Corporations Build Robots

[Nawaid Ladak]

like i said in my post before, maybe FIRST needs to have someone independent run a report looking into this. I think it would be worth our time to do this and be better for the future of FIRST. Just like what happend with baseball today, maybe FIRST, or some of us should look into this

btw: this is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth to you

btw: anybody notice how none of the bigger teams have posted yet with the exception of 330?
(Eric gets some respect from me for his post.)

EDIT: my avove point was taken care of: many more big teams have responded.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

btw: anybody notice how none of the bigger teams have posted yet with the exception of 330?
(Eric gets some respect from me for his post.)

Why should we?

I think collectively those "bigger" teams that do well every year have no reason nor need to defend themselves.

P.S. This comment turns the thread from discussion about the original topic to which teams have mentors build their robots. There's plenty of other threads that have done this, and they all have one thing in common--they've been closed.

[alicen]

to me, it doesn't really matter, it just doesn't sound like it would be as much fun as the teams where the students actually build the robot. so all in all, i kinda feel sorry for them, cause they don't get teh full experience that other teams do.

[Tim Delles]

WOW!!!

I have to say i completely agree with Big Mike here.

WHO CARES!!!

Honestly a team shouldn't be looked at from who built the robot... A team should be looked at from what the students on the team have gotten out of it.

If a team decides to be all mentor/engineer built but the kids learn a lot is it wrong? I say that it isn't. FIRST is all about the great learning experience you can get from this.

If a team decides to be an all student built team, struggles through the season, doesn't learn very much but had the resources that could have made them great but they refused to use them, I would consider this that they failed. They did not make the best out of what they had.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that one way is better or worse. What im saying is that it depends on which way will help get the most knowledge to the students. (it could be 50 50 even)

Now honestly stop "bashing" some teams. It would do well for those that have posted "negative" things in this thread from refraining to do so, because it could smeer your teams image with the rest of the teams. (what would you think of a team if they said negative things about your team?)

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

btw: anybody notice how none of the bigger teams have posted yet with the exception of 330?
(Eric gets some respect from me for his post.)

Whoa there; bold statement. First of all, this thread has barely even been on chiefdelphi, give it some more time.

I'm not even sure what your proposed solution is.... A report on what? It's entirely legal for mentors to design the robot.

And, like Cory said, why should they? The goal of FIRST is clearly defined, the means to that goal are not. Therefore, a team can do whatever they please within those means. Now, I doubt ANY team has an entirely mentor designed robot, and even if they did it doesn't mean the students didn't learn/be inspired.

This is kind of another version of mentor/student involvement, and complaining on chiefdelphi isn't going to change anything.

Really, no matter what you do, you can't change what other teams do. They aren't breaking any rules. You'll get much more enjoyment out of FIRST if you focus on what your team can do rather than if you focus on what you think is unfair.

[waialua359]

this is classic case of david vs. goliath.
life isnt fair. you just gotta be more creative and hard working when life isn't fair.
we are probably one of the most remote schools on the island of Oahu, HI. Up until this year, we had to deal with $$$$ costs just to compete, where the nearest competition was 2600 miles away, and pay hefty amounts of shipping for parts only available in the continental US.
It forced our team to dig deeper and work harder.
After 9 years, I would have never envisioned where we are at today in terms of sponsors, resources, and experience.
Do what your team feels is best to communicate and experience the meaning of FIRST. Whoever builds the robot on your team should be a meaningful experience for all.

[Andy Baker]

The involvement of the adult and the sponsor in building the competition robot has been healthy debate on these message boards since they were started in 1998. As folks have said, there are many threads discussing this subject.

There are two that stick out in my mind...

1. This discussion started out as a presentation of a 2-speed shifting gearbox used by the TechnoKats Robotics Team. (this is the design that eventually launched the AM Shifter series of shifting transmissions) The discussion quickly turns into a discussion about engineer involvement. You'll read a post by me that could have been much more tactful.

2. This thread raises questions and discusses the merits of different types of teams (100% student designed and built, mix of adult and student, 100% adult designed and built). This thread is pretty long, and many people weighed in on the subject. We all learned a few things during that thread.

There's nothing wrong with bringing this discussion up again. FIRST is a unique thing... a special arrangement of teamwork, cooperation, and inspiration between students and adults, within and throughout all teams. New students and mentors enter into the FIRST community and they have questions and opinions about these things. To discuss corporation and mentor involvement is a good thing, even if opinions differ.

