DuctTape

I am not a fan of using educational terminology for merit badges. The adults are counselors, not teachers. They counsel the boy in the badge, not teach a class. Some might say it is just semantics, but I disagree. Words matter. When one uses school language, it becomes school and the boy loses out on the individual counseling to experience and grow. I would bet good money the discuss/explain with your counselor ends up being a written test administered to a group instead of the boy engaging in a conversation with the counselor. The boys lose out. Sad.

IMHO, a COH is for the boys, designed by the boys, and executed by the boys. I do think it is important that the boys see adults also continuing their training, and it would be appropriate for the boys to hand out awards, certificates, etc... to adults as well. But how it gets done is the boys'decision.

I agree completely.

What always seems to be missing in the discussions about merit badges is the expertise of the counselor. Before I get jumped all over, what I am referring to is the processes which ignore this expertise and use mbc as testers only. Merit badges are an amazing combination of methods, adult association and advancement. When processes ignore the adult association method the boys lose out on an amazing opportunity. The method of adult association and the opportunity for boy to learn ditectly from an expert is the reason why merit badges are separated from skills listed in rank advancement. Many current practices are viewing merit badeges as the same/similar. They are fundamentally different.

As a scout our troop never really participated in the OA. I do recall at one point someone I didnt recognize come to a meeting and there was an election. Seemed like a popularity contest at the time. I had friends in other troops who would mention it at summer camp, and recall they had to leave camp after only a week (we went to summer camp for 2 weeks) to go to their OA lodge. Even during camp they had to leave their patrol to go to some ceremony. I don't recall ever feelimg like I was missing out on any big scouting adventure for not belonging, on the contrary. As an outsider to the OA, I see it as additional competition for the patrol/troop. Even years ago, there was a finite amount of time available to boys for scouting. I saw/see the OA as taking the boy away from his patrol/troop.It aapeared to be an obligation which took away from my friends' scouting participation. Anyway, that was my experience and nothing I have seen as an adult has shown it to be any different now.

It must be rather newish, since the older traditional neckers were square. This was back when they were useful and not simply decoration.

I see value in a charge. I liken it to when a speaker at a graduation recognizes the future hopes for the graduates. A pledge, not so much. The scout (or graduate in my simile) is not required to accept the challenge (charge) put forth. They have already earned the honor being bestowed.

I knew the answers to my questions before I asked. I asked them to make my point.

And how many advocate for 3 tubs, chemical sanitizing solution, or even soap as required. Those in the "field" just wipe and rinse, soap is used only for really greasy foods (although those with more experience have found that to not even be necessary).

I am curious as to who the experts on dishwashing while in the backcountry, primitive camping with only a few people would be. For some reason I doubt there have been too many studies in this area.

There are a multitude of lashing methods, even when one needs it for greater strength. Look up japanese lashing methods. They are quite different from traditional scout methods, but just as effective. The scout knots and lashings arent meant to be the only way, but just the beginning.

Yeah.Patrol cooking is cooking for just a few people. Backcountry, primitive camping would not follow procedures designed for commercial kitchens. Wipe out pot with moss, put moss in fire. Boil some water in pot, extinguish fire with water. No soap, no chemicals, yet clean.

I posted in wrong topic. Sorry.

There would be less emphasis, and monopolizing by merit badge classes (and I abhor the term. MB's should not be "taught" as a "class", but done in a counseling fashion. But that is another topic altogether). One way to fix it would be for BSA camps to follow their own BSA policies and not allow 15 or 16 year old to act as MB counselors, even if signoffs are done by an adult. Adults should be the counselor, and conducting the testing. Other scouts with some experience can always help other scouts, but should never in any way shape or form be de facto MB counselors. This current method bastardizes the process, denies scouts the opportunity to benefit from adult association, etc... It would radically reduce the number of scouts in the MB, giving them the real opportunity to benefit and not just be granted a badge without really being counseled and tested by an adult counselor. The boys are the ones who lose in this. Less "classes" = more free time =more fun.

