Beavah

I think the ways the LDS church has implemented the program for their young men gives the church the results they want. Yeh want to be racing da 11 year olds through a heavily watered down advancement-focused, adult-driven program? Whatever for? From your documents, yeh seem to want to develop a real depth of experience and character in da youth. Yeh can't do that with a heavily watered down, advancement-focused, adult-driven program. Leastways, I've never seen it happen. Instead what yeh get is boys with weak skills, higher accident rates and behavioral issues. Which, quite frankly a lot of us see in LDS programs. While yeh have the implied "legitimacy" of the BSA and the Eagle Scout rank, I find it hard to believe that that's all yeh want for your kids. Don't yeh desire strong skills, self-confident outdoorsmanship, care for younger scouts, higher levels of youth leadership, better safety record, better demonstrated behavior by kids on their own? I often tell folks they can either specify methods or outcomes. If yeh overspecify methods (11 year olds in their own program, limited camping, etc.), yeh get whatever outcomes that produces. If yeh specify outcomes, then yeh have to adjust the methods in order to get out of the program what yeh want to see in young men. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... Gary_Miller, I think what I'm sayin' at least is that da 3-campouts-only, FCFY bit does seem to be a modification of the advancement and outdoors programs, and not a particularly healthy one, eh? And that seems to be a broad implementation, not a local one. I think some of da criticism by others continues to be overbroad. There's nothing at all wrong with a CO using the program for its purposes, that's what it's designed for. And I think most LDS units do offer program for the 12-13 year olds at least that we'd all recognize as being "scouting." I don't particularly care about the all-11, 3-campouts-only, FCFY stuff as that's the CO's call as well. But yeh have to admit, the LDS implementation is quite an outlier. As a Commish, if it were a "regular" unit doin' that, I'd challenge 'em to think about whether what they're doin' really matched their goals for the program and the kids. So it seems like folks challengin' da typical LDS implementation might be doin' the same sort of thing. There's nothing wrong with tweaking the program, but there is if yeh find that the ways you're tweaking it aren't likely to get yeh to the kinds of results yeh claim to want. Beavah

Kids who are there because they have that interest, or even because their parents do, are probably going to excel somewhat at doing the activities, versus a kid who is there because he has to be there Yah, so that makes da notion that they advance 5-10 times faster than "normal" troops (in terms of nights camping before making First Class) even more of a problem, eh? You'd expect less interested kids to advance less quickly. Gary_Miller, the whole notion of doin' weekly indoor advancement classes just seems like the definition of a parlor scouting /advancement mill type approach. A real downgrading of the BSA program. Not that we don't have non-LDS troops and many camps that don't do something similar, but I reckon we realize they shortchange kids as well. Da thing is, from your literature, I can't figure out why yeh choose to do that, eh? It doesn't seem like a radically weakened advancement program is consistent with the Church's goals for the YM. So why not opt for a more traditional (and effective) BSA program instead of racing da 11 year olds through a heavily watered down advancement-focused, adult-driven program? Beavah

