Issues & Politics
In answer to many requests, we established a separate forum for these topics. Those not interested can skip this forum instead of spending time reading unwanted messages to identify content.
2957 topics in this forum
-
- 10 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 319 replies
- 57.5k views
-
- 17 replies
- 3.6k views
-
- 14 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 105 replies
- 18.4k views
-
- 388 replies
- 64.3k views
-
- 8 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 13 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 48 replies
- 9k views
-
- 3 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 36 replies
- 6.5k views
-
- 115 replies
- 16.2k views
-
- 563 replies
- 95k views
-
- 229 replies
- 33.6k views
-
- 31 replies
- 6.7k views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
Yet another discussion that is proof that we should scrap the eagle project. -
No more and no less, use the tools and requirements Sadly there are units that feel the need to put "their" spin on projects. Must have CAD drawings, Must build something, Must put in XX hours, Must have XX Scouts work on the project, Must, Must, Must. While the intentions may be good, as has been noted, these local add-ons do not adhere to G2A. How to politely navigate that deviation can be a challenge -
By RememberSchiff · Posted
Then again, suppose the Scout's Eagle Mentor stood up and grabbed a Commissioner to jointly educate the Troop Committee? My $0.02, -
This is a good point. It is treated like a mini day of summer camp. -
Always refer to the G2A ... Guide To Advancement. In my view ... The Eagle Project is about service and leadership in doing that service. The workbook is well laid out and explicitly describes the steps. The project is enough in and of itself. Adding troop unique expectations makes the Eagle Project more about jumping hoops and than giving service. IMHO, we teach bad lessons when we make advancement about jumping hoops. Not required and can't be required ... but troops still do it. Is it harmful? Mostly no. Is this a hill to die on either direction? No. Is it a good idea? No, but I flip flop and can see both sides. Does it help the scout? Maybe a few scouts, but mostly no. The scout MUST fill out the Eagle Project Workbook in detail. That is the scout's commitment. A PowerPoint is extra and just decorative. Committees ... chair or designee(s) ... must review the workbook. That is what is being signed and is effectively a contract. A PowerPoint presentation is NOT what is being signed off. I've had scouts show me their PowerPoint presentation required by their troop. I sat nicely and listened. ... THEN, we went section by section thru the workbook write-up because that is the commitment. Bad ... Could be the unrequired extra hoop to jump thru that causes a scout to give up on Eagle. Good ... Might give some scouts presentation practice that helps scouts later in the process ... IMHO this is a big stretch. Why do troops do it? Biggest reason I've seen is the worst because it does not match Guide To Advancement. Troops justify it as it gives scouts experience presenting to groups and talking in front of groups. IMHO, that's what the Communications MB is about. That's what the rest of the scouting program is about. Eagle project is about service and leading that service. IMHO, it smells more of committee self-importance. If a troop wants to do it, it's not a hill to die on. Smile nicely. Listen. Don't promote the practice and point out the scout requirements are in the Eagle project workbook and the Guide To Advancement. ... Sorry if I am long winded. This was a hot button topic for me as I've been involved in many Eagle project proposal reviews.
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)