I agree with what many above have said. My opinion is this is a general symptom of allowing (pushing) scouts younger and younger. The joining requirements should go back to the previous, and discourage "crossing over" in the spring. Complete the 5th grade first, imo.

I happened to pick up a Scouting for Girls, 1920 edition. As I flipped through it, I thought of this thread and noticed how similar it was the first edition scouting for boys. The outdoor program was heavily emphasized in the GSA, at least early on. Even rank requirements were eerily similar to that of the BSA. Thus, the only argument I see that has any merit in maintaining the staus quo (not that I necessarily agree with it), is simply to keep the genders apart so that boys can be with boys.

I rarely see scouts like the adult designed camporee beyond the first time.

I recently finished up with a boy working on his hiking MB. At the end of the process as I was signing his blue card I asked him if there were any changes to the requirements he would recommend to HQ. He said it should be required that the counselor actually go hiking with the scout as the real test and possibly "fake" some scenarios for the boy to respond to in real time. Personally I loathe the workbooks and worksheets and even the explain. Too much like school. As to the the camping 50 nights. I think that was the requirement in the original Camping MB along with 2 maybe 3 other requirements.

Welcome to our campfire. Grab a cuppa.

Taw, I agree which is why I said it is not necessarily their fault. I have witnessed enough poor instruction to know there is a wee bit of fault, but only in delivery and implementation. Regardless, even an instructor with imprccable skills in pedagogy will do little to overcome deficits in curriculum as written.

I have seen many eagle projects which did not create, but instead rehabilitated, or maintained. The most recent which comes to mind was the restoration of a dilapitated pioneer cemetery.

Killing an ineffective course without replacement is the wrong decision IMO. An ineffective course is a result of curriculum design and/or implementation. Simply choosing to not do it anymore ignores the problem and send the message that the knowledge and understanding that should have been transmitted in the course are not necessary. Based on the description given it is easy to see (as a professional educator) why it failed. perhaps the BSA needs to spend more on developing effective educational tools for scouters and less resources on other things. I have noticed over the years the tools provided and being used are poorly designed and/or implemented as a whole. This is not necessarily the fault of the volunteer training instructors. Few if any have a real background in education (except as a student) so it is understandable they will not be experts in curriculum, lesson design or instruction.

As someone who knows nothing of this group, if all that has been presented is true including the responses by those who are part of the group, as an outside observer this group serves no legitimate purpose for scouting and is detrimental to the movement as a whole. Either due to the lack of benefit of the group to scouting by design, or implementation and more importantly by the actions and attitudes displayed by the group's members. For those with influence, I would highly suggest BSA take a good hard look at this group and seriously consider some type of intervention. It does not appear to be a positive for scouts in any way shape or form.

IMO, if WB is an intro program (all are invited/recruited) then it fails to be an upper echelon program. One cannot have a 101 class also be a Masters level at the same time. If the goal is now to have it be an all-comers training, ie Scouting 101, then what is the advanced program now? To use scouting terms, WB is now a tenderfoot (maybe 1st class at best) training regimen. What is the Eagle level? I understand the rationale for recruiting and training more scouters, but I do not think WB is the proper place. Other trainings, especially the Patrol Method (which doesn't exist as a BSA program, iirc) are more appropriate for entry level training. BSA should focus more on providing the real basics for scouters and not pretend that WB is the pinnacle of training when it isn't (anymore). Especially when the basics are sorely lacking. I suppose this isn't a surprise as it mirrors the boys advancement push by hq, no real basic expectations (ie one and done).

I visited the location of my eagle project 20 years after its completion. At the time, it was a relatively unknown trail. The work we did used only wood from the area, there were no signs or plaques erected. In the subsequent 20 years, others had continued taking care of the trail by mimicking our work. It was then I realized my project was not a task to be completed, but the spark of an attitude which manifested into action by others. I am glad my "project" continues, now over 30 years later. Still without a sign or plaque to memorialize it. Instead, the memorial is in the hearts and minds of those who continue it without recognition.