Yah, I'm sympathetic to Gern's argument, eh? At the same time, in some ways waiting until age 12 is more developmentally appropriate for the lads. Leastways, yeh don't see the summer camp homesickness meltdowns yeh see with a fair percentage of da 11 year olds. That havin' been said, it's hard not to conclude that the LDS programs must function as a heck of a badge mill program at da T-2-1 level. I'm highly skeptical of a troop where very many kids make First Class in a year, even with a very active outdoor program, eh? Yah, it might be *possible* for the lad who comes on everything and a troop that runs a great program and a lad who is more into advancement than most boys. Even lads like Gern's son who log 30 nights out usually don't whip off to First Class. So when yeh see a majority of boys making First Class in a year, yeh find on examination that their skills are almost always really weak. They might have done the requirements, but they definitely can't do them. So da program shorted them and milled a badge. The notion that a majority of the boys can make First Class with only 3 outings (and 1-night outings at that) I think is just a bit preposterous, especially startin' without having had a Webelos 2 experience. Which gets back to the safety problem I raised earlier, and that we've discussed here before. Inexperienced adults in the YM 12-13 program, plus "First Class" scouts who don't really have the skills, plus a high mountain environment is a recipe for da kind of accident rate that seems to be produced. Why not just start Boy Scouting at age 12, and make da 12-13 program focus of First Class? That seems much more sane and reasonable, especially with less experienced adult leaders. Then da 14-15 year old Varsity youth can serve as PLs and mentors to the younger program in some way, and work toward a mor reasonable Eagle timeframe, leaving the 16-17 year old Venturers to pursue Quest, Ranger, Silver, etc. Seems like that would be a better fit for both programs, eh? Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... I hate "Lord of the Flies" comments. Far more often than not, they are made by someone doesn't understand or buy into the Boy Scouting notion of youth leadership. Odds are, when yeh hear such a comment, it's from a newly crossed over parent looking for an adult-run webelos 3 program. And ironically, Lord of the Flies the book was actually an allegory about adult society, not a commentary on da nature of youth. That's why I think we all need to be a lot more circumspect about the "go look for another troop" comments. I think we really do first year boy scouting parents a disservice with that sort of extreme, knee jerk reaction. As we read da OP's most recent post, we again find da pattern of these things. It really isn't all that bad in her troop. There's an overworked SM (typical), and a blunt CC (not that unusual), and some good older boys and a program her son seems to like. Da biggest worry is an impending and necessary leadership transition. We all (me as well) get our shorts in a bundle because of secondhand reports of offhanded comments by someone like this CC. But honestly, who among us hasn't on occasion made an offhanded comment that was dumb or that another parent took the wrong way? If that's da threshold for "find a new troop" then no lad's scouting will ever be stable. And that's key, eh? You do a lot of damage to a boy's scouting experience when you switch troops. It disrupts everything for him, just like changing schools or moving to a new neighborhood. New friends to make, new social environment to navigate, new procedures and expectations. Changing troops is as likely to cause a boy to disconnect and drop out of scouting as anything. It's not advice that should be da first out of our lips to a disaffected first year parent. Cheerful, I wouldn't push one way or the other. If your son seems unhappy, yeh can raise the possibility with him of changing troops. But I'd make sure that he makes that decision, or at least buys in fully. Changing troops is hard on a lad, and works best if it's his decision. And yeh really can only do it once, no matter what "concerns" yeh develop about the new troop. And there are sure to be some, eh? There are in every troop everywhere. Beavah

Yah, da other bonus to small tents is that the small guys can carry 'em . Big tents, like big propane tanks, tend to restrict units to car camping. B

Yah, easy there, Basementdweller I reckon BD is right, though, eh? I reckon the unit money earning application is one of the least used forms in da BSA. And honestly, unless yeh really do somethin' silly, nobody in your council is goin' to mind a unit that gets a discount here and there or wears their scout shirts while helping at the Volunteer Fire Department bake sale. Beavah

Hiya Cheerful, welcome to the Scouter.Com forums! One of the things that's very true is that when we join a new organization, the first thing we notice are the flaws. Those are the easiest, eh? Especially since we don't know what's goin' on yet, really. So I always tell folks like yourself that yeh aren't allowed to comment on the "bad" things until you have been in the troop long enough to be able to identify all of the "good" things that are goin' on. Yah, that SM may be a bit harried and overworked and forgetful, but the fellow is giving a lot of his time for free, eh? Does he do anything well? What does your son love about the troop. What things should not be changed. Once you've had time to figure things out well enough to recognize all the good things, then I'm certain you will also have taken the time to thank both the youth and adult leaders for those good things. To praise 'em for their hard work and efforts. Only then, when yeh know the good and bad, and when you've built up some credibility by recognizing and praising the good things people do, can yeh really be effective at offering to pitch in and fix up some of the "bad" things. I'm not sayin' there aren't any concerns in your troop. There are concerns and "bad" things in every troop. Of your list, I wouldn't worry about da advancement chair or what other kids' advancement is like or what chairs people sit in. Probably not too much about whether the TG is playing football and can't make meetings. And while "ignoring" the 11-year-olds parents may feel awkward to you, one of the things about Boy Scouting is that it's different than Cub Scouting. The adult leaders work directly with the boys without involving parents all the time, and the boys are their focus, especially at meetings. That can feel like being ignored compared to Cub Scouts, but I bet if yeh think about it it's pretty much like other middle school sports, eh? If the boys are at practice, the coaches are pretty much ignoring the parents on the sidelines. I would be worried a bit about the fighting (though perhaps not as much if it were just a "thing" between two boys who were otherwise friends, more of a roughhousing game). And I would be a bit worried about getting the SM some more help if he's getting a bit frazzled. Honestly, the unfriendly CC who doesn't interact well with new parents might be da thing that concerns me the most, unless the regular fighting is "real". In terms of events, it may be that the troop is doin' something which sometimes happens, where an older troop and PLC plan interesting events, but don't fully take into account the younger fellows. Some older-scout-only events are an OK thing... they're things your son can look forward to, but there's a balance. I will say, though, that a 60 mile bike ride and a white water rafting trip can be well within the ability of an average first year scout, and I've seen lots of troops do those things successfully. But for some lads who are out of shape or less comfortable with the water yeh have to make some allowances for added support. Last thing is that advancement should never be on the agenda. That's not how it works. Boy Scouts do things. They go camping and run meetings and all sorts of stuff. Advancement comes out of doing things, not out of setting meeting agenda items to work on it. So I'd say yeh might have a few legitimate concerns to help your troop work on, and a couple things where your concerns are misplaced. Once yeh find all of the good things that your troop does and give some applause to the people who do 'em, you should think about how to step forward and help 'em with the things that need work. If your son is enjoying himself, and there seem to be a lot of troop activities for him to do so, then I'd say you let yourself be guided by his interests and friendships. If he is doing well, then stay. If on da other hand your son is miserable, go find a different scouting program that he clicks with. If it's in between, give it some time and let him make the call. Beavah

