dkurtenbach

Oh, I think many of the posts here clearly state the opinion that someone who makes a contribution in their own name then and wears the James E. West knot "bought" the award for themselves -- that is, they didn't _earn_ it -- and that the only acceptable way to get one (if even then) is for someone else to give it. Perhaps what is behind this view is the notion that the James E. West Fellowship should not have a knot at all. After all, don't most knots require an extended period of service and effort, and meeting certain requirements and standards? There are plenty of other forms of recognition for giving money; just look at all the swag you can get for a big FOS contribution. Bottom line, I think a lot of folks think that getting a knot just for giving money cheapens the knots they have received for personal service to Scouting. That's a legitimate point of view. But what isn't legitimate, in my opinion, is to denigrate and question the motives of people who give something of large and lasting value to the Scouting program just because they accept the thanks that BSA offers for their sacrifice, and wear it proudly. I have a James E. West knot -- given to me by my pack and troop. But I hope one day to earn my way to a point where I have the resources to make a large and lasting monetary contribution to Scouting. And then I will proudly receive the James E. West Fellowship as a reflection of my own efforts in my job and personal life over time that made such a contribution possible. And that contribution to the Council Endowment fund will continue to serve Scouts and Scouters long after my own personal service as a Scouter is a distant memory. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Wow. I still don't get this attitude. The James E. West Fellowship represents giving (at least) $1,000 of hard-earned money to the Council endowment fund, for the benefit of Scouts and Scouters for years and years to come. In what possible way could doing that in your own name in any way be considered venal or boasting? Aren't we proud of ourselves for going to weekend campouts, and summer camp, and attending meetings? Why should someone who contributes to Scouting by doing a thousand dollars worth of his regular work, and then donating the benefit of that to Scouting, be regarded as doing something less valuable than people who give time? Why should he be ashamed of himself? What is he getting out of it, after all? A $2 patch and a handshake, and the personal satisfaction of making a difference through one of the greatest youth programs in the world. And there are folks who want to take away that personal satisfaction. Amazing. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

Of all of the Scouts I've known, I can think of maybe one over the age of 8 who liked wearing the Scout uniform. He was a Super Scout -- and is now a Scouting professional working for BSA. It's largely adults who care about the uniform, who want Scouts to look "sharp," who think there are character-building aspects and other positive psychological aspects to uniform wear. And the folks who have the stories about how well their Scouts in uniform were treated -- well, again it is usually adults who are impressed by the uniform and treat the Scouts well because of it, not other youth. Just my opinion, of course, but I think it is really shared effort and shared experiences that break down class distinctions and build teamwork -- not wearing the same clothes. As I've said before, I think the principal function of the Scout uniform is marketing: marketing the Scout program to the public, and marketing particular programs and activities (via patches and badges) within Scouting to other Scouts and leaders. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

I don't understand this notion that making a donation to the Council endowment fund -- a gift that keeps on giving -- is somehow "buying an award." Some folks have time to give to Scouting, and we honor them. Some folks have talent to give to Scouting, and we honor them. Some folks have money to give to Scouting. Why should anyone -- including the giver -- think that using their personal resources to benefit Scouting is somehow of less value, something to be embarrassed about, or even something to scorn? Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Well, these five pages capture every argument for and against that I've heard about the uniform and its various parts over the last twenty years or so. Personally, I think that whatever stated purposes (practical, symbolic, or psychological) that the Scout uniform may have served in the past have for the most part fallen away, and what remains is the Scout uniform as a marketing tool, both externally and internally. Externally, BSA wants the public to be able to identify Scouts, triggering at least a brief recollection of the other positive aspects of Scouting's "brand" -- good character, outdoorsmanship, helpfulness, and emergency preparedness being the major ones. The pants help with this aspect, because they make Scouts look more uniform, and it is easier to sell an organization whose members look good. Internally, rank badges, event patches, position patches, Quality Unit/Journey to Excellence patches, etc. all represent achievements and desirable experiences. Wearing those badges and patches -- on the uniform, of course -- markets those achievements and experiences to other Scouts and Scouters, causing those Scouts and Scouters to want those things, and to get those things by staying in the program and using the program more and more. The pants are not much help with this. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

fred8033, I agree with the concept. I think I'd like some "accessory" (vest, sash, hat, necklace, whatever) with all the bling that could be just tossed on over the "everyday"/very minimal Class A, or troop shirt, or other Scout or non-Scout shirt, rather than a separate shirt, but that would be fine too. The main thing is your idea for a minimalist standard uniform shirt that you can wear out and about in public without looking like either a state trooper or a third world dictator. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

