This thread is not meant to be a discussion one way or another, there are plenty of other threads that have existed for that purpose.
I want to get an idea of how popular each form of robot construction is among those who use these forums.
So if you could cast your vote that would be greatly appreciated.
Iām interested in seeing whether teams on average prefer to have mentors do most of the work, students do most of the work, or if itās about average.
For the sake of the poll include all non-high school students as mentors: parents, engineers, teachers, and college students.
How about a poll on mentor or student designed? That means designed and CADāed up. Iād reckon that 99% of teams have their bots assembled by students, but I donāt think that is saying much when the entire bot was drawn up by a few mentors with no more student input than āwe want to score balls wellā.
Either way it is a team effort and who designs or builds the bot isnāt 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 CADāing up a fine robot compared to a maybe lesser student CADāed 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.
Our first two years, weāve had only two or three of what would be called mentors. Thereās been the team leader, a technology staffer, and a few visiting engineers and a college robotics teacher.
This was mostly because our ācoachā 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, thatās 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 (weāre 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.
An excellent comment. Iāll also ask what, exactly, is meant by ābuildsā 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 āmostlyā? 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)ā¦ has the task been done āmostlyā by students or by adultsā¦?
I donāt know how many teams this would apply to. Every team Iāve seen has substantial student input at all points in the design process.
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.
Add my vote for the team category. Exact ratios arenāt important, as long as a team builds it. (If itās a dysfunctional team, thatās important for other reasons, like the āwhat went wrong/rightā 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?
I chose to see the āabout the sameā 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.
Historically, our robot has been student-designed and student-assembled. However, weād prefer to have a higher percentage of work (work defined as done between the ears) done by mentors, should they become available.
Ours is built by both students and adults, and weāre not afraid to say it plainly. Ideas come from anywhere (including 7 year oldsā¦), but the students and adults design it, cut metal, etc. The only thing thatās been done in the past by one or the other is CAD, but thatās only because weāve had discontinuity in who on our team knows CAD.
Our stance is that adults stand to gain just as much from FIRST as the students do. Just look at how many mentors we keep losing due to robotics-driven promotions at work, acceptance into CMUās Doctoral robotics program or other graduate-level programs, and other general āIām moving on to do better things because of what this robotics program has done for meā type of things.
My team builds my teamās robot. The team of students, mentors, and sponsors.
Edit: Aww, other people used this general line before. Guess Iāll have to go into detail then. 1714 is a fairly student oriented, but mentor assisted team. Students and mentors work together (especially with help from awesome sponsor American Acrylics) to design and build a robot. I canāt put a percentage on it, but itās more weighed toward students in the ādesign / builtā percentage. So I guessā¦ about the same, but mostly students? Itās just however we get the job done, and I happened to have really awesome teammates (both students and mentors) to do it.
If youāre concerned about physical assembly, I think almost all of the actual drilling, tapping, fastening, etc. is physically done by students.
Both mentors and students participate in the design and construction of our robots. Some students learn and are inspired by watching. Some students learn and are inspired by designing. Some students learn and are inspired by using their hands. We try to cater to each type of student.
Sorry, Iām reading/posting during my Shakespeare class so Iāll keep it short:
Team 2502 is student led, its robot is student designed & student built.
Our mentors are here to manage the Bank Account, form a standing relationship with the administration (although students have a hand in this as well), provide space, transportation to the competition, and most important of all, provide us with support, encouragement, some technical advise, and love.
Thatās just how we function.
Oh yeah they keep students from arguing too heatedly
Team 1261 takes pride in the fact that our robot is almost entirely student designed and built. When we win at competition, it is that much sweeter knowing that a mentor didnāt build most of the robot, but rather it was our own effort/work.
Our mentors are extremely supportive, more supportive that some would believe, but they are here for technical support of the students. Our main school mentor handles the funds, keeping students on task, etc. Our technical mentors help out the students where ever they can best provide assistance.
Both the students and mentors are an integral part of the team, but mentors donāt overshadow the students, and that is something we value in our program.
Guess Iāll have to go into detail then. 1714 is a fairly student oriented, but mentor assisted team. Students and mentors work together (especially with help from awesome sponsor American Acrylics) to design and build a robot. I canāt put a percentage on it, but itās more weighed toward students in the ādesign / builtā percentage. So I guessā¦ about the same, but mostly students? Itās just however we get the job done, and I happened to have really awesome teammates (both students and mentors) to do it.