To start off I would like to say FIRST has been the best program I have ever participated in. I have learned more during my years in it then I have in anyhting else I have ever done, all while having the most fun I have ever had. On the other hand there is one major, consistent problem I have seen. FIRST is a high school robotics competition, so why are there so many teams that seem to have more adult mentors than students? why are there so many teams that seem that whenever in their pits, in pictures, or during time outs, there adults are the ones working on the robots, and they have a number of the adults gathered around the robot with one or two high school students? Well these same teams are the ones that year after year have highly superior robots to any other team. In a competition that prides itself in its “gracious profesionalism” there should not be teams that year after year just completely dominate all the way to the win, but not even at just one regional but sometimes two or three in one year, I find that completely rediculous and definitely NOT GP.
I know im going to hear many argue that FIRST is not about winning, well just stop being so cliche and understand that everyone still desires to do well and no one appreciates working so hard just to have some NASA engineered robot come along every year and beat them without even a slight hope of winning. I understand that the glory of winning eventually fades, and in the end it really is the experience that matters, but it is still a competition. Students spend six hard weeks building and working on something that they want to see succeed just as much as the teams im speaking of do. Its not exactly a great experience or in any way encouraging to put all that effort into something, just to go to the competitions every year to see which team super power is there to dominate them this year.
I think there are many teams that need to think about this and change the way they’re team is run, and for the ones who dont, go and horde up all those trophys and banners each year, but make sure you have plenty of fun, because no one else is.
This has been discussed so many times. Please use the search function! Also, guessing by the name, no team number, and 1 post that you are an anonymous account. Those are not allowed.
Anyway, I am sure there are many robots, built by students AND mentors, maintain by students AND mentors, and driven by students that win competitions. It is so much more than “oh my god their mentors do everything”.
Experience, teamwork, and determination all play a bigger role than “mentor bots”, in my opinion.
Also, I realize you have not once in your post stated that your opinions are “GP”, but I would hope that you keep to your own high standards, even when posting anonymously…
Oh woops, I guess I’ll go tell 1712 that we had a miserable time in Philadelphia because we lost to 103 in the QFs. My mistake…
Seriously though, this post is a slap in the face of these successful teams. I suggest you actually speak to them, particularly the students. See how they feel. See what effect the programs have on them.
I also suggest you read around these forums for the threads about GP, mentor involvement, and FIRST in general.
I’ll also link a post about my feelings on a part of this matter dealing with success and GP. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=716125&postcount=25
On the other hand there is one major, consistent problem I have seen. FIRST is a high school robotics competition, so why are there so many teams that seem to have more adult mentors than students?
Careful, subjective measurements taken over sporadic periods of time rarely tell the whole story.
why are there so many teams that seem that whenever in their pits, in pictures, or during time outs, there adults are the ones working on the robots, and they have a number of the adults gathered around the robot with one or two high school students?
Could be any number of reasons. Perhaps they’ve got more mechanical mentors and not as many mechanically-inclined students. Perhaps they’ve got students off in search of parts. Perhaps they just happen to have adults that know what they’re doing, and are in the process of teaching the kids. I don’t know, and you don’t know.
Well these same teams are the ones that year after year have highly superior robots to any other team. In a competition that prides itself in its “gracious profesionalism” there should not be teams that year after year just completely dominate all the way to the win, but not even at just one regional but sometimes two or three in one year, I find that completely rediculous and definitely NOT GP.
There is a reason it is known as the FIRST Robotics Competition. There is a competition, and I expect the other teams present to give it their best shot to succeed in it. If a team has the resources to compete at multiple events, good for them. I can only hope for the day that we’re at that level, but you can bet I’ll be working on that in the off-season.
I know im going to hear many argue that FIRST is not about winning, well just stop being so cliche and understand that everyone still desires to do well and no one appreciates working so hard just to have some NASA engineered robot come along every year and beat them without even a slight hope of winning.
Dare I note that there are several NASA teams who have yet to bring home the gold this season? Neither 116 nor 118 have done so thus far. Even 359, a beautiful machine which dropped the jaw of every single member of Capital Robotics at Cheapeake, hasn’t made it through the finals.
I understand that the glory of winning eventually fades, and in the end it really is the experience that matters, but it is still a competition.
Then why is it an issue for folks to compete to the best of their ability?
Students spend six hard weeks building and working on something that they want to see succeed just as much as the teams im speaking of do. Its not exactly a great experience or in any way encouraging to put all that effort into something, just to go to the competitions every year to see which team super power is there to dominate them this year.
I’m from 1618. We finished 46th of 60 at Chesapeake, 3-6-0. We got beat by some of the best teams in the field, and I know we were on a few pick lists. We didn’t get picked, and it stung–but it lit a fire underneath our kids, new and old. Last season, we got lucky and slipped into the eighth alliance captain slot, only to get stomped in QF1-1 to the tune of 264-0. Didn’t faze me one bit. Coincidentally, I’m also an alumnus of 1293, the team that finished next to last at Palmetto with only a single win to their credit for the whole 2008 season. I spoke with the head coach of their team at Palmetto, and he wasn’t shaken up a bit. Nor was anyone else on the team, for that matter. Sometimes you have it, sometimes you don’t. Ideally, you learn something from the experience either way.
