Callooh! Callay!1428010939

"I have no idea what your point is, because it's obscured by your extreme condescension" The point is to be too smart for the rest and to distract them from the point with extreme condescension. OH, and a secondary point is that that Scouters should be pretty open to Scouts earning MBs from MBC's of their own choosing, from independent work, from work guided by their parents, from work they do in school, work they do in homeschool, etc etc. It's a mundane point... arguably so pedestrian as to be hardly worth mention. It's mentioned only because occasionally Scouters here make comments that suggest they get vapors at the thought that Scouts are earnings MBs in ways other than MB assigns MBC, boy calls, meetings occur, etc etc. Anyway at least Basmentdweller saw right through the extreme condescension and observed, correctly in the technical (which is not to diminish its correctness) sense that the SM was the MBC.

A Scout decided he would earn the Environmental Science MB. He began by borrowing the MB pamphlet from another Scout. He found his own MBCs, several of them, all published authors in the field. He never met them in person, but they communicated to him through their books, which he borrowed from the library (there was no internet then, no PCs). These book were his references for answering questions and performing tasks in the MB requirements. He did his experiments and field work solo (sorry, no buddy system - a flaw in his method). When he told his SM he'd earned the Environmental Science MB, it may have been the first the SM had heard he was working on it. Naturally, he had a notebook of handwritten reports answering all questions and assignments, along with diagrams, sketches, and notes on experiments and field work. And of course he had organized and edited his work to make it easy for someone to verify he'd met or exceeded all MB requirements. His SM took his notebook to look over. At the next opportunity, the SM returned it and confirmed the Scout had earned the MB. It was awarded at the next opportunity. Blue card? He'd never heard of one. Adult association? He'd have laughed at the assumption that he needed practice for that. His parents pushed or helped him too much? No, quite the opposite actually... but even if he'd been the son of Joe Helicopterson himself... so what? Would that make him automatically suspect of dishonesty? If he were a Scouter today, he'd be perplexed at contentions that MB classes are the bane of scouting. He'd be mystified at superstitions about how the powerful mojo in calling strange adults is so vital that he must hover over the MB process and ensure that a useful practice is enforced as holy writ. He'd be disgusted at assumptions that parental influence is most likely to be pernicious shortcuts or cheating. He'd like having several methods available to Scouts and as few restrictions on them as practical. A few MBs are special enough to reasonably demand very particular safety precautions, certified instructor requirements, and/or MBCs with very particular expertise. But there are some MBs in which a literate and determined Scout could read and learn on his own, and even learn to higher standards than the MB requires without the aid of an MBC - unless we count the sources of his research as his MBCs.

The CalicoPenn answers above are soundly reasoned, excellent answers to the question. Since there's nothing to add without digressing, maybe it's time to spin a tangential thread:

