If you are like a lot of folks, as you were growing up, your parents, guardians, or other significant adults in your life probably pounded into your little head that experience was really important.

“You need to get as much experience as you can, which will make you better at whatever you decide to do,” they repeated more than once.

Well, apparently, as Bridget McCormack added years to her life, she may have encountered that notion. Somewhere along the way, she may have decided it was good advice. But, turns out, as a 56-year-old adult, she concluded experience ain’t what it’s cracked up to be.

In case you don’t recognize the name, McCormack is soon to be the former chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Out of the blue last week, she surprised — maybe even shocked — a lot of folks in this town by announcing that, instead of fulfilling an eight year term that the voters thought they were getting when they reelected her in 2020, she would leave the court six years early and, after this year is out, she will be but a fond memory.

And many would say a good memory, as she brought order to the court and more collegiality when the image of that body was a little rocky as in-fighting between the justices was very public, very ugly, and very distracting.

Justice McCormack, a Democrat, forged a mutual admiration society with a decidedly conservative Republican Justice Robert Young.

Civility was restored to the bench.

With 10 years on the high court, including almost four years as the chief justice, some might argue that the popular jurist is just beginning to approach her peak performance plateau, and, with even more years, she would be able to contribute more wisdom, more sense of history, and help to deliver the more prudent court decisions that experience can foster.

Nope.

For her, there is something more important than time in grade.

“I think experience is worth a whole lot, but I also think that letting new people and a new generation come to the decision-making table benefits organizations in their decisions, maybe even more than experience,” she begins her defense of bailing early.

Her dedication to bringing more diversity to the court is a higher priority, and she knows full well that “people are really reluctant to give these jobs up.” And, without a faster turnover, the new generation has to mark time until the older jurists take the mandatory 70-year retirement pill or die in office while waiting to take it.

“I think there is a separate set of skills and values that a younger generation” has, she says. She concludes a more diverse court will produce better decisions for all segments of our society.

Contrast that to what former Chief Justice Michael Cavanagh said as he was about to hit that 70-year-old mandatory retirement wall. He hoped that lawmakers would wipe out the requirement, because he felt he had more to give and wanted the opportunity.

To which the current chief justice opines: “We would disagree on that issue — and it was not the only one we’d disagreed about — and I adore him.”

She is leaving for a new nonprofit arbitration gig that pays a hefty salary and, so far, nobody has asked her if the job offer came first and then the retirement decision or not. Someone will at some point.

Meanwhile, as she is hanging up her robe for the last time, she will think, “It was a wonderful privilege and a great honor to have the opportunity to serve.”

Note that she didn’t say it was a great experience … but she knows it was. However, the citizens will not have the benefit of that expertise after this December, when the governor gets a chance to appoint someone with less experience to the high court.