DuctTape

I think a boy can just as easily grow up feeling entitled in a middle class home. It all depends on work ethic. Charity from private groups or from public is not what leads to entitlement. Entitlement comes from learned character. If the boys' scouting is paid for from an outside group/person and they are providing work/effort where they are able then all is well. If they are receiving with the attitude that they somehow deserve it, then no. As I said, this is also a potential with families who are able to pay (some might argue more likely). I personally see entitlement attitudes in the boys from the most well-off families. Focus on service and character as embodied in the scout oath and law and an entitlement attitude will be mitigated regardless of where the $ comes from.

I didn't notice the pictures. I had similar thoughts as Tahawk when I read it.

Good suggestions mentioned. What also needs to be included is accountability for the troop. All the suggestions and trainings in the world mean nothing if the troop decides to do something other than follow the process correctly. Charters should be suspended and revoked if a troop is not following the BSA design. Will never see this happen.

In my experience there are plenty of us already there. When the scouts go off to their MBs, there isn't all that much for us scouters to do. The specific answer then is to ask, allow and perhaps entice with discounted/complimentary camp fees.

One last thing i would like to add to my post in addition to agreeing with many of the sentiments. I apologize in advance if this offends, it is not the intent. The intent is to raise awareness of how language is descriptive of reality and also (often unconsciously) perpetuates it. The term I want to focus on is teach. We often hear, even in this thread, the counselor "teaching". IMO, their is a stark difference between a counselor who mentors, inspires, and facilitates exploration for an individual vs a teacher with a class of students. I am sure that many will argue a good teacher will also mentor and inspire etc... and a good counselor will also "teach". But our usage of the terms interchangeably without explicitly noting the differences does describe the current use of merit badge classes and "universities" (even though the BSA literature in the past cautioned against scouting being like school). These (d)evolved into merit badge factories. We do not have scouts calling counselors from an approved list (supposedly vetted by the district) who are experts in their field to mentor the scouts and perhaps inspire them to delve deeper into the activity. Instead we send them to a school-like atmosphere to take a class, complete with a workbook and 20 other students to check of lists. I suppose I am just rambling here and reiterating much of what i and others have already said. Ok, one last real thought in the same theme of language use. Eagle is an Award, not a rank. I am not sure, but I thought Star and Life were also Awards and not ranks. If I am wrong, then perhaps this is what they should be. 1st class again as the highest rank, no merit badges (or maybe just 1st aid) and everything else is an Award. we should make a bigger deal about the 1st class rank and not the other awards.

Scouts as staff should serve to help the Camp Quartermaster, help at the waterfront, help at the archery range, etc... They should be helping, but not act in the capacity of merit badge counselors. Sure, many camps say that is all they do, but in reality it is these scouts who are teaching and assessing the merit badge requirements. The adult MB counselor has abdicated his/her responsibility to the scout staff (with perhaps the exception of lifesaving and rifle/shotgun). Even if MBs did not exist, there are plenty of jobs to be done around camp to keep these operations running. Stocking of supplies, trash pickup, canoe inventory, bicycle repairs, the jobs are endless.

Yeah, it seems the purpose now is be a merit badge factory.

I don't think I would agree to the elimination of them as rank. However, I would support a significant restriction on how and when they can be earned. Such as limit the merit badges which can be earned prior to 1st class, add pre-requisite MBs to some MB's, eliminate/reduce the double-dipping of requirements, prohibit merit badge "classes" with large groups, prohibit scouts from being MB "counselors" at summer camp, to name a few.

Just because the corporation (BSA) has things in writing, requirements, guides, etc... in absence of real oversight, training, and accountability there is little impact (in a positive direction) on programming at the unit level. BSA in general does not care about their product, only their brand. Unfortunately this shortsightedness IS affecting their brand. They just don't see it (yet). In 20 years, people will wonder what happened to the Boy Scouts, we will hear comments like; "they (Scouts) used to be really good at doing things for themselves, now it seems like everyone gets the badge." or "Boy Scouts, yeah... they used to do fun adventurous things, now mommy and daddy do all their requirements in a workbook."

However the fundamental difference between bsa and mcds is quality control. Many laugh at my next statement, but it is true... Mcds quality control system is one of the best in the world. The controls they employ ensure customers will recieve identical products regardless of which time, day, or location. BSA suffers from a significant lack of any quality control.

This is one reason I do not favor group services, especially those led/conducted by adults. IMO, A real Scouts Own, would be time set aside by the patrol for scouts to plan/run their own. Individuals may choose to meditate, a few might choose to find a relaxing spot in the woods to contemplate. Tentmates may choose to go somewhere and sing. Etc... Of course when this is suggested, many adults will immediately proclaim that the scouts wont do anything spiritual. My question is then, so what? If we truly value boy led and the patrol method, why do we not allow it here?

School board member would probably be a good choice. The issue would directly affect the boy.

I disagree. The BSA has no Declaration of Physical Fitness principle. Scouts and Scouters are not denied membership nor advancement based on physical fitness.There are many values promoted within scouting, I agree. But some have elevated the God aspect above all others. Now, that may be a testament to their faith, but it should not be dictated to others who may not share that belief no more than those who value physical fitness as the highest value should dictate that value should take priority.

And since then, how many scouts are able to build and light a fire? Technology has its place, but just like how the motto of be prepared has devolved into bringing gear instead of knowing skills and being prepared to act, technology solutions should not replace basic scoutcraft. I would argue in many cases it has. The building and lighting a fire is but one example. How prepared is the scout when he doesn't have the latest gadget or it breaks, etc...