Enjoy,
Andy

[Nawaid Ladak]

I think bigger was a wrong choice of words on my part. I should have said teams i consider a little "shady". I refuse to name any names because i know i would cause MAJOR problems. but I know a couple of people who have these lists, and apperently none of the people have posted from that list

I was saying bigger probally because when i look at that list, their sme strong teams on there

Sorry for the misunderstanding,

P.S. Finals+No Sleep=Poor Choice of Words

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

I think bigger was a wrong choice of words on my part. I should have said teams i consider a little "shady". I refuse to name any names because i know i would cause MAJOR problems. but I know a couple of people who have these lists, and apperently none of the people have posted from that list

I was saying bigger probally because when i look at that list, their sme strong teams on there

Sorry for the misunderstanding,

P.S. Finals+No Sleep=Poor Choice of Words

By "shady" you mean????
Is this in reference to supposed "mentor-built" robots?
Is it possible these people have lives outside of CD?
Man, I hate to see distructive finger-pointing right before kickoff.

Andy points out there have been many conversations on this topic before, points to a few, and is very gracious in his word choice.

Read. Digest. Understand. Then read FIRSTs mission and reread the rule book from every year you can get your hands on.

[Doug G]

1) There are some robots built more by mentors than by students. For those of us who've been doing this for a while, we know it happens. But I don't think the number of these teams are as high as people may think.

2) Teams often look at a well sponsored team and make assumptions about the mentors/sponsors involvement. My team has been guilty of this in the past. We'd get frustrated because our robot might not perform as well as we'd hope, and then we'd see the well sponsored team kick butt in the competition and out of jealousy and envy, accusations would surface about "well at least students built OUR robot". Come to find out later that the well sponsored team had a lot of students involved in many different ways which led to their well-designed robot and performance.

3) For those few times when a mentor(s) has built most of the robot, the team doesn't always last very long. I know two teams in my area that started and then folded because it relied so heavily on the mentors. When the mentors changed jobs or positions, the team couldn't survive. SAD.

4) There are many ways for students to be inspired, working along side an engineer or engineers working along side students. Both work, FIRST has proven that. Get over it.

5) Ask anyone who has judged a competition, if they know which teams had mentors doing most of the work. They know and take it in consideration for certain awards. Don't set your team up to rely on success with the robot competition only. There are other awards that are very meaningful to a team, make sure YOUR team knows this. For the first 2-3 years our team worried mostly about getting the robot to perform well. In the subsequent years, we prepared more for different awards, how to talk to judges and our overall team presentation, and wouldn't you know it we started winning some of the other awards and take a lot of pride in that even though we have yet to win a competition.

Don't close this thread, it's good discussion and information that teams need to grapple with. I'd rather they grapple with it on a well moderated thread than make rumors worse elsewhere.

[aaeamdar]

First off, thanks to all who have replied and a further thanks to putting up with what may seem like a regurgitation of old arguments. That was not entirely my intention, though I may have stepped into a bit of a quagmire.

My intention was really to ask this question without shades of grey (which, of course, we all know is impossible, which I'll get to). When I originally wrote this post, the word "mentor" was not something that was at all in my head, frankly. This is because to me, mentor means a teacher who takes a special interest in students' development. I hope this isn't getting too much into the whole 'which is better debate', but I will say that I find it hard to be a true engineering mentor if you're not at least in some small way working with the students to build and/or design the robot. I'm not saying that I think teams that have engineers build the robot are bad, or that they aren't inspiring students.

What I was really thinking of is when ABC Corporation picks up the K.O.P., takes in back to their shop, and designs and builds a robot and then ships it. Now, there are shades of grey within this. For example, if the students watched the engineers build the robot, they probably got something out of it. And if one student tightened one bolt once, did the students have a meaningful role in building the robot? Whether you think student involvement is important or not, most would agree that this doesn't constitute terribly meaningful involvement. But really, I was talking about a situation where students have no significant roles in either designing or building the robot.

So, to summarize the rather lengthy point I was perhaps obtusely trying to make: I wasn't thinking of "mentor-built" robots, because I don't personally see them as "mentors" if they're not teaching the students and at least partly involving them in the design or build process.

