Stosh

If one looks at the word responsibility closely it simply means the ability to respond or answer back. Obedience doesn't have that same dynamic. I obey, but I may not have the ability to respond or answer back correctly, and thus the rub. Am I "response able" if I have to be told every minute detail of what needs to be done? Probably not. An obedient person simply does the best they can what is told of them to do. On the other hand a person that is able to respond can function outside the limits of obedience. If one were to tell a scout to go raise the flag, they may in shear obedience run their patrol flag up the pole. They obeyed, but it was not what the person wanted. A respond able person goes beyond obedience and fills in the blanks with life experience, training, problem solving skills, management skills and a number of other dynamics to be more effective than just obedience. A Scout that is obedient really doesn't need to do anything other than follow directions.

"The True Measure of Leadership is Influence – Nothing More, Nothing Less. True leadership cannot be awarded, appointed, or assigned. It comes only from influence, and that cannot be mandated. It must be earned." I can see where this quote might convey leadership in that leadership comes from influence, but as stated in the comments, the Boss exerts influence, so does the Tyrant and the Dictator. I don't call that true leadership. Influence is the dynamic that is useful to the one attempting to lead. This is where the popularity and charisma "leadership" comes from, or should I simply say the effect those people have on others. There's too much power given to the one who influences that can be abused. Influence can be simply, either you do it or you're fired. That's a highly motivational influence, but the person making such demands is not a leader, it is one who only seeks self gain. True leadership is not where the Leader gains benefit from the relationship, but the follower does. I simply use the phrase, "take care of your boys" when it comes to teaching leadership. As long as others are being taken care of they don't wander off. Parents take care of their children, the good teachers take care of their students, they have invested in the welfare of those following them. It has nothing to do with influence and persuasion to follow. The charismatic leader that will champion the cause of their followers will be well liked. He's looking out for them, not himself and his vested interest is not in influence of his followers, but influence in answering the needs of the followers. Two totally different dynamics. On the other hand, the quiet leader will be there, quietly in the back ground making sure each follower is successful in what they want and need to do. He/She offers up no directive influence, but is quick to support and assist. Personalities of all kinds can be leaders as long as they take care of others. Ever wonder why the Scout Oath has the words "help other people at all times" in it? It is what defines leadership. Doing my duty to God and Country is not leadership, nor is following the Scout Law. Keeping myself physically fit, mentally awake and morally straight isn't either. But by helping other people at all times, means there will be many around who appreciate that help and will remain close for when the need arises again. People seek out those who can help them, they will seek out the real leaders, those who say yes I will help you.

Unfortunately at the point girls are allowed to earn the once illustrious Boy Scout Eagle, it will become the Scout Eagle. Sure the requirements will be the same, the providing organization will be the same, but the award will be issued as a different program, a co-ed program. Boy Scouts will no longer exist.

Leadership? Look around, is anyone willingly following ? If not, that's not leadership.

It's always easier to rob a bank than it is to earn a wage.

What's wrong with Eagle and Real Eagles? Kinda like the A Honor Roll and the B Honor Roll. In some schools all they have is Honor Rolls. Everyone knows the difference and some even go so far as to say it out loud. I'm sure the A Students use it to bully and belittle the B Students on a regular basis. It's how life works in the real world.

So, with the example from @@DadScouts what's the value in the project? The boy got the eagle and it made no difference between him and the 95% other boys out there doing it correctly. One would think that the scouts could show leadership in ways other than a project. Obviously this project did nothing towards showing any leadership whatsoever. And yet the box got checked. I'm thinking the older scout that plans out a high adventure float to the BWCA will need to show more leadership than building a gazebo at the nursing home and does more for scouting than media PR for the community. Permits, licenses, menus, budgets, travel plans, training, etc. to get his patrol to the BWCA? Real Eagle in my book, but then I don't make up the rules to allow a boy to run around town with a can of spray paint and a stencil says, "No Dumping, Drains to River!" and everyone runs around and spray paints the sewer drains for a couple of hours in the afternoon and the City Street Dept. saves a half day or so of overtime.

The official stance of the BSA on this????? Please share!

A scout is trustworthy...... How does one get trustworthy and hoax in the same sentence?

The point is not whether or not girls want to reach the Eagle rank, it's just that some CAN. It's no different for boys. It would seem from the statistics about 95% of them don't care about getting Eagle. If that be the case, why is the subject even broached? Reason? The Oooooh Aaaahhh factor associated with the Eagle pin on a girl. For some, that's the only goal in the whole process..... just like it is for some of the boys. At the present time, the political dynamics is more important than preserving the program. Your mileage may vary.