I think there are many teams that need to think about this and change the way they’re team is run, and for the ones who dont, go and horde up all those trophys and banners each year, but make sure you have plenty of fun, because no one else is.
George Wallace, coach of 1902, once told me that FIRST is like pizza. You and I may like different toppings, but in the end it’s still delicious pizza. I don’t mind if a team walks away with their third/fourth/fifth/sixth blue banner in a season. Why? They’ve done something right that we haven’t. If we keep learning from our mistakes, and from the mistakes and successes of others, then our day will come on the field–a process that is accelerated when we don’t tell other teams to bring anything less than their A-game.
When I first joined I had the usual immature jealousness of amazing teams that made me think similar things. But once I actually talked to students on these “mentor dominated” teams, I realized they are learning more and getting more from the experience than students on teams entirely run by kids.
So, aside from the point of the argument, get to know the students that work hard on those teams before you pass judgement.
OK well lets put the whole “message of FIRST” arguement aside for a moment and just look at the competitive aspect itself.
There are plenty of teams that arrive at competition with competitive robots that are built with limited resources and/or limited engineering help.
The game is usually designed so that you can’t win purely by having the best machine. You must also be a cooperative team player and a good strategist.
A team that comes to mind is Team 563 in Philly. Always competitive with very limited funding and a few resourceful mentors. A great team. Another team that comes to mind is 284. (a truly great machine this year) It can be done.
If you need help improving there are teams that can and will help you get there.
First off, I don’t see how a team being successful is un-GP. Some teams have worked hard to get the mentorship and community support that they have, and this support has helped them become very competitive. Just because a team has the experience and ability to build a dominating bot doesn’t make them any less gracious or professional. You may be surprised, but I actually enjoy seeing robots like this because it shows what is possible and inspires new concepts to explore for next year. If you think that spending six weeks designing and building a robot isn’t worth the effort because someone happens to have found a better way of doing it, you are completely missing the point of GP and FIRST.
Also, if you think that no one has fun because there are dominating robots out there, you haven’t paid much attention. At every FIRST event I’ve been to, everyone appeared to be having a wonderful time, regardless of whether they were winning every match or their robot was barely moving.
I’m with the others–you won’t find much support here.
I mentored a team with a grand total of 6 mentors (many of whom weren’t always there). We had a lousy record in qualifying and weren’t picked, yet the students had a load of fun, even with the mentors getting their hands on the robot from time to time.
I graduated from a team that had more mentors than students for some time. I still had a load of fun. And the mentors were doing about half the work on the robot, but the students were doing the other half. (I think I’m slightly overestimating the mentors’ involvement.) Successful? Yes. Fun? YES!!!
If you go and read those other threads (a search for “mentor-built” or “student-built” should turn up a few), you will find two things in common–they have a tendency to get locked, and nobody really cares other than the thread starter. One of the goals of FIRST is INSPIRATION, and around here, it seems like most people don’t really care how the students are inspired.
And if there is a team there that truly is mentor-built, it just makes it that much sweeter when your student-built/combination-built robot beats them.
I’m glad to hear this. It seems this competition has captured you as it has many of. After 7 years in it, I’ve yet to come across a better extracurricular activity.
This has been discussed time and time again on these fori. The fact of the matter is, no one has the right to tell any team how it should be structured or who should be involved. Different teams have different ideologies. Some teams value students being 100% involved in every step of the process. Other teams value students observing skilled mentors take initiative. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. If a team feels at a disadvantage due to lack of skilled mentors, maybe they should get some more. This program is For Inspiration. How teams choose to inspire their students is left at their own discretion. Some teams inspire their students by having a high level of mentor involvement leading to a higher quality product. This is inspiring.
I don’t follow the logic here. If I attempt to follow your logic slightly further, you are basically saying that this should not be a competition that can be won by skill, experience, and teamwork. You are saying it should turn into an exhibition, where everyone gets to show their stuff but no one is praised for it more than any other. The teams that put a lot of work into it would be no better off than the teams who slap it together in someone’s dining room on the last day. I don’t think this is inspirational at all and I don’t see how it benefits the advancement of education or technology. And btw, I don’t find it GP to call out a team about not being GP.
First, FIRSTis about winning. This is why we have competitions and not exhibitions. If you feel your team has trouble winning, maybe you should study why the winning teams are so successful, and make adjustments to your own team as you feel necessary. Second, gather all the facts before you make assumptions. Just because a team is sponsored by NASA or is a NASA house team even does not mean NASA engineers are designing the robot. Third, have you any idea how much NASA has contributed to the FIRST robotics program and the advancement of technology as a whole? I don’t think you’re going to get on anyone’s good side here by hating on the NASA teams. Fourth, I spent 6 years on the average team that felt like it had no chance of beating the teams that had tens of thousands of dollars and a hundred machinists backing them. Then guess what, in the 6th year we got our act together and won a regional. It happens, you just have to try harder. The day that this program’s awards are based purely on luck is the day I quit. In this competition, teams get honored for the excellence they display. Awards (judging based and performance based) are a pillar of the FIRST program. To take them away or award them at random would be quite detrimental.
