significantly different third option, I'm listening. Don't let me fall into the trap of viewing this through the lens of a false dichotomy.

Option 3): Students do all the work with little to no mentor input.

Personally, option 2 is better and best. Working with my college-level Aero Design team, this is what we use to teach freshmen. The older students show the younger once or twice. They then check to see if the job is done right. If not, they explain why.

I can see why the OP didn't like what he saw, but what we don't know is:
a) Did he talk to the students on those teams?
b) Was their pit the way it was described for the entire competition (i.e. was this only temporary)?
c) (muddy water zone) Did those teams win awards, do well in matches, etc?

Consider a) and b) a direct question to the OP. I will explain why I asked upon an answer.

[Michael Corsetto]

Thank you Karthik and Steve W. for clarifying what Dave meant. This is one of the reasons why I love CD, there are mature adults, from another country, willing to clarify the questions that I have, as well as give supporting evidence for their argument.

I'm starting to see what Dave meant now, how if they are available, mentors are an amazing resource and should not be turned away. I think coming from a team that got fairly random sponsorship from companies/organizations that had no engineering help to offer, finding mentors was difficult. I know there is a function on usfirst.org that allows teams to post if they would like to be mentored, but I can't comment as to if it is helpful or not. If anyone has first hand experience with this resource please post about it, I'd like to know about it.

Along with what Dave said, is it fair to assume that entirely mentor built robots are missing the point as well? Because I've seen this method of running a team described as being entirely in accordance to FIRST's mission, and personally, I don't agree, knowing what Dave said as well as reading FIRST's mission from usfirst.org.

This is probably one of the more controlled mentor/student threads I've read, thank you everyone for keeping your comments positive and productive.

Mike C.

PS. I would like to hear the opinions of students from majority to completely mentor build teams, as most of the high school students posting on this thread come from student based teams. Just another vantage point I'd like to learn more about.

[lukevanoort]

I don't really care one way or another. I can see arguments for both methods (entirely student-run, and entirely mentor-run), but I think they are moot arguments. Before I say why I think they are moot arguments, I'll say what the arguments I can come up with each are:

I feel that students would miss out on some things with entirely mentor run teams. If the mentors make the design decisions, and all the students do is build it, then the students are missing out on learning a valuable skill - how to collaborate with others in the design of something (software, drive systems, transmissions, whatever). Students just learn machining. While machining is a valuable skill, as KenWittlief once said, FIRST isn't advanced shop class. Thus, I think students on entirely mentor-run teams miss out. I also don't think many, if any, teams are operated this way.

Entirely student-run teams instead miss out on learning from experienced and knowledgeable engineers. Just like in school, it is hard to learn about engineering when you lack a teacher. On the other hand, they gain the valuable skill of making use of (limited) resources to figure something out independently.

Now, back to my point. Both of the above arguments prove nothing, and are effectively meaningless. This is because both are predicated on the idea that FIRST is solely about learning engineering. FIRST is really about changing the culture to one where science and technology are celebrated, and making careers in engineering and science cooler than careers in sports and entertainment. Put simply, FIRST is about inspiring a populace. Personally, I think having the mentors teach students to design the robot, and then having the students do the actual design work results in the most inspiration; however, this is just my opinion, and as long as a team is inspiring, I couldn't care less how they do it. Whatever method they choose, the team is living up to the vision of FIRST and fulfilling its goals.

Now, I'm going to briefly mention a different issue that has been brought up in this thread. People often say FIRST isn't about the robot, and I disagree to a certain degree. The robot is a powerful tool of inspiration. Many of us have seen little kids look at a FIRST robot in awe/amazement/wonder/etc., and I highly doubt those kids would be just as amazed by a bunch of people standing around with lots of knowledge and great teamwork skills. Using the robot to achieve an ends - inspiration - is a very important part of FIRST, and to do that you need a robot. I didn't say a successful robot, just a robot. Our 2007 robot didn't win any awards, and it didn't play in any elimination matches. However, I don't think any of the kids who have watched in amazement as it whizzed around at demonstrations scoring tubes really cared how it did on the field. For that moment, technology was awesome, and those who built the robot were even cooler. Add up little inspirations like that and, regardless of how a robot does on the field, the robot is successful.

[Jim E]

I'm all for teaching the students my knowledge of robotics. At every opportunity I try to get them to do the dirty work but they have to be taught to do the job correct. This requires hands-on from the mentors.