John F. Kennedy was the first U.S. President to be a Boy Scout, reaching the level of Star Scout. As of 2014, Gerald Ford was the only President to reach the level of Eagle Scout. Both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were Cub Scouts. http://www.scoutorama.com/eagle/eag_famous.cfm

BSA throws out enough vagularities and mis-directional policies that they don't have to participate in childish April Fool's jokes. Like the boy that cried "Wolf!", it's to the point where every day is April 1st when it comes to National BSA.

Being popular isn't leading. Being charismatic isn't leading. Swimming in a big pond isn't leading. Swimming in a small pond isn't leading Leading is leading. As @@Back Pack says, "All of these kids are great Scouts. Some Eagles and some not. All took our troop and district training. Many NYLT. A few NAYLE. The best kid I have is the quietest, mousiest Scout we have...best darn leader though." And that begs the question, Is this scout popular?, charismatic?, aware of the size of the pond?, took all kinds of fancy, schmancy training? or did he just figure out what leading is all about. Leadership is not defined from the position of leading, it's defined from the position of following. Once one figures this out, then all the other measurements and curricula go out the window because it isn't all that difficult. It's just that most people chase it down the wrong rabbit hole.

Mea Culpa. Let it be known from this time forward the term Paper or Parlour Eagle will no longer be used to distinguish certain Eagles. Instead I will be using the terms Eagle and Real Eagle.

Sorry, @@RememberSchiff, I was attempting a bit of sarcasm. I remember the days before the "Projects". There wasn't any big talk about doing service projects, we just did them and didn't think about them. I guess now that's the only thing that really marks the Eagles of today. They do a lot of extra hoop jumping, paperwork, haggling with adults to sit in judgment as to whether their efforts are worthwhile and finally getting the same recognition as the pre-1965 scouts. Kinda makes one wonder if it's all worth the effort just to put it on one's resume and college application. Yep, Second Class Scout Stosh here, never got to FC because of Morse Code which today is totally obsolete and isn't even required for a Ham radio license anymore. Somethings get easier others don't.

The closest thing to AV we got in WB was a flip-chart.

http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/2346-paper-eagles/ Notice the topic was discussed long before many of us currently on the forum were around. And why then is a First Class Scout really a second class scout?

calling them names? That description of certain Eagles has been around for literally 100 years. Do you your research, then make your point.

In the late 70's when Exploring was tanking because it was a parallel program to compete with the high school boys where they wouldn't have to hang out with middle school boys. The powers that were introduced this new program, known as Learning for Life, oops, I mean co-ed Exploring with the career/hobby emphasis. Now after a wait period they do now call it Learning for Life, but now have the excuse of running a parallel program to compete with the high school boys where they won't have to hang out with the middle school boys, but they have completed the end around introducing the program as co-ed. Shell-and-Pea marketing. However, now that they have completed the cycle, the girls are asking why can't they be Eagles? Simple enough question, and like everything else male in the program, that, too, will be worked around. There hasn't been anything parallel these past 40 years, it has been nothing but jockeying and positioning to accommodate an agenda that's been around a long time and now coming to fruition. Scouting isn't for the boys anymore, no matter how much we give that idea lip-service. It's only for the sake the program that needs to be sold/marketed to the public. There's been a bait-and-switch done on the consumer and they never saw it coming. Marketing 101.

As I sit back with my cup of evening joe I began wondering how in the world boys got to be Eagles before the "project" came along. Now I wonder how in the world the boys are going to be Eagles now that this hoop jumping extravaganza has been entrenched by the adults in the program.

Gee, when a scout looks around and sees that no one is actually following him, it must make it quite difficult to convince him he's a leader in a leadership program. At least that's not the way it has always been, but it is what it has become.

Musta missed the memo.....

And of course that feeds the fervor around why we have paper Eagles and scouts who's only reason they are in the program is go get Eagle. And of course the traditional Once an Eagle, Always an Eagle as if simply being a First Class Scout is like being something of a caste pariah. If BSA were to put as much effort into the other methods of Scouting as they do advancement, things might not be what it is today. Let your imagination fill in the blanks on what that might be.

Yeah, popular and charismatic people are often seen as the leaders. If it were me, I would be asking myself why my boys aren't leading? if that be the case.

Scouting Magazine? Web sites? Blogs? There's a number of different resources that can be used to disseminate the information, NONE are being used except the "over the fence gossip" method.