"Oh, my," one Scouter shakes his head, "I hope he wasn't pushed to it by his parents. Eagle is not for boys who were pushed to do it. Only for self starters who did it all on their own intiative." "Hah!" scoffs another Scouter "His parents earned it and pinned it on him. He ain't no real Eagle scout. Eagle is not for boys who had resources and opportunities dropped in their laps. It's only for those who must struggle against the current the whole way." "OK, so he's been awarded Eagle" another chimes in, "but really, come on... what are the odds that you could completely trust this kid with your life in the backwoods if things hit the fan...because we all know that requirement 7.a. for Eagle Scout reads - Scout has proven to one and all that anyone can completely trust him with their life in the backwoods if things hit the fan." Malarky and idolatry. Eagle Scouts are not supreme exemplars of virtue and they are not ultimate outdoorsmen. Eagle Scouts are not even necessarily exemplars of the Law or Oath any more than might be, say a Second Class Scout that has taken them to heart. Eagle Scouts are physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight boys and young men who, having certain requirements and challenges set before them, got cracking and met the requirements and challenges. (And the elaborate ECOH? Humbug.) Some will do it early, some late, some never. Some will do it in spite of having few resources and little parental encouragement. Others will have parents cheering (perhaps even nagging at times) and ensuring they have more than the resources required in their endeavors. Not fair? OK. Whatever. You gonna add to the requirements so things conform to your idea of "fair?" Throw an extra ten pounds in Jonny's backpack because his parents bought him a nice lightweight one and you don't want the trail to Eagle to be any easier for him than it is for the boys whose parents did him the favor of not buying him anything? People with plenty of resources available to them climb Mount Everest more often than do people with very few resources available. That doesn't make them moral exemplars or better persons... but it does make them people who've climbed Mount Everest. Eagle Scout is not Mount Everest. An able 13 year old can do it. A 13 year old from a family that has and budgets resources to support his activities is more likely to do it. A 13 year old whose family regularly camps, hikes, canoes, swims, sails, and the like and has been including him in these activities since he was in diapers might not be terribly far off from the vaunted Eagle level (which is really just the First Class plus Camping MB level) of outdoor proficiency the day he joins the troop at age 10 with the AOL that he had a lot of fun earning the year prior. Eagle must be the consummate outdoorsman? No. First Class plus Camping MB, for all intents and purposes, is the Eagle level of outdoor proficiency. And that argues not for Eagle idolatry... but rather for taking First Class requirements seriously. After First Class, further rank requirements focus on service, leadership, academic and classroom stuff, and planning and managing things. Look at the Eagle required MBs: Clearly Outdoormanship oriented Eagle MBs: Camping Arguably includes Outdoorsmanship Eagle MBs: Swimming or Cycling or Hiking Emergency Preparedness or Lifesaving Not Outdoorsmanship oriented Eagle: Citizenship in the Community Citizenship in the Nation Citizenship in the World First Aid Personal Fitness Personal Management Family Life Environmental Science Communications We could argue over Env Sci, and maybe First Aid... but the basic point stands. Most of the Eagle required MBs, while they may have some Outdoor applications, are not centered around Camping, Hiking, or Outdoorsmanship in general. If you have no reservations about a Scout having earned First Class at age 13, then having reservations about him earning Eagle at the same age on the grounds that he can't have earned his outdoor Scout cred is illogical.

If you prefer being responsible for Pack level decisions and actions, why not seek a position as a Cubmaster rather than DC? Except for urgent safety, moral, or legal matters, it may be best not to undermine your Unit Commissioners and Unit Leaders by assuming for yourself tasks and decisions within their purview. You took action the unit leader had decided not to take and/or asked you not to take based on their awareness of their unit's particular situation. Even if you did a better job in that moment than they'd done, in doing so you signaled that you don't trust their judgment or commitment, and you undermined their morale and already limited sphere of influence. Even IF (and one assumes that's a big IF) they deserved that, doing it undermines your own interest in developing and growing leaders and units across the District. In a volunteer organization, the consequences of ignoring or undermining you are not intimidating. You win this grudge match by admitting defeat and pleading for mercy. If a talk along those lines with the Cubmaster doesn't set this on the mend, you may have created an interesting challenge for yourself.

The acronyms read differently. "G'soosa" sounds cooler than "b'saa."

pohsuwed poses a salient question: "Wouldn't "boy led" include the fact that if some boys run with the program faster than others and that we should let them run?" It's a good question about a good learning method. But in Helicopter Scouter vernacular, "boy led" can mean "boy led, my way." "Boy led" can be played as if it were a trump card to buffalo fellow Scouters and parents whom the Scouter would prefer were more deferential to his judgment. "Boy led" can be oblique obloquy on other troops.

"An articulate boy shows me one thing, he's got really good parents who are raising a smart and well-mannered son. Congratulations to them. By far, in my experience, the best and most meaningful EBOR's are conducted for the 17-18 year old scouts." Indeed. Congratulations. But we see through this "articulate" business don't we? We know he's not developmentally ahead in any way pertinent to scouting. No... it's merely that he's "articulate." And that's nothing but a but a superficial illusion created by the unfair fact that his parents have and/or dedicate more time and resources to civilizing, educating, and inculcating good character and habits into their son than do other parents. They're probably Helicopter Parents anyway... hovering and smothering. And what looks like advantage for their son today will turn to ashes in their mouths when life delivers just comeuppance. So we'll protect the boy, either from his Helicopter Parents or from his own overly exuberant Boy Leadership. We'll tilt the scales a little eh? Because we know that what's best for him is for us to find the experience of his EBOR to be like "the best and most meaningful EBORs" which "are for 17-18 year old scouts." The "law of the farm" analogy has some real merit. But if it leads us to tilt the scales toward "unofficial" requirements that suit our own biases, we may be going a little heavier on the manure than the "law of the farm" ought require.

And what of the other of the twin relics of barbarism?

