I remember one recruit entering his second career who was problematic. He had retired from the military and was of the mindset that the only person who could train him was someone chronologically older than he was. This created a problem; the only person older than he on the watch was the commander. Somewhere in his brain was a belief that age was the measure of an officer, not experience.
The FTO sergeant finally had to intervene and explain that street experience—or what he called exposure—is what counts. Finally, an analogy of a tank driver teaching a medic made this clear to him. An FTO's career and street experience, coupled with his or her level of maturity on the job, is what's important, not chronological age.
This works in reverse as well. Every FTO should seek out the true life experiences of the recruit to individualize teaching. I recall a former EMT who decided to become a cop. She excelled in several areas due to her life experience as an EMT. She didn't need any emergency first-aid lessons. What was important was to explain to her not to confuse the roles. In the past, her concerns as an EMT arriving on scene had been a jump bag, triage, and so on. Now, as a police officer, it was who was driving the car in an accident, for example.
Another interesting recruit was a former minister who became a cop. He brought to the table great interpersonal communication skills, for he had been formally trained as a counselor.
Finding the right match between FTO and FTR makes the program difficult to administer at times. FTOs are selected for a litany of reasons. Their street experience is important, for we want to avoid any rookies training rookies. You cannot use chronological age as a measuring device, but rather a combination of exposure, training, and street maturity to provide a balanced presentation to the recruit.