One of the most impressive things that the LDS church has done with scouting is to apply a consistent application of the BSA program to all of their wards. No other religious CO has been able to do that. Yah, I don't know how consistent it really is, eh? As Gary_Miller describes, LDS units run the gamut in terms of quality and approach same as other units. Certainly I don't think Salt Lake has been all that great at developing a consistent application of the documents BadenP mentioned, or as he says the training numbers would be way up across da intermountain west. But I get where you're comin' from, in that they are pretty universal on the age-based thing and camping requirements with respect to Sundays and whatnot. B

Well, yah, sure, if yeh want it to be. Someone posts a quote about how statistics can be misused, and your first thought in response is to take a swipe at religion? Yep, that's a bias. I'm sorry you're feelin' all tweaked out about my comment, but if da shoe fits... Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

So I do not know about the uniform. I would think that would be ok, because it is for a good cause. Nah, remember that da BSA doesn't want to be in the position of endorsing another group, eh? If yeh go off in uniform to ring bells for the Salvation Army, it gives the appearance that the BSA is endorsing the Salvation Army. Maybe. Or it could be just the shirt that yeh grabbed out of the closet that day. Gets a bit trickier, too, if da Salvation Army is the Chartered Organization. Up here we don't run into that much, because it's way too cold just to be in a uniform shirt. But yeh don't want to give the impression that da BSA is endorsing the group, and the BSA does have an interest in that. The BSA's interest is limited to protection of its reputation and trademark.

Yah, BadenP, yeh pulled an informal document that apparently was put together by one stake in Utah, eh? That's like pulling an information packet put together by one BSA district somewhere and claiming that it represents official BSA policy or practice, or pulling one VFW post's troop bylaws and claimin' it represents all VFW scouting. But I didn't see anything wrong with the document while skimming it. It seems to have a whole bunch of clear, concise guidance that is perfectly reasonable. "Encourage scout leader training (Fast Start, Basic, WoodBadge)". "Insist on two-deep leadership." "Encourage adult leaders to set the goal to have the majority of first year scouts advance to First Class in a year." Honestly, it's a bit more concise and easier to read than plowing through G2SS or the SMHB. A nice quick start for a new leader. Got some nice CO policies in there as well. "The bishopric should ensure that the Committee Chair is trained in scouting and has the time, ability, and commitment to fulfill his role." Wish all Chartered Orgs. insisted on that! Yah, this document says that scout leaders should be Priesthood holders, so no non-LDS leaders, eh? That's their right, and that may well be a local decision. This all seems pretty normal to me. If yeh go to the National Catholic Committee on Scouting web site, yeh find OGE's crowd encourages things like Catholics-only vocation camporees on a national basis and writes a whole job description for CORs. That seems a lot more bold than one stake publishing a little scouting guide. They even have an order of adult "Knights" supportin' scouting, a Catholics-only youth leadership training at Philmont, a separate non-BSA scouter training and their own Quality Unit award instead of da BSA's. And their vocation training group seems to be chartering special Venturing crews at high schools. NAUMS for da Methodists passes out their own bible at Philmont, runs Methodist-scout-only mission trips and the like. National Jewish Committee on Scouting publishes a whole mess of their own program helps too, eh? I don't see where the LDS documents from one stake are all that much different from what everybody else is doin'. Beavah