One last point: though perhaps unwise, I did request personal opinions on the subject. Mostly so far I think we have been fairly reasonable to each other, and let's try to keep that up. Specifically, FreedomForce thinks that FIRST should change its rules and audit teams, and he's entitled to his opinion. I'd also point out that responding to someone saying "mentor run teams do not acheive the goals of FIRST" by saying "well, FIRST does not have a blueprint for how teams run" doesn't make too much sense (to me at least). The first person is suggesting (or seems to be suggesting) that FIRST should have such a blueprint. Responding by telling them that there is no blueprint is not much of a logical point.

Paul

P.S.: I am not at all talking about NEMOs. I just don't equate "this guy who built a robot for me" to engineering mentor.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

I think bigger was a wrong choice of words on my part. I should have said teams i consider a little "shady". I refuse to name any names because i know i would cause MAJOR problems. but I know a couple of people who have these lists, and apperently none of the people have posted from that list

I was saying bigger probally because when i look at that list, their sme strong teams on there

Sorry for the misunderstanding,

P.S. Finals+No Sleep=Poor Choice of Words

"shady" is also, probably, a poor choice of words as well.

First off, who really cares if a teams robot was built by the students, the mentors, or a company; as long as the students were inspired by the program?

FIRST is not about building robots, it's about inspiring the future. We, in 1824, try to do that with a "student designed, student built" structure. If another team inspires their studens by having the engineers/mentors design and build the robot, explaining the design process and reasoning behind the design, then they have succeded.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I think this is an issue that needs to be carefully and sensitively addressed as FIRST expands and more and more teams are formed. To focus on one aspect of your question - I would like to point out what exactly corporate involvement might entail.

Corporate sponsorship of the technical sort is a different boat from standard small-organization sponsorship (e.g., a local company that earns a spot on the back of the team shirt). Let's look at some of the potential situations...

- Sheer monetary support: A corporate sponsor may fund the trip and registration fees for a team, or some of the material costs.
- Mentor support - an engineering firm (or university!) may provide a volunteer engineer who works with the team to provide support and teach key lessons to students.
- Ongoing interaction - This might be a step above the standard "providing an engineer" situation. The company might invite the students for tours, provide the team information on upcoming / unique internship application opportunities, or request to be represented at competition.

- Technical Interaction - Here is the clincher. Technical interaction could come in a lot of forms. A company may go from offering workspace to constructing the robot entirely, and that is the grey area. There are so many options for the company (listed above) that I feel can be more mutually profitable - without taking over the key task of this competition, the company can gain a valuable and talented potential future workforce, and / or a great deal of PR.

So yes, maybe this overwhelming involvement happens once in a rare while. However, there are so many ways that it doesn't lead to success, that I feel the problem has, in some ways, fixed itself over time while FIRST as a program remained smaller and more intimate. However, rookie teams now have a lot more experience to draw from, a lot more potential veterans in the area, and maybe, just maybe, a more solid image of what students alone are capable of in that short six week period in January and February.

[artdutra04]

Before we let our own personal convictions turn this thread instantly into a 200-posts-in-two-hours-type-thread, let's take a step back for a second and think about this.

FIRST makes no intention of telling teams how to run themselves. FIRST does not tell teams what hours to meet during or after school, or what brand of tools to build their robot with, or what food to eat during the build season.

There's a reason for this, and that's the certain level of responsibility and self-reliance that is laid upon every FIRST team to govern themselves and operate in the manner which they feel is most conducive to carrying out FIRST's goals of inspiring students.

I don't think any rules explaining exactly how teams can/should govern themselves are necessary, since overwhelming mentorship is a self-limiting in a team. If the students aren't being inspired in some sense (whether it's for engineering itself or just a greater respect and recognition of science and technology in general), they aren't having fun. If they aren't having fun, then why participate in robotics? If there are no students, there is no team.

Just remember, while you may prefer student-built or mentor built (or a combination of the two), there will always be teams who stand by the opposite, since that's the way they feel is best to inspire their students. Instead of opening up this same discussion for the ∞ + 1th time, let's just come to a conclusion that if students are being inspired by both models, we should just accept the fact that there is more than one road to success, and that as a community let's move onwards.

[Mike Schroeder]

My opinion :

WHO CARES

get the game, do what ever your team does to compete, what ever it is , lock yourselves in a shop for 6 weeks till its done, lock some engineers in a shop for 6 weeks, work together to build the robot it doesn't matter just do it

FIRST like life is what you make of it, if you would rather go through FIRST worrying about what other teams do to make their robots, then your destined for disappointment. if you go through FIRST making the most of it doing the best you and your team can then it doesn't matter what other teams do.


that is all