"High Adventure" doesn't require paying someone to plan, organize and guide. If the scouts (patrols or crews) have been doing scouting adventure by planning and organizing, then doing so for the next level of high adventure is the next logical step. It saddens me that scouting has moved from scouts making their own gear, finding places to camp, and organizing their own adventures to needing to raise money to pay for expensive hi-tech stuff, and extra gadgets and paying for expensive camps and guides. Sad when an eagle scout doesn't know how to plan and organize a basic camping trip without paying someone to do it for them. A Scout is thrifty.

I think the best motivator to move beyond the car camp, is the destination. At the next car-camp, schedule a hike to a location where is would be way cool to camp. when there, make the comment about how cool it would be to spend the night here. It doesn't even have to be very far from the original camp. Then do it for the next time. Each time, explore farther and farther away from the car and find a cool place to camp. Eventually use a map to find the cool places to suggest. The gear changes follow as no one want to carry the heavy gear. People will sacrific the dutch oven to camp near a waterfall as one can still cook well.

I agree with our responsibility to keep scouting alive and well. It is too bad the handbook has gone downhill over the years. One could argue that this is the cause of the lack of skills etc... If it isn;'t in the book, then how will a scout know about it especially if the adults don't know either. If the BSA wants to keep a flashy handbook, then at least have the real substance in the fieldbook. The FB can be brought on outings and the boys can use it as a resource to things. I really like how my 1952 fieldbook is layed out. Each "Chapter" is a pow-wow and the adventure grows from one to the next. A patrol could do great things just by doing the pow-wows in order. Some would be patrol meetings, some day hikes, other campouts. How each one leads the boys to the next level of adventure and instills the patrol method is so elegant. edit: the 1952 fieldbook was written by James West and GBB

My older copies of the Scout Handbook and Patrols Leaders Handbook have all sorts of games. They are broken down by type of "skill" like tracking and stealth or scoutcraft, etc...

Stosh, I understand what you meant. My point was how important the language we use is. Our word choice illuminates our biases and pre-conceived notions. More importantly, it influences our other words and deeds. These in turn affect others (the scouts) decisions. As I mentioned, many scouts will choose to be with similar ages, but often that is a result of their entire life being force-separated from other aged kids. You were careful to say most 16-17 y/o etc... and not all. This acknowledges that some (albeit few) might enjoy a patrol with different ages. My entire point can be condensed down to not calling patrols age-based or mixed-age or anything which even refers to their age. When we do, we influence our own decisions by focusing on the ages and not the other attributes of the scouts who make up the patrol. Since you acknowledge that some scouts may choose to be in patrols regardless of age, then what purpose does it serve to say "age-based patrols" why not just say "patrols" or "friend-based patrols" or "interest-based patrols"? The way we describe our system, does influence it. Just something to think about.

One must remember that same age is not equivalent to friends. The (old) literature refers to similar age, interests etc..., as mentioned earlier. In most areas of life adults separate kids into age-based groups. When left to their own devices, this is not always the case. Unfortunately due to so many adult controlled environments, kids never interact with other ages so even in scouts when allowed the option since they have little experience, nor friendships with any other ages they still gravitate to same age. This was not always the case, similar age is close in age but not same. A few years difference is not really noticeable. Also, often forgotten in all this is the need for these guys to be friends with similar interests. Just because they are the same age doesn't mean they want to do the same thing, nor like hanging out with each other. Thus IMO, we should not refer to patrols age same-age, or mixed age, but just patrols in whatever form they happen to be. Language matters, and when we categorize, it shows not only what we perceive, but also our preference of the controlling variable(s). So, I do not like "new scout patrols", or "same age patrols", or "mixed-age patrols" or any term which focuses on the age of the scout. It should be the "otter patrol" because those boys like to hang out in the water. The should name their patrol based on their interest and the makeup should be based on that interest and the fact they like to do those types of activities together. and we should focus on the boys' friendships and their interest regardless of the ages of the boys in the patrols.

Was flipping through one of the many scout books I have in my collection today. It happened to be the 1952 printing of the Scout Fieldbook. I never noticed it before since I used the fieldbook mostly for scoutcraft and campcraft, but in the description of the scout law, specifically reverent the author (West and Hillcourt) wrote "A scout is Reverent. it is important that you show your reverence in your deeds. As a matter of fact, keeping the Twelfth Scout Law, is simply keeping the other eleven. By following the Scout Law, you follow the Law of God also." I thought that writing was interesting in context of this discussion.

I will accept the general premise of Beaveh's post. What needs to be considered then is why so many troops with trained leaders whether it be WB, SM specific, etc... seem to not function using the patrol method? A majority of the troops I have been involved with, had trained leaders, and the majority are not boy-led, nor using the patrol method. I don't think it is just my own perception as I have many parents (via my job) ask me about how things should be done in their kids' troops and it is obvious a few adults are running the show and not the boys.

As a volunteer, I plan my training or activity regardless. The fact that 2 people attended or twenty doesn''t change the amount of time I prepared nor does it affect how long it took me to drive. In the specific scenario described by the OP, I would be more annoyed at the trainers who don't plan and prepare for the session until the last minute. That might be the reason people do not attend, the sessions are not well planned.

While I personally do not recommend down for scouts, this is due to cost and boys' tendencies caring for their gear. Condensing moisture in insulation happens even with all synthetic fibers. Wet synthetics suck too. For a few nights, the amount of moisture is not a concern. There is a reason down is still the insulation of choice for even the most extreme mountaineers.