Nah, CalicoPenn, yeh missed it. OGE exposed his bias for Prussian philosophers. So I might just be out of it, but what is this thread about anyways? It's not linked to any other thread, so I just took it to be a commentary on da use of statistics. Having listened to too many know-nothing politicians in recent weeks, it seemed apropos. B

Yah, that helps a bit, eh? Since your current participation rate is about 50%, I don't see why that would change goin' forward, so I think you're lookin' at 30-35 comin' out per outing. So that means more gear investment, or doin' two outings per month and let patrols sign up for one or da other or both. Also means that yeh have to think more carefully about your backcountry campouts, because 35 kids plus 15 adults is way, way, way too many for a single backcountry group. The more yeh really emphasize patrol independence the easier it's goin' to be for you in this case, but that brings yeh back to gettin' more patrol gear. Next I think yeh really want to look at stuff like traditional Patrol Leader Training and some non-traditional in-troop training of the new adults, to keep with that patrol method emphasis. You'll also need to make a big investment in TG training, and I'd be sure to have at least two solid TG's for each NSP. And yeh really, really want to get away from da "provisional patrol" nonsense. When you're a larger troop, the boys really need a solid, permanent patrol within the troop to be their "home". They'll get lost without it. With a 50% participation rate, yeh need a patrol size of 10-12 to be sure the patrol will be intact on every outing, and yeh need to treat the APL as a PL in terms of training and participation, so the APL can "be" the PL on any given outing or meeting. Do yeh have your NSP's move into traditional patrols after a few months to a year, or are yeh running same-age patrols all the way through your program? If you're doin' same-age patrols all the way through, the transition from being a NSP with an older boy serving as TG to being a "regular" patrol with an elected same-age PL can be a rough one. Lots of big troops structured that way do a good job with NSP's and decent job with high school Venture patrols but sorta struggle with the group in between. If you're doin' the same-age patrol bit, your PLC is also goin' to suddenly be much younger/less capable/less mature, so you'll have to be prepared for that. OTOH, if you transition boys into "regular" mixed-age patrols from NSP's after only a few months, that might solve both your "provisional patrol" problem and da older example/leadership problem. Young fellows get attached to their TG's, so be sure yeh have a TG from each of your "regular" patrols if yeh go that way. Plan in advance for da communication bit. With 60 boys, it's goin' to be a lot harder. You'll really need to work with your PLs on good communication. Start looking for remote group campsites or private land. 60 scouts plus 20 adults is a huge impact on traditional campsites. No matter how "good" your boys are, the presence of that many youth is sure to annoy fellow front-country campers. Oh, yah, and your treasury is suddenly goin' to get a lot bigger and busier, eh? If yeh don't have good systems and controls in place, now is the time to do that. More $ means more temptation, and a lot more work for da treasurer. Think through financial controls, buy necessary software, firm up rules about fundraisin' participation and how the money is allocated and how you're goin' to handle deadbeats now. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmmm... OK. I'm with evmori though. That can be said about anything. Pickin' religion out only seems to be a comment on your own personal biases.

In answer to #1, of course yeh can accept a donation that someone offers. Who wouldn't? In answer to #2, it's frowned upon and technically contrary to da charter agreement. The primary reason is its potential for interferin' with FOS solicitation. If you go to a local business and get a $50 donation to a silent auction, what you may have just done is cost the council a $1000 donation from that business. They can easily say "we already gave to Scouting, and we like to spread our donation dollars around." So yeh really just shot your DE and local scouting programs in the foot, because you nickeled and dimed a potentially more substantial donor. If yeh avoid doin' something like that, or are just taking advantage of an existing program (like lots of supermarkets have some sort of low-level donation program that is available to scout units), then your council isn't really goin' to mind. Most councils will also be supportive of Eagle Projects asking for donations, or even instruct lads to shops and lumber yards that are known to be helpful. Remember, a donation to an Eagle Project is really a donation to the project beneficiary and not to Scouting, and therefore is not covered by the Rules & Regs. Beavah