Hew to the requirements. Archery and BB are beyond consideration based on the facts you've provided. But there's no sound reason to object to Aquanaut, and maybe that's the tip of an iceberg similar the one you mention in your observation: "Every year it's something different with her and her kids....this is only the tip of this years iceberg." Maybe that's what she's saying too.

"What they need to learn is that it's okay, they won't die of embarrassment. I can't teach them that, they really only learn it by doing it." That sounds about right. It's something BSA encourages and provides opportunities for in the MB program - but is not a check-block requirement for each MB.

Enabling and encouraging linguistic separation is not "reaching out." Assuming that Spanish speakers who reside in the US and participate in US civil society aren't smart enough or courteous or responsible enough to learn English isn't "reaching out." It's the soft bigotry of low expectations.

As a parent, I wouldn't engage an MBC about MB requirement related issues because I figure those are for my sons to address. However, if for some reason, or no reason, I happen to be the first to contact an MBC about some logistical detail, it's fine if he requests I have my son contact him... that will happen even if he doesn't request it. But if he refuses to discuss the matter with me or dispenses pedagogical advice from too high a horse, I'll conclude that it's the MBC, more than my son, who needs to work on dealing with adults he doesn't know. Mention "parent" and MB together and you may stir up a swarm of alarmed Helicopter Scouters anxious about the fragile development of the apparently arcane art of "contacting an adult you have never met." It's an art that for mysterious reasons, Helicopter Scouters see as a special province of Scouter expertise so beyond parents' ken that poor delicate boys' growth is horribly stunted if parent cooties infect it. Nevertheless, many Scouts live in families led by parents. Many parents are adults that MBCs and Scouters don't know well. As noted earlier in this thread, it's important to learn to communicate with adults one doesn't know. Scouters and MBCS would do well to learn confident equanimity in their communications with these unknown adults. This is especially true if Scouters or MBCs wish to flatter themselves with the conceit that teaching Scouts to communicate with unknown adults is in area in which Scouters have expertise parents lack. Most Scouters and MBCs can develop the ability to deal with adults (parents) they don't know, without being condescending, without presuming too much, and instead being civil, cordial, maybe even friendly... all the while being comfortably confident that they can resist any unlikely attempts a parent might make to buffalo them. It just takes a little practice. One can start by not presuming that many parent-child relationships are dysfunctional train wrecks that the Scouter is qualified to diagnose and treat. Do not assume that a parent calling is an immediate indicator of a problem or that you are responsible for or qualified to "fix" it. Imagine yourself part of an adult civic or community program and a wife calls to make some arrangement on behalf of her husband. Do you refuse to discuss it with her? Do you assume her husband needs your intervention in order to learn important life skills? Do you assume she is stunting his development? Or do you figure that since these folks are family, it's no surprise or fault that they're involved in each other's business? Parents and children are also family and for similar reasons, a parent may be involved in logistics surrounding their child's activities, even if that child is mature and well practiced at speaking for himself. BTW, where can we find this requirement... the requirement - not the encouragement, favorable mention of, or preference for.... where is this requirement some are apparently adding to every MB that a boy call a counselor he doesn't know in order to earn the MB? What do we do to meet this requirement for summer camp MBS? Make the Scouts call up the MBCs in advance of summer camp and arrange meetings with them somewhere other than at the camp? (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

10 w/AOL = Scout, Age 10 + FCFY = 1st Class Scout, age 11 + 4 months = Star, age 11 yrs 4 months + 6 months = Life, age 11 years 10 months + 6 months = Eagle at age 12 years, 4 months Unless something is missing from the above math, that's what current requirements make possible. To achieve it, a diligent, able boy would have to have and use all necessary opportunities and resources. It seems unlikely. Eagle at 14 sounds like a fine goal. Eagle earlier or later also sounds like a fine goal. To "it isn't a race" and "have fun" a boy might reply "but it's fun to treat it like a race. As long as I'm meeting all the requirements, why is that a problem? Are you going to add to the rank requirements a requirement that I must do things that are not formally required but that you think I should enjoy?" If the concern is that the Scout will "Eagle out" and not be around to help others... Scout rank advancement requirements are set up to require service and leadership. It'd behoove a Scout to earn all the Eagle required badges by some time early in their tenure at Star rank. That way they'll be less distracted with meeting requirements for themselves during that latter portion of their Scout "career" in which their advancement depends more on how they serve, lead, and advance the interests of others and less on what they earn for themselves. If they "Eagle out" that's too bad, but they're not defaulting on any "payback" they owe the troop because that "payback" should have started with their fist POR as a First Class Scout and became an increasingly larger portion of their Scouting participation as they earned Life and then Eagle.

