How involved are your mentors?

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

We pretty much just work together as a team.

Exactly.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

We pretty much just work together as a team.

Yep, that's how we do it too.

FIRST seems to approve of it, based on who has won the Chairman's Award.

[Edoc'sil]

I cannot begin to explain how much mentors building the bot disgusts me. This competition is about the students, not about the robots. The amount of knowledge that is imparted by students building and designing the robot is immense, and every time that a mentor helps with the bot is an opportunity to learn lost. I have talked to teams a regionals where they didn't even know how their robot worked, much less how to go about designing it. We have built our robot with hands off mentors for three years now, and I have learned the value of seeing the mentors as a extremely valuable resource, not just another team member.

I see the value of the 50/50 argument, but I believe that in reality it leans more towards 60/40, 70/30 in reality with the students doing less and less work with the mentors solving the problems when the kids get stuck on a problem.

If the students can't build a robot like this I have little respect for your team. I admire the hard work and long hours many teams put into their robots, and when I compare student built robots to mentor built ones I find mentor bots to be extremely lacking, despite their fluid design and effectiveness.

Well I've be rude, watch the flame wars begin.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Edoc'sil

I cannot begin to explain how much mentors building the bot disgusts me. This competition is about the students, not about the robots. The amount of knowledge that is imparted by students building and designing the robot is immense, and every time that a mentor helps with the bot is an opportunity to learn lost.

I'll say it again... some of the most incredible learning opportunities come from mentors and students working side by side.

Originally Posted by Edoc'sil

I see the value of the 50/50 argument, but I believe that in reality it leans more towards 60/40, 70/30 in reality with the students doing less and less work with the mentors solving the problems when the kids get stuck on a problem.

What exactly are you basing this belief on? Have you spent a lot of time on other teams? Come by the 148 pit and our students can tell you about their experiences.

Originally Posted by Edoc'sil

Well I've be rude, watch the flame wars begin.

Why would anyone flame you?

I don't care one iota how you run your team. The only thing I don't like is when people talk about how "disgusted" they are about how I run mine. Your disgust stems from ignorance, imho.

I summarized your post in my head as "You're wrong, I'm right, and I don't believe your teams work like you say they do." That doesn't make me angry, just sad.

If you genuinely want to learn about how this stuff works for us, come by the 148 pit (or the 217 pit, or the 1114 pit, etc, etc) and talk to the students. If you don't care to learn, your ignorance isn't really hurting me any.

I'm really sick of my students hearing how disgusted some people are with our team's model and that they "don't do anything" and they should be ashamed that mentors work with them on the robot. It is getting very, very old.

-John

PS - I've yet to see a member of a 50/50 team come on Chief Delphi and talk about how disgusted they are with the all student built robot. Live and let live? No?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Edoc'sil

...every time that a mentor helps with the bot is an opportunity to learn lost.

I'd have said much the same thing, but one one fewer word: every time that a mentor helps with the 'bot is an opportunity to learn.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Edoc'sil

I cannot begin to explain how much mentors building the bot disgusts me. This competition is about the students, not about the robots. The amount of knowledge that is imparted by students building and designing the robot is immense, and every time that a mentor helps with the bot is an opportunity to learn lost. I have talked to teams a regionals where they didn't even know how their robot worked, much less how to go about designing it. We have built our robot with hands off mentors for three years now, and I have learned the value of seeing the mentors as a extremely valuable resource, not just another team member.

I see the value of the 50/50 argument, but I believe that in reality it leans more towards 60/40, 70/30 in reality with the students doing less and less work with the mentors solving the problems when the kids get stuck on a problem.

If the students can't build a robot like this I have little respect for your team. I admire the hard work and long hours many teams put into their robots, and when I compare student built robots to mentor built ones I find mentor bots to be extremely lacking, despite their fluid design and effectiveness.

Well I've be rude, watch the flame wars begin.

I have been a student on a team where the engineers built the robot behind closed doors, and the students saw it 6 weeks later.