Yah, emb021, councils design and authorize these things all the time, eh? Yeh see a mess of different ones just for different levels of FOS donation. Simplest answer is Eagle92's. Yeh need authorization from your SE (that would be "Scout Executive", the head paid guy in your council). To get authorization, it helps if yeh give a healthy FOS donation, since typically they make a few cents off each CSP sold . Or just make up a mess of 'em and allow da council to sell 'em as an alternative, or as their centennial +1 patch. Beavah

We can't say how typical this is of DEs and Councils elsewhere. But we'd guess it's not that uncommon. Yah, I nominate this for da understatement of the month award . You're learnin', TN. But, what about a situation where each unit is essentially chartered to a "Friends of Troop XXX" type group. Yah, I hate those units. They tend to be far less stable, more prone to melt-down or being fly by night. The BSA has pretty good data on that, too, which is why they discourage the "Friends of..." charters. Of course, da DEs and SEs still let 'em go through even when it's not prudent. See "driven by numbers" above Beavah

Like da quote, skeptic. Have to remember that one. Not sure where you're comin' from, Gern, with that non-sequitur. B

Yah, thanks to Gary for his patient sharing. I learned a few things. I think that one of da issues is that most rank and file scouters don't really understand the Scouting program of the BSA. As we see here repeatedly, they seem to want some centralized, standardized, highly regulated and controlled thing akin to the U.S. Armed Forces. From precision uniforming to the UCMJ, everything spelled out and regulated by central authority. That's just not the scouting program, eh? It's just that the average scouter doesn't "get" the whole CO thing, and even those who learn about it began their thinking in the central authority mode and never really change. What the BSA does is provide program materials and resources for COs to use as they see fit to achieve their aims. Only a few things, like the advancement requirements and uniform are standardized, and only in a sort of cursory way, not anywhere near da model of the Armed Forces. As a materials and resources provider, the BSA is rightly delighted that a large customer thinks highly enough of their stuff to adopt it wholesale. And I don't care what business or service you are in, if you have a large customer you of course are responsive to their needs. LDS units aren't the only ones who get their own weeks; you'll see Catholic Scouters weeks at Philmont too, eh? Heck, lots of struggling scout camps would kill for a full-subscription week and would be delighted to tailor it to any group that could fill the camp. It would save their camp for another year. Just normal stuff. And anybody can write supplemental materials for their program. Lots of units use Mark Ray's books of Eagle Ceremonies or SM guide materials in addition to the BSA books; heck, most scout shops sell a whole mess of supplemental books beyond the BSA stuff. Every denomination puts out it's own religious award books and materials. So what's the big deal about da LDS having a few supplemental materials books for LDS scouting? As far as I know, the Catholics, Methodists, and even UUA have such things as well. Yah, I agree that LDS units often aren't strong district participants, eh? But then neither are a lot of non-LDS units. In fact, some of da strongest scouting programs in our council and many others aren't real active in their districts. Remember, the district is a service to the units, not vice versa. That's something that many district scouters seem to forget. So to my mind, LDS are doin' the right thing, and the detractors are the ones who really need to spend more time learning about how BSA scouting works. My only concern about LDS units is da safety issue. With only 3 campouts a year, making First Class would be fairly extremely on the "light" side of the way yeh can interpret the advancement requirements. So the lads skills are goin' to be pretty weak. Then they join the 12-13 program, where you've put a whole mess of hyper lads with limited skills together in the woods. I remember seeing that the average term of office for a SM in that program is only a year, so yeh have those lads with limited experience, no older scouts, some who are there because they "have to be", being led by a gent with no real scouting experience and perhaps no real experience with youth that age or the outdoors. That's a recipe for higher accident rates, and that's pretty much what we seem to see, especially in da intermountain west. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, congrats on running a good program and being recognized for it! There's really quite a spectacular change in character between a troop of 35 and one of 65. Your current troop size is close to BP's old ideal size, while once yeh get above 50 or so yeh have to make a lot of structural changes in order to continue to be successful. Lots of troops can't or don't want to do that, so they end up losing kids and droppin' back down to 45 - 50. So first thing is a gut-check, eh? Do yeh really want to go there? It will change the kind of relationships that yeh have in your troop. The SM will no longer be able to know each boy well. Da SPL will need to become more a manager of PLs. Yeh have to make a major investment in training youth leaders to be independent or consign yourself to an adult led/adult run model, especially for da NSP/webelos 3 program. It'll be particularly hard to keep patrol method alive, since you'll be increasingly limited to group campsites where the patrols have to camp on top of each other. Often when a troop nears 50 it's a good time for da district to consider starting up a new troop with some of the character of the old one, eh? Maybe yeh can be the big brother troop to a new member of the scouting family in your district. If yeh do decide you want to grow like that, then tell us a bit about your current program. Are yeh a trailer/plop camping troop or more of a backpacking/lighweight troop? How strong is your use of Patrol Method currently? Do yeh do the rapid advancement thing? Any high adventure? In particular, what you value the most in your current program that yeh want to be sure to maintain? That'll help us give yeh some ideas. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmmm... Why do we think that when a boy is faced with a challenge that he is going to quit? Is that what we're teachin' somehow? That the lads are so fragile that the crushing disappointment of having to spend a couple months working on fitness or swimming or whatnot is just so horrible that our poor, fragile 11-year-old boys simply can do naught but flee? I don't know about you, but I just don't think most adolescent boys are that fragile. I suppose if all the adults around him from his parents to his SM tell him that he can't do something, and that expecting him to be somethin' other than the lowest quartile of fitness for his age is unreasonable that he might start believing it himself. But who would do that to a kid? I think most Scoutmasters and most fellow scouts would be supportive and encouraging. And with support and encouragement I just don't see a lot of boys quitting just because something happens to be challenging. Ever see the lads spend hours and hours and hours with bruises and scrapes trying to figure out one of those crazy skateboard tricks? Boys are like 'bumbles. They don't break when yeh drop 'em, they bounce. Beavah

