Poll on who builds your teams robot.

[AdamHeard]

I don't think we really fit into those rigidly defined categories, my team builds our robot.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I don't think we really fit into those rigidly defined categories, my team builds our robot.

Amen

[Steven Sigley]

Haha yeah, I know. I didn't want to get super detailed with what defines each, so it's open to the interpretation of the voter I suppose.

[Thermal]

How about a poll on mentor or student designed? That means designed and CAD'ed up. I'd reckon that 99% of teams have their bots assembled by students, but I don't think that is saying much when the entire bot was drawn up by a few mentors with no more student input than "we want to score balls well".

Either way it is a team effort and who designs or builds the bot isn't of much concern at the competition. It is interesting to know though what involvement mentors have with some teams though so others can take note, emulate, or avoid. In the end it matters as to whether or not the student learns, not whether or not the student created. If the student learns more by a mentor CAD'ing up a fine robot compared to a maybe lesser student CAD'ed bot, then by all means it is much more beneficial for the mentor to play that role.

All that matters is that the students take something out of the program that they otherwise would not have. But I am curious as to student vs mentor designed and student vs mentor lead teams and how that relates to the teams level of success.

[hyperdude]

Definitely student-built on our team.

Our first two years, we've had only two or three of what would be called mentors. There's been the team leader, a technology staffer, and a few visiting engineers and a college robotics teacher.

This was mostly because our "coach" has been hell-bent on the prospect that in FRC, the point is that the students are the brainstormers, designers, builders, testers, and everything else, and the mentors have been there as chaperones. Sure, that's not far from what the real point is, but you should be able to see the problem.

This year, if we manage to raise enough money to compete (we're at about $3100 right now, and we have til mid-December [FIRST gave us an extension] to get to the $5000) the entire robotics class from the nearby college wants to come help us.


In the context of this poll, though, students have built the robot.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I don't think we really fit into those rigidly defined categories, my team builds our robot.

An excellent comment. I'll also ask what, exactly, is meant by "builds" the robot. Is the survey referring to the hands-on practice of constructing the physical structure of the robot, or the more theoretical practice of designing the robot?

Is programming part of building?

And what is meant by "mostly"? If students do a number of time consuming low-skill jobs (cutting and cleaning aluminum for welding) and an adult does a relatively brief high-skill job (welding it)... has the task been done "mostly" by students or by adults....?

Jason

[NickE]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I don't think that is saying much when the entire bot was drawn up by a few mentors with no more student input than "we want to score balls well".

I don't know how many teams this would apply to. Every team I've seen has substantial student input at all points in the design process.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I don't think we really fit into those rigidly defined categories, my team builds our robot.

Agreed. Our robots are built with student-mentor collaboration at all points at the process, not distinctly by mentors or students.

If the students sat back and let the mentors do the work, the students would learn nothing.
Similiarly, if the mentors sat back and let the students do all the work, the students would learn nothing.

The robot is built by the team.

[EricH]

Add my vote for the team category. Exact ratios aren't important, as long as a team builds it. (If it's a dysfunctional team, that's important for other reasons, like the "what went wrong/right" meetings, but the split percents are not. I hope that no team here is dysfunctional.)

As for the definition of building, I would just say: Entire process, from concept generation to final product, programming included.

Mostly: Do the students or the mentors do most of the building as a group?

[EricLeifermann]

I chose to see the "about the same" to mean that the team builds it and that is how i voted. The point of FIRST is for students to learn and be inspired to go into the STEM fields. I see the best way to do that is to have the students work hand in hand with the mentors, each learning from the other.