When I was a young high school student in FIRST, I felt completely the opposite way. I took one look at those robots and said “wow, I want to make mine look like that next year. How can I make this happen? I need to start now.” Every year I saw the same teams win again and again made me work that much harder to reach their level. Eventually, we made it.
As stated earlier, it is not anyone’s right to say how any team governs or structures itself. Hording trophies is not something that happens by magic. There are experienced and hard working people behind it. To suggest they ought to just give up and let someone else win is simply absurd. It’s a battle for them every year too. Winning doesn’t come easy to anyone.
In conclusion, I see your frustration not genuinely against the so-called “powerhouse” teams but perhaps deep inside, and perhaps against your own team. Sure there are things people aren’t too fond of about the FRC program. But I challenge you to adapt. The rest of us have.
It’s the process of first that counts. Not the end result of winning a regional. Any student that goes through the First experience wins. Unfortunately, allot of students don’t realize what we did to them until several years latter.
There are times i really really really like seeing these engineer managed bots go out there. why? because it gives me a higher tier to aim for, Another layer of competition. Also by seeing these robots i’ve been exposed to so many new concept ideas and mechanisms, also really really good design practices. I am proud to say we are a majority student built robot. I’d also like to proudly say that a student built robot is quite capable or tying the success or clearly beating these “engineer” bots (We’ve given 1114 there only elimination loss this year). I love having them because it adds a whole new level to the competition, and whole new platform to surge for.
Look on youtube for IRI 2006 matches, ours is the fridge that helped take down the world champs, finalists and regional winners out the wazoo, many of these teams would fall under your category, We came out on top it can be done.
If your ever at a competition with us come by and i’ll show the drivtrain i myself designed
All im really hearing is the expected cliches, and that the students on these teams are learning…
If the students of these said teams are learning a bunch from all this well great! that doesnt mean the way they are doing it is right or dare I say GP, and yes like i said FIRST is still an extremely fun experience, im just pointing out a problem which I have found to be a hindrance to the experience.
“immature jealousness”? Your calling my opinion immature for thinking that teams that are supposedly being profesional and gracious but still put themselves at a very obvious and extreme advantage is unfair and not so profesional…
And as far as anonymous accounts not being allowed goes. I could tell you who I was, but it really wouldnt make a difference.
If you think not, does that mean you don’t exist? (Sorry, couldn’t resist. I’m in my sixth year of Latin and quod cognito, ergo sum!)
There’s something special about seeing a robot or a team that inspires and depresses at the same time. Inspires for the obvious “Oh my goodness that is so awesome” and depresses for the “Our robot isn’t performing that well.” Whether you choose to be raised to the incredible FIRST high of inspiration or plunged into despair is up to you.
And of course, those winning teams are clearly doing something right. Change your own behavior, see what your team would willingly change. As for the adult/student ratio, perhaps mentors simply know more than the students and are helping them learn? I know, it’s a completely crazy idea here in FIRST. ‘now dump sarcasm on the last two sentences’ Why isn’t it Gracious and Professional for teams to be consistently good performers? Ask how they do what they do. Request their help, get to know their team and you would every other team at a competition.
Here ends my thoughts. A semi-rant? Can something be a semi-rant?
All im really hearing is the expected cliches, and that the students on these teams are learning…
If the students of these said teams are learning a bunch from all this well great! that doesnt mean the way they are doing it is right or dare I say GP, and yes like I said FIRST is still an extremely fun experience. Im just pointing out but a single problem which I have found to be a hindrance to the experience, im not attacking FIRST or the FIRST community in any way
“immature jealousness”? Your calling my opinion immature for thinking that teams that are supposedly being profesional and gracious but still put themselves at a very obvious and extreme advantage is unfair and not so profesional…
And as far as anonymous accounts not being allowed goes. I could tell you who I was, but it really wouldnt make a difference.
Rather than worrying about bringing other teams down to your level, worry about what you can do to be competitive with those teams. You’ll get a lot more out of FIRST that way.
I’m still note entirely sure what GP means, but If I had to pick teams that were GP, the teams you are describing are at the top of my list.
Been on both sides. They both have pros and cons. End of story.
All I know is students who were against mentor involvement at the start of the year are now planning to buy as many COTS as possible and send out most of the parts to outside machine shops next season. Significance? I’m not sure, but it seems like a lesson was learned somewhere.
How are these teams not GP? Give us a concrete example.
Are they not GP because they run their team differently from you?
Are they not GP because they win?
Are they not GP because they follow a proven design process and use their past experiences to improve their future robots?
A vast majority of these teams are incredibly Gracious, and nobody can possibly question their professionalism. Just because a team wins does not mean they aren’t GP.
In fact, it’s clearly against the nature of gracious professionalism to attempt to drag them down to your level rather than rise up to theirs.
Just for the record, our machine is 95% student built in a high school woodshop. We do seek and receive engineering help (an important part of FIRST learning) but our kids do it all from concept through build, with simple tooling.
It can be done in a variety of ways. But we don’t look down on teams that do it differently than we do. You must find what works for your team.