Yeh missed my drift, SR540. If all a boy's friends have pounded out First Class in 11 months but he's still stuck at Tenderfoot because he's afraid of the water, that can be more than a bit discouragin' for the lad. Or if all a boy's friends whipped off Tenderfoot in a month or two but he's stuck at Scout after 8 months because he's building up strength for pull-ups, that can be discouragin'. "Rapid" is relative, of course. In troops that don't do the FCFY thing, the differential isn't as great, eh? If it takes 8 months to make Tenderfoot on average, it's a lot more likely that the lad who needs work on pull-ups is going to have enough time to make some progress and advance along with his mates. B

Yah, hmmm... I wonder if it's that a lot of scout leaders aren't good at coaching boys on da proper ways to exercise for improvement? After all, that's not in any of the BSA training. I do find it hard to believe that so many boys are "trying as hard as they can" but not managing any improvement on such simple measures. It sounds like a coaching or practice failure. Coaching in not settin' up a proper progression or fun set of activities; practice in the boys not followin' through with the training on a daily or every-other-day basis. There's always a temptation to reduce the requirements because "the boy just can't do it." That seems to me to be short selling the boy. More likely the adult doesn't know how to help the lad properly. Yeh see the same thing happen with swim requirements. Like improving fitness, learning how to swim takes more time than we typically have in an hour a week , and isn't covered outside of NCS. So the temptation by the SM is to let the boy scoot, since actually teachin' how to swim well takes so much effort and coaching skill. That being said, I see the argument in not tryin' to "hold the line" at T-2-1, especially in a FCFY program. Easy for a lad to get discouraged if everyone else is doin' the rapid advancement thing. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Seems like no one is doin' the rapid advancement thing . Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Our experience is that the majority of boys at that age don't have the upper body strength to do pull ups. Yah, I was struck by SR540's comment. Right after I had looked up the Presidential Fitness Test percentiles. Those show that 70% of 11 year old boys are able to do at least one pull-up, and 75% of the 10 year olds. Of course, those are old data, eh? Not sure where I got the charts, but I'm sure it was some time ago. 1990s vintage. Has fitness really become so poor that a majority of scout-aged boys can't do a single pull-up.... and are in fact so weak or overweight that even after 30 days of real practice all they can manage to do is bend their arms a bit farther? I've always been one to accommodate the occasional lad who had difficulty with pullups, but I confess that the more I see of the trend the more I think we should be holding firm or even increasing our requirements. One of our Aims is Fitness, after all. Except for cases of real disability, it seems to me that all scouts should work to be "above average" in terms of basic fitness. Flipping through my old report here, that would mean, for a 12-year-old, 3 Pullups 20 Pushups (on 3-second intervals) 40 Situps in a minute Running a mile in 8:30 Maybe we should put requirements like that in for First Class, eh? Show improvement for Tenderfoot in 30 days, but after a year or year and a half in the troop, reaching an ordinary level of fitness for your age group seems reasonable. Also solves the "what counts as improvement?" problem. Beavah