I have five pairs of the original Switchback zip-offs (I loaded up when they went on sale before the introduction of the current version). I wear them for all Scouting campouts, hikes, meetings, and other events, and for lots of non-Scouting purposes as well. But if they hadn't been on sale, I'd buy cheap nylon zipoffs from Campmor or Sierra Trading Post for camping and "everyday" use. I'd have one pair of Switchbacks that I'd alternate with the old-style Scout pants, wearing them only to meetings and other indoor and ceremonial events (as described in the Boy Scout Handbook) -- with my Centennial nylon uniform shirt, which doesn't get outdoors much. I've tried to minimize the patches on my Centennial shirt. On the front I only have the stick-on "Boy Scouts of America," an embroidered name tape, and the purple universal patch -- no knots, OA pocket flap, or temporary patches. But just the basics still means the American flag and current Quality Unit patch on the right sleeve; the Council Shoulder Patch, one-piece unit numerals/veteran unit bar, "Trained" patch, and position patch on the right sleeve; and shoulder tabs on the epaulettes. That is still 11 items stuck or sewn on that shirt (12 if you count the veteran unit bar as a separate item). That is just way too many, occupying way too much real estate.

BrentAllen, thanks for your post.

Except for the part about using the buddy system (he didn't, even after a leader cautioned him) and staying put if you are lost (he walked 8 or 9 miles, and he was found 4 miles from where he started). Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Tampa Turtle wrote: "However all organizations have their cultures and prices of admission. And even if for no other reason the Traditional Skills are that for scouting." Good comments, and I think you've captured my thinking on this. Scouting has good reasons to teach traditional Scoutcraft. Some of those reasons have to do with history and tradition, some with providing a foundation for other outdoor skills, and some with the value of handiness and life skills. And so traditional Scoutcraft is part of our advancement requirements and we teach it to Scouts. Once that is done, there is no longer any express requirement on the troop or on the Scout to maintain those traditional skills, and troops and Scouts may choose to no longer use them. However, the good reasons for introducing traditional Scoutcraft are still there, and a troop would be wise to take those into account when planning its program. After all, this is not a zero-sum game: you CAN learn traditional skills AND modern skills; you CAN learn to use traditional gear AND modern gear; you CAN still claim true descent from the kids with the campaign hats and Scout staffs AND be a nylon-clad, GPS-toting expert in cutting edge outdoor practices. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Oh, I think it is pretty clear that there are some skills that are part of the Boy Scout T-2-1 advancement requirements that while inherently good and useful and excellent life skills to have, they just aren't needed as much in Boy Scout outdoor activities as they were 20 or 30 years ago. That is because gear has evolved and our outdoor practices have evolved (for better or worse -- that's another discussion). Yes, some of us may choose to use those skills daily or on every campout because they remain inherently good and useful; that is not the issue. The issue is that while we may like the traditional way and it still works and has other good qualities, there are other options that in most situations are as good and as useful and have other good qualities the traditional way might not have. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Well, I think I figured out why it bothers _me_ when a Scout at the rank of First Class or above can't remember basic skills or knowledge acquired in the course of earning Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class. First, someone spent a lot of time and energy teaching those things for the purpose of completing advancement requirements, and the Scout spent a lot of time and energy learning them. If the skills/knowledge are forgotten, all of that effort is wasted. (And if I was the one teaching, it is a personal disappoointment.) Second, I think that there is a certain set of skills and knowledge -- that we call "Scoutcraft" -- that by history, tradition, and act of Congress (the Congressional Charter), Boy Scouts are expected to have. And if a Scout doesn't have this basic range of Scoutcraft proficiency, it feels like something fundamental is missing, even if the Scout is an Eagle, is an expert marksman, a guide on the Colorado River, an Appalachian Trail thru-hiker, and about to enter the seminary with the goal of becoming a military chaplain. At the same time, I'm quite sympathetic to the view that it is like "throwing good money after bad" for a troop to go out of its way to create and run competitions, activities, and campouts for the principal purpose of maintaining traditional skills that would not be used otherwise in the troop program and would be quickly forgotten by the Scouts. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

