Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
it's different for every team.
|
Sean has a point in saying that the competition aspect is what matters for many teams.
Jason points out that learning matters most for many teams.
Both coincide in teaching. We choose each year whether or not the mentors will coach or if students will coach. Why does it seem that so many people on here tend to assume that the adults
do know more than the students in the coaching aspect? Why do so many on here assume that the adults
cannot fulfill an adequate learning environment for their students by being coaches.
It doesn't have to be a choice of "your team needs to decide if they want to win or if they want to learn" type of situation. Teams win all the time with both set ups and teams learn with both set ups. You don't have a make compromises in what type of outcome you want. If there's a student who is clearly better at communications on the field and has better strategies than the leading adult, then definitely go for the student. On the flip side if the adult mentor is clearly better at communicating under pressure on the field and has better strategies then choose them. I honestly don't see why it has to be such a big deal or argument. Test out both student and adult coaches and see who fits just as you would with drivers. Mind, you, the drivers should be the ones deciding who was most helpful for them out on the field.