"but in the long run, does this really help us in developing consistency with in the troop?" A troop can develop consistency within the troop (a good thing) and it can develop certain kinds of experiences and knowledge within Scouts (a good thing). But improving one of those areas does not necessarily improve the other... and may even degrade it. Not all good things go together as well as chocolate and peanut butter.

"Tentants" usually pay rent.

In 2016 how many pre-2012 Blue Cards will finally be turned in when the Scout finally completes that partial he started on a Blue Card in 2011?

"I overheard a boy (New Scout) talking the other night about having to set up the dining fly. He doesn't like it. I have a feeling that this is the same feeling shared by most if not all boys in the Troop." Excellent! They have good instincts. Odds are, it's not just the "some animals are more equal than others" implication of setting up while others lounge that that irks them; more likely it's the very edifice of centralization and collectivism that this dining fly represents. That they haven't brought it up openly, suggests that they fear a totalitarian collectivist climate in which they might be labeled as kulaks or capitalist roaders.

Depends on circumstances. Depends on who has been doing what leading up to this moment and doing what at this moment. Scouts' level of familiarity with the task... is it a novel task they should learn or a familiar chore? Is this a "many hands make light work" situation or is it a "too many cooks spoil the broth" situation? Will adults be "helping," or helping? Will they be crowding out boys already leading tasks? Whatever the case, anyone who considers themselves completely exempt from lending a hand, deserves, at mealtime, to be relegated to that outhouse mentioned in the OP. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

One can borrow reference material. But for records one needs access to e-copy or hardcopy. For boys who can't afford wet clay tablets and stylus for recording their work in cuneiform, pen and paper may be an affordable alternative.

Double dipping can be good time management and relieve one of the administrative burden of "counting" something else that one would rather just "do" and not "count." There are times when this might look and feel like corner cutting though. Counting something the Cit in Community service both for that and for Star may be one of those times. Unless there's a rule... it sounds like it's the call of the person responsible for signing/initialing the blocks.

"Florida is full of nutjobs." These relatively recent stats don't support that statement: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k9State/Ch6.htm http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k11/WEB_SR_078/SR110StateSMIAMI2012.htm If we're talking about any mental illness: "Nationally, 44.7 million adults aged 18 or older experienced any mental illness in the past year, corresponding to a rate of 19.8 percent of the adult population; among States, the highest rate occurred in Rhode Island (24.0 percent), whereas the lowest rate occurred in Maryland (17.2 percent)" - in Florida this rate was 18.5% which is slightly below the 19.8% of the adult population in the US as a whole. If we're talking only about serious mental illness: "Nationally among adults aged 18 or older, the rate of SMI was 4.6 percent, which equates to 10.4 million Americans. Among individual States, the percentage of adults aged 18 or older with SMI ranged from 3.5 percent in South Dakota to 7.0 percent in Rhode Island." - in Florida this rate was 4.72% which is just sixteen one hundredths of a percentage point higher than the figure for the nation as a whole which was 4.6%. 20 states have higher rates. Of course this isn't taking into account differences in population density, a measure in which Florida ranks relatively high. So while Florida does not have high rates of mental illness relative to other states, it does have high population density and thus may have more total persons suffering from mental illness than do some states with higher rates but lower population densities. Still, this doesn't support the notion that Florida is full of nutjobs, unless we also stipulate that so is the rest of the world and that, even though Florida may be full of nutjobs, it is far less nutjobful than are many other regions of the globe. Maybe a perception of regional nutjobfulness is due to being in a locale in which nutjobs are anomalously concentrated at a level of granular locality that might show up in the data were it granular enough and displayed in a heat-map rather than in state-line defined sections.

2nd (or is it 3rd?) the motion that it may suit as a thought-piece wall hanging for adult area, but that more Oath/Law-ish things would be redundant. The number of items already exceeds Buddhism's five precepts and is fast approaching Judaism's and Christianity's Decalogue. Brevity is the soul of something-or-other. Any new addition should require two deletions.

Let the incident inform future decisions that might involve reliance on this person. But don't let it upset your state of mind for one second. Life is too short.

No.