I have been on a team where the students did 100% of the work.

I have been on a team where students work with college mentors.

And, I have been on a team where students work together with mentors, and put out a pretty decent robot because of it.

In my opinion, the last option is far and away the best. Not to sound like a broken record, but if you don't think so please take the time to stop by the pits of teams like 148, 217, 45, 1114, 254, 118, 111, 71, and 78. All of these teams run on similar mentor/student engagement models, and churn out some of the best students AND robots every year. They have to be doing something right.

[Chris is me]

This competition is about the students, not about the robots.

The competition is not about the students. The competition isn't to find the smartest or hardest working team of students in the US. This is not a "high school robotics competition" in the sense that you're trying to find out whose high school students are the best engineers. Try and find a bit of FIRST press that says otherwise.

The amount of knowledge that is imparted by students building and designing the robot is immense, and every time that a mentor helps with the bot is an opportunity to learn lost.

I guess the only reason I help with 2791 is to steal opportunities from my students. I guess I should quit this FIRST thing then... I mean, if I do anything on the team, I'm taking away opportunities, so FIRST I guess shouldn't have mentors then.

Originally Posted by Edoc'sil

I see the value of the 50/50 argument, but I believe that in reality it leans more towards 60/40, 70/30 in reality with the students doing less and less work with the mentors solving the problems when the kids get stuck on a problem.

Have you ever been on a 50/50 team? How would you know, or have the slightest idea, whether or not this is the case?

If the students can't build a robot like this I have little respect for your team. I admire the hard work and long hours many teams put into their robots, and when I compare student built robots to mentor built ones I find mentor bots to be extremely lacking, despite their fluid design and effectiveness.

Every 90+% mentor robot I've ever seen in FIRST is a piece of crap. The teams that know how to build good robots are the same teams that know how to build good teams, and they engage the students every step of the way.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by Edoc'sil

I admire the hard work and long hours many teams put into their robots, and when I compare student built robots to mentor built ones I find mentor bots to be extremely lacking, despite their fluid design and effectiveness.

I'm just curious how you could tell, by looking at the robot, how much of it was built by mentors. The bit about fluid design and effectiveness almost seems to imply that these are signals of mentor involvement. I find it hard to believe that student built robots or 50/50 robots wouldn't be able to meet this standard.

Originally Posted by Edoc'sil

The amount of knowledge that is imparted by students building and designing the robot is immense, and every time that a mentor helps with the bot is an opportunity to learn lost.

I disagree. Mentors are teachers. Some of them have been doing work in engineering since before any of the students were born. They know more about the engineering process than the students. That's just a simple fact. I usually see mentor assistance as lessons via example, demonstrations you might call them. These are experiences to learn from, not to frown about.

[delsaner]

On our team, the students do a large majority of the work. We design the robot, we make our own prototypes, and we build our final product. Mentors keep the team in order, help when help is needed/necessary, and teach us the right way if we did something wrong in order to better ourselves. That's the general gist of 1676.

[Chris Fultz]

Mission

Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

[Mr. Pockets]

Mentor involvement varies on our team based on groups.

I can't really give a super accurate measure of all the groups; but Design, my area, is pretty close to 60/40 (mentor - students). This year, after prototyping, the build mentors would ask for certain parts. Our job ended up CADing up said parts and then working with those mentors to not only deal with issues that would pop up, but more importantly to learn from them why they requested certain features in the part. Thus they pass on their knowledge of physics and fabrication, and we get the satisfaction of a totally student CADed robot. Worked well.

[boomergeek]

"I cannot begin to explain how much mentors building the bot disgusts me. "

I think such a sentiment is real for some. It would be interesting to explore actually why.

Does a novice student have a better experience if they only work side-by-side with expert students and not expert mentors?

I think expert students get a dramatic ego boost out of FIRST. The question is: does that ego boost go up or go down if mentors are added side-by-side to the mix of expert and novice students?