When the troop's ordinary monthly campouts consist of backcountry hikes in which the troop uses dome tents that don't need guylines, dining flies with those little thingys on the cords that serve the same function as the tautline hitch, internal frame backpacks with nothing hanging on the outside, and freeze-dried backpacking food, their fires (when they have them) are small and made up only of sticks that can be broken by hand, and they never, ever hunt around for sticks big enough to lash together "useful camp gadgets," it is no wonder that we have First Class Scouts that have forgotten how to tie basic knots even in an active, adventurous outdoor program. So why do we think that is a problem? (Note: _I_ see it as a problem, and I'm trying to figure out why I feel that way.) I'm reminded of the scene in "Follow Me Boys!" when the Army officer doesn't believe Lem is a Scoutmaster because he can't tie a sheepshank. Is it necessary for Boy Scouts to maintain a certain minimum of "traditional" skills just because things like campfires, knots, and lashings are part of the "identity" of Boy Scouts (like neckerchiefs, lemon-squeezer hats, and helping little old ladies across the street)? Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Thanks, but I'm not really asking WHAT special activities you do to maintain traditional but otherwise unused skills found in the T-2-1 requirements. I'm asking WHY BOTHER? That is, for the Scouts who have already completed those requirements. (This does not include First Aid, which is always needed, even if seldom used). Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

We created a large wooden plaque (about 4 feet long) in the shape of an eagle head and outstretched wings. On the bottom and back are lots of eye screws with spring clips on them. We sorted all of the old ribbons we could find (back to the early '80s, though the troop formed in the '60s) into bundles of 5, strung each bundle on a safety pin (through the little metal grommet at the top of the ribbon) and hung the bundles on the spring clips so that they kinda sorta look like feathers hanging from the bottom of the eagle's wings. The eagle is hung on its own stand and displayed at Courts of Honor. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Okay, so a Scout learns the "traditional" Scout skills contained in the Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class requirements, gets signed off, and completes First Class. He's already forgotten some of the knots and doesn't have much opportunity to use most of the other "traditional" skills unless the troop is preparing for the annual camporee competition or the Pioneering campout they have every two or three years. How much (if anything) should a unit do to "preserve" the specific traditional Scout skills found in the T-2-1 advancement requirements so that Scouts can practice those skills even after the requirements have been completed and the rank earned? What if a Scoutmaster gathered his new Scouts around and said: "For Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class ranks, you are going to have to learn a few traditional Scout skills, such as certain knots and lashings, cooking over a campfire, and using an axe. Those things are really good to know as life skills and survival skills and if you want to be a real woodsman like Mr. Johnson. But on our regular campouts and hikes and other adventures you will rarely, if ever, need to use some of those skills even though they are required for rank advancement. So, for those of you who aren't itching to lash together a survival shelter, consider them living history lessons. Mr. Johnson knows all of those things and will teach you. Learn them well enough to complete the requirements, and try to get them out of the way quickly so you can focus on the everyday skills you will need for our program like climbing knots, 2-person cooking on backpacking stoves, GPS, paddling, and bike maintenace. Okay?" Thoughts? Dan KurtenbachFairfax, VA

Eamon, I agree with most everything you've said. I'm not arguing that traditional skills are outdated or no longer useful; just that in the ordinary course of camping with modern gear and with other practices that have now become standard (such as routinely cooking over stoves rather than fires), there is less _need_ for the ordinary use of many traditional skills. That means, for example, that Scouts are not automatically using the tautline hitch to set up tents, and therefore they don't automatically get practice in using the knot. That doesn't mean in any way that the tautline hitch is outdated or no longer useful; it only means that there are fewer ordinary camping situations in which the tautline hitch can demonstrate its usefulness -- unless we create those situations. As for "reason why we play this game," my point is that, in developing its current Advancement "method," BSA has forgotten that reason -- twice. First, BSA went astray when it adopted a standard for Boy Scout badge earning that Baden-Powell deplored and abandoned the standard he advocated: "not the attainment of a certain level of quality of work (as in the school), but the AMOUNT OF EFFORT EXERCISED BY THE INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATE" (emphasis his) (i.e., "Do Your Best"). Second, BSA went astray when it offered up the commendable notion (in the ACP&P) that a rank badge is awarded for what a Scout is _able_ to do, not for what he has done; but which is completely undermined by the rank requirements and procedures that (a) are phrased in a way that allows for the subject of the requirements to be learned, performed, or experieced only once or a limited number of times; (b) do not require that a Scout retain the knowledge or skill or ever demonstrate it again once the rank has been achieved. In other words, under BSA's current Boy Scout advancement requirements and procedures, a badge is awarded for what a Scout has done, and has no relationship to what he is actually _able_ to do. So it isn't really that anything has been "dumbed down," it is just that under the current Boy Scout advancement requirements and procedures, it is not necessary for a Scout to be very smart, or very skillful, or to work very hard. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