Our robot designs have consistently been from the engineering work performed by mentors, and consistently built by both students and mentors. Asking students to figure out complex equations for 'WORK' may be asking a bit much given their school schedules and knowledge. They are right there though when it comes to fabricating parts, wiring electronics, and programming the robot.

Some may see mentors in the pits fixing problems, but more often than not, mentors are trying to determine the root cause of failure to derive efficient repairs to prevent future failures.

There is nothing in FIRST that mandates that students are responsible for robot designs. This is a TEAM effort. To expect a HS student to perform complex mathematic scenarios taught in Post-HS courses is ludicrous. The Team mentors should do everything possible to explain design decisions to the students and teach them the concepts of the design.

Team Mentors should keep in mind that we are there to inspire the students, not dictate to them. Share you calculations and concerns with the team members. One of the students may just blindside you with brilliance when it comes to a simple solution.

My personal observations are the teams that consistently win regionals are the teams with the best organizational structure. They all take their roles on the team serious and specialize in certain feilds of study.

Lastly, Mentors like to play with robots too. We willingly give up our free time to perform a service to the team. All we ask in return is a little play time

[SL8]

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

I don't really care one way or another. I can see arguments for both methods (entirely student-run, and entirely mentor-run), but I think they are moot arguments. Before I say why I think they are moot arguments, I'll say what the arguments I can come up with each are:

I feel that students would miss out on some things with entirely mentor run teams. If the mentors make the design decisions, and all the students do is build it, then the students are missing out on learning a valuable skill - how to collaborate with others in the design of something (software, drive systems, transmissions, whatever). Students just learn machining. While machining is a valuable skill, as KenWittlief once said, FIRST isn't advanced shop class. Thus, I think students on entirely mentor-run teams miss out. I also don't think many, if any, teams are operated this way.

Entirely student-run teams instead miss out on learning from experienced and knowledgeable engineers. Just like in school, it is hard to learn about engineering when you lack a teacher. On the other hand, they gain the valuable skill of making use of (limited) resources to figure something out independently.

Now, back to my point. Both of the above arguments prove nothing, and are effectively meaningless. This is because both are predicated on the idea that FIRST is solely about learning engineering. FIRST is really about changing the culture to one where science and technology are celebrated, and making careers in engineering and science cooler than careers in sports and entertainment. Put simply, FIRST is about inspiring a populace. Personally, I think having the mentors teach students to design the robot, and then having the students do the actual design work results in the most inspiration; however, this is just my opinion, and as long as a team is inspiring, I couldn't care less how they do it. Whatever method they choose, the team is living up to the vision of FIRST and fulfilling its goals.

Now, I'm going to briefly mention a different issue that has been brought up in this thread. People often say FIRST isn't about the robot, and I disagree to a certain degree. The robot is a powerful tool of inspiration. Many of us have seen little kids look at a FIRST robot in awe/amazement/wonder/etc., and I highly doubt those kids would be just as amazed by a bunch of people standing around with lots of knowledge and great teamwork skills. Using the robot to achieve an ends - inspiration - is a very important part of FIRST, and to do that you need a robot. I didn't say a successful robot, just a robot. Our 2007 robot didn't win any awards, and it didn't play in any elimination matches. However, I don't think any of the kids who have watched in amazement as it whizzed around at demonstrations scoring tubes really care how it did on the field. For that moment, technology was awesome, and those who built the robot are even cooler. Add up little inspirations like that and, regardless of how a robot does on the field, the robot is successful.

I wrote out such a nice paper, but then I read your post and said," I just have to say I agree with him."
But seriously I (almost) completely agree with you.Unfortunately, I don't have time to write out my only disagreement.
Well said.

[E. Wood]

As I posted earlier in this thread, The mission statement of First is to change the world. Last time i checked the world included high school students, younger students, as well as adults (aka mentors). There are a lot of people out there that dont respect what engineers do or that just dont know. While FIRST's goal is to inspire young people, it will be much easier to do that if we also inspire all the older people as well. Its their support that keeps FIRST going, allowing FIRST to continue to inspire.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Jim E

To expect a HS student to perform complex mathematic scenarios taught in Post-HS courses is ludicrous.

A colleague once told a co-op that it is easy to teach anyone (who has an ability and desire to learn) PHD-level subjects; so long as the material taught is kept "narrow" enough.

He then did exactly that by teaching the co-op the specific parts of some complex sonar material that the co-op needed to do his job.

I was both impressed and enlightened.