Some teams do not have students that have been building items long before they joined FIRST. Some teams have exceptional students that have been fabricating mechanical and computer marvels since grade school. When mentors are side-by-side with these exceptional students, these students are no longer just comparing themselves to other students- they are being stretched to consider their work to experienced engineers. They are getting an understanding of professional engineering.

The resent of mentors working side-by-side with students can come come many quarters. If mentors are not vigilant, they can dominate and squash the students' feelings of ownership and contribution. I can imagine urban legions about a team using all the students as drones for the pleasure of the mentors, but I have yet to observe one.

Some people get a greater thrill of accomplishment when they have done it with as little help as possible. FIRST is not about getting as little help as possible - In fact, it's the opposite- the goal is have to make you feel obligated to thank as many people as possible for helping you in ways that you didn't really think you needed or even considered that you could use help. And that's true if you are a student or a mentor.

[JaneYoung]

What I've been thinking about for a couple of years, after meeting so many teams and learning from and about them, is that I think there are teams who believe they are student-run, but if they spent more time thinking about it, they would realize they are closer to the 50/50 mark. The mentors are working side-by-side with them and are supporting and guiding them. Where the mentors are failing the team is in not helping them understand the value of everyone working together. If the mentors are there and helping support the team effort and also encouraging the students to be actively involved in the different areas of what it takes to be a competition team - but are not acknowledging their own value and contributions to the efforts of the team, then there is still a distorted view that occurs on the part of the students. We have seen time and time and time again, that people like to argue about student-led and mentor-led. What we are seeing surface in this thread is: team-led. Working together. Mentors mentoring and students participating and learning. What I've thought about is that teams who spend all of their energy promoting and marketing themselves as a student-led team with little input from the mentors - are losing out. They are losing out by not taking the time to understand their team dynamics and what is really going on. Their mentors are losing out by not recognizing their value and how they contribute to the sustainability of their team. They also lose out by not acknowledging their wisdom and experience.

There's another facet of the team that is often downplayed by the team and is sometimes never fully embraced or acknowledged by the team: the value of the parent support. We see it everywhere - 'I'm just a mom' or 'I'm just a dad' or 'I just do what needs doing.' Parent support doesn't mean running the team. Parent support means providing the support so the team can run more efficiently. I'd much rather hear: "I am a parent for xxxx team and have been for 3 years.", than hear, "I'm just a mom." That doesn't tell me much about the parent or the team and sadly, I hear it all the time.

The more time a team takes to really spend looking at how it runs itself and what/where the keys contributions are, the less smack talk we'll hear or have to listen to. We'll see the evidence in how the team conducts and promotes itself. Very few teams (and I know there are some), are truly student-led, student-run, student-everything. Those that are or claim to be, should be able to break it down, financially, organizationally, and competitively. The rest should really take a good look at themselves. Many never will and will not strengthen the areas they are weak in. Those areas will reveal themselves during the competition, one way or another.

.02
Jane

[Dustin Shadbolt]

Seeing how small our team is (about 7 students) our mentors work with us. It's just a total team effort.

[Edoc'sil]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The competition is not about the students.
I guess the only reason I help with 2791 is to steal opportunities from my students. I guess I should quit this FIRST thing then... I mean, if I do anything on the team, I'm taking away opportunities, so FIRST I guess shouldn't have mentors then.

Have you ever been on a 50/50 team? How would you know, or have the slightest idea, whether or not this is the case?

Every 90+% mentor robot I've ever seen in FIRST is a piece of crap. The teams that know how to build good robots are the same teams that know how to build good teams, and they engage the students every step of the way.

Your doing the right thing Chris to "do things on the team" I assume however that as a mentor you are not to one designing massive portions of the robot, you are helping facilitate good ideas and creativity, maintaining an on-task team, or doing basic work if the team is small and needs an extra hand.

My issues arise when the students are not the ones thinking about how to solve the presented challenges, and implementing the solutions.

Have I clarified my position at all? Mentors are a wonderful necessity for a team, they just shouldn't be the ones making the bot.