[EricH]

Cody: I am reasonably certain that you have interpreted Dave's statement correctly. It would make sense for all three of them to agree on this topic; noting that two of the three have relatives involved either as students or as mentors that were once students, I would say that they have some experience.

I would agree with your statement that it depends on the team. In fact, this is my standard answer for any team-makeup related questions. It's not for one team to decide for another; it's for each team to decide for themselves.

The mission statement says "to inspire". You can be inspired without learning. A pep talk, an example of a heroic move in battle or on the sports field... those inspire you, do they not? Yet they do not teach you.

However, as soon as you add the "mentor-based", teaching (NOT learning--I'll get to that in a minute) is added to the equation. For you cannot mentor without teaching. Not in the traditional "lecture" sense of the word, but in the practical, "this is how I do this" demonstration sense.

Now, teaching != learning and learning != teaching. If I were to teach someone, I would either tell them or show them something, new or not. They then have the choice to learn or not. If they choose not to learn, I cannot force them to. I can ask them not to come if they don't want to learn, as they may easily become a distraction because they are not paying attention or listening, but I cannot force learning. If, however, a student wants to learn and pays attention, they will learn from my teaching. Do you see the difference now?

So FIRST's mission statement is not about learning. It's about inspiring through teaching. Whether or not the students learn is up to them--but I can tell you, the less you put in, the less you get out.