Blake

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Jim E

To expect a HS student to perform complex mathematic scenarios taught in Post-HS courses is ludicrous.

that's funny, because on our team, the students do all the math, because they still remember how!

[Richard Wallace]

When I was eight my dad showed me how to play chess. He didn't have much experience teaching chess, but he was an educator and he did one very important thing right -- he refused to let me win. It took me a few years to get good enough to beat him.

I expressed my opinion about teams with strong mentor-based leadership in one of the earlier threads on this topic. I'll excerpt a part of that here:

... while it is true that many of 71's student members don't work on the robot, it is also true that many do. The standard they are held to is a very high one -- to work on the BEAST it seems you don't have to be a professional, but you do have to behave and perform like one. While this model of teamwork may not be the best for every team, it sure seems to work for 71. It is hard to argue with success, and 71's success is an inspiration not only to its own students but to all of the FIRST community.

Most older mentors (and some enlightened younger ones ) want the pre-college students on our teams to challenge our ideas. I would always prefer to build a robot the way my team's students want it built. The only time that mentor intervention is justified (for me) is as an emergency measure, to head-off failure to compete.

I like e e cummings' poem about the dynamic between youth and age. I liked it three decades ago when I was armed with enthusiasm and arrogance, and I like it now that my tools more worn and my judgement tempered by hard lessons.

 old age sticks   
   
   old age sticks
   up Keep
   Off
   signs)&
   
   youth yanks them
   down(old
   age
   cries No
   
   
   Tres)&(pas)
   youth laughs
   (sing
   old age
   
   scolds Forbid
   den Stop
   Must
   n't Don't
   
   
   &)youth goes
   right on
   gr
   owing old

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by Jim E

There is nothing in FIRST that mandates that students are responsible for robot designs. This is a TEAM effort. To expect a HS student to perform complex mathematic scenarios taught in Post-HS courses is ludicrous. The Team mentors should do everything possible to explain design decisions to the students and teach them the concepts of the design.

Wait.... You mean other teams use MATH to design their robots!!!??

[Colin]

Do the math!

[Andy Baker]

There are many thought spinning in my head at this time. I will try to communicate them clearly.

I will pose observations from 2 points of view:
1. as an engineering mentor on a well funded, high resource team
2. as a volunteer inspector at FRC events since 2001

1. I've witnessed FIRST since 1992. I can honestly say that there is a higher percentage of student involvement in the design and building of these robots now than there was in the beginnings of FIRST. FIRST was not started as a high school robotics design competition. It was (and still is) a competition for teams of mentors and students to work together, using a robotics competition as a tool to change the culture. Back in 1994, the XCats won the Chairman's Award for explaining how their team empowered the students by mandating that the adults and students worked together on each task (instead of just adults). 10 years ago, it was unique to see a student-empowered team. Now, it is commonplace. Students are doing more... but they are still being mentored by technical professionals. Mentors are getting better at inspiring by empowering while still inspiring by doing.

I recall my second year as a full-time mentor on team 45, when I was amazed by the student leadership shown by Daniel Lehrbaum on team 192. He was doing things that inspired me as a young engineer. This taught me to empower kids on my team more, letting them do more and show their skills. Now, the students on team 45 run the show... doing things that we would not have imagined they could do 10 years ago. But still, we mentors are involved, doing our best to inspire.

2. The second viewpoint is from that of a volunteer robot inspector at FRC events. I've probably done this role 16-20 times since 2001. I greatly enjoy the interaction I get with the students. These days, it is commonplace for students to be the only ones to converse with the inspectors as we go through the technical aspects of the robot. Most of the time, the students know all of the ins and outs of the robots. Actually, it gets very clear, very quickly, regarding who the lead students are in this case.

In years past, back in 01, 02, 03, students performed worse during inspections. Back then, a higher percentage of students seemed to know less about their robot. Now, there are some teams who still struggle at this, and mentors need to help get them through inspections, but this is a rarity (and it also shows us inspectors that the team had minimal student empowerment).

So... from these two perspectives, I can attest that things have changed in FIRST. While mentors are still involved, more students are doing more technical work on a higher percentage of teams.

While it is frustrating to many to see only adults working on a robot, it seems to happen less and less, in my opinion. Adults are still there, mentoring, while the students are right along side them, as the XCats told us how to do it back in 94. While I don't think it is bad for mentors to be working on a robot, I think it is better for them to include a student in the process.

Often, I walk into our robotics shop and challenge myself... "what are you going to do to inspire today?" Maybe it will be designing... maybe it will be teaching... maybe it will be only listening to a teammate's story. I love the fact that there are no restrictions on what a mentor can do for a FIRST team (well, except drive the robot). Yes, we do need reminders once in a while.

While I don't agree with Dan's original post that it is non-gracious for engineers to do so much, it is good to have this discussion publicly. We all learn.

Andy B.

[Woody1458]

Originally Posted by Jim E

I'm all for teaching the students my knowledge of robotics. At every opportunity I try to get them to do the dirty work but they have to be taught to do the job correct. This requires hands-on from the mentors.

Does it? In school did the teachers right your reports, or did they just tell you how and give general rules?

Originally Posted by Jim E

Our robot designs have consistently been from the engineering work performed by mentors, and consistently built by both students and mentors. Asking students to figure out complex equations for 'WORK' may be asking a bit much given their school schedules and knowledge. They are right there though when it comes to fabricating parts, wiring electronics, and programming the robot.

Design is my favorite part! I couldn't imagine having that taken away because the adults believe me incapable of doing it. Not to mention one of the qualities most sought after in America is creativity and design. We keep out-sourcing our fabrication but our think teams stay here. I also don't like the idea of being "right there" it seems like you are just doing it for them again, maybe some times telling them what to do. Look at my sig for an idea of what I'm saying

Originally Posted by Jim E

Some may see mentors in the pits fixing problems, but more often than not, mentors are trying to determine the root cause of failure to derive efficient repairs to prevent future failures.

2/2 It seems that your mentors keep taking my favorite jobs! Can you not trust the students to figure it out? Or at least bounce ideas off your students so they understand how thought process works in speed engineering. Were not as dumb as you may think, chances are we think of something you guys don't

Originally Posted by Jim E

There is nothing in FIRST that mandates that students are responsible for robot designs. This is a TEAM effort. To expect a HS student to perform complex mathematic scenarios taught in Post-HS courses is ludicrous. The Team mentors should do everything possible to explain design decisions to the students and teach them the concepts of the design.

No, To define a HS students mental capacity based on his/her age then set limits for him/her is ludicrous. Students only designed our robot this year (hurdler) with nothing more then trig functions, some work/energy formulas I learned in Honors physics, and deductive reasoning no where outside the reach of any HS student especially since we have no seniors.

Originally Posted by Jim E

Team Mentors should keep in mind that we are there to inspire the students, not dictate to them. Share you calculations and concerns with the team members. One of the students may just blindside you with brilliance when it comes to a simple solution.

How I would rewrite this sentance

Team students should keep in mind that we are there to learn from the Mentors, not dictate to them. Share you calculations and concerns with the team mentors. One of the mentors may just blindside you with brilliance when it comes to a simple solution.

Originally Posted by Jim E

My personal observations are the teams that consistently win regionals are the teams with the best organizational structure. They all take their roles on the team serious and specialize in certain feilds of study.

Lastly, Mentors like to play with robots too. We willingly give up our free time to perform a service to the team. All we ask in return is a little play time

You can have your play time, after us. You've had your education let us have ours. Jim I'm sorry to be so frank but pretty much everything you described in the way you team is run is what I work so hard to keep from happening to my team.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

Anyone can watch Westcoast Choppers and see adults build things, but FIRST is great because it encourages kids to do the building and adults to do the watching.

Um, no. FIRST encourages mentors to show students what engineering is and how rewarding it can be. FIRST encourages teams to establish ways for students to be inspired by what is possible.

FIRST does not, either explicitly or implicitly, "encourage kids to do the building".

Originally Posted by Abwehr

Telling an inner-city team that they don't "get it" because they don't have engineers does no one good.

It's the teams who choose not to have engineers as an important resource, and who are proud of that choice, who "don't get it."

Originally Posted by DanTod97

If completely student built robots are blocking off an entire avenue towards inspiration and learning, how is it not true that completely mentor built robots are as well.

Oh, that's easy. The I in FIRST stands for Inspiration. Are you not inspired by a well-designed, well-engineered, well-built, effective, game-winning machine?

Come to think of it, you probably are not. Based on your stated dislike of powerhouse, dominating, game-winning teams, I suspect that you'd be likely to resent a competitive robot that you didn't build yourself. If so, I would have to say that you "don't get it". This isn't supposed to be about building robots and winning competitions. It's about being inspired by robots and successes, whether or not you built them or won with them yourself.

[DanTod97]

Very constructive woody, couldnt have said it better myself.