I should also mention that there are _some_ merit badges (for example, Hiking and Cycling) where the requirements call for enough practice/repetition/experience that by the end, most Scouts starting from scratch will be proficient in at least some of the skills and knowledge called for in the requirements and will remember them for a long, long time -- just by virtue of working on the requirements. I don't think that is true for any of the Tenderfoot, Second Class, or First Class requirements, except perhaps swimming. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Tampa Turtle, thanks for your comments. There is no question that "traditional" skills come in very handy when ordinary tools and procedures are not available, as in emergencies, survival situations, power outages, and loading new patio furniture on top of the car. (The store clerk helping me said, "We have some twine, but I don't know how to tie it. I'm not a Boy Scout." I replied, "It's okay -- I am. And I have my own rope.") I, too, find the tautline hitch and other traditional skills useful in a variety of ways on campouts. But usually, I could do the same thing another way with "modern" gear, or just some other way; but I choose to use the "traditional" skill in part because I'm comfortable with it and in part to show off, I mean, set an example. I take all those plastic thingys off new tents deliberately so I can use the tautline hitch. I use rope, not web strapping, for hanging my hammock on trees -- but I probably will switch soon because I know the straps are better for the trees than my rope and easier to use than putting padding between the rope and the bark. Knowing the traditional "handiness" skills is absolutely a good thing. It just seems to me that in order to get the necessary repetition for those skills to become ingrained in Scouts, the troop has to go out of its way to create situations and opportunities to use those skills. The Advancement system doesn't help with that and modern gear, conveniences, and practices have substantially reduced the need for those skills. Therefore, leaders with knowledge have to do it on their own. And as discussed in this thread, many units don't necessarily have leaders with knowledge. And even some leaders with knowledge prefer modern conveniences to old school skills. And so we have "one and done" rank advancement and First Class Scouts who can't tie a tautline hitch -- and under the Advancement system as it is now, there is nothing wrong with that. Let me repeat that: under the _Advancement system_ as it is now, there is nothing wrong with that. It is wrong in other ways, but not under the Advancement system. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

SSScout wrote: "The requirements are not the problem. It is the holding to standards that is the problem. If the boy is a First Class Scout, should he not be able to tie a tautline hitch and know when it can be useful?" Since that is a Tenderfoot rank requirement (4b), it will have been long forgotten by the time a Scout reaches First Class. And that _is_ "holding to standards" -- at least the standards set out in the rank requirements themselves, and even the "competence" standards set out in the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures book. Tenderfoot requirement 4b states, "Demonstrate that you know how to tie the following knots and tell what their uses are: two half hitches and the taut-line hitch." Suppose that before that requirement can be signed off, you tell the Scout that the way he will be tested on that requirement is to demonstrate the tautline hitch for you on three different occasions at least a week apart, "on demand" -- that is, you'll walk up to him and hand him a rope with no prior notice or chance to "review" the knot. So you do it that way, and the Scout successfully ties the knot without hesitation on each occasion. You sign off the requirement. Then what? There is no rank requirement that a Scout _continue_ to be able to demonstrate that he knows the uses for and how to tie a tautline hitch. A Scout trying for First Class does not have to re-pass all of the Tenderfoot and Second Class requirements. Rank is not like a certification; there is no provision for taking back a rank badge if the Scout forgets how to tie a knot or can no longer pass some other requirement. Modern tents don't require that you know the tautline hitch; they have those plastic or metal thingys on the guylines -- if you even use guylines. Dining fly? If the campsite doesn't already have a shelter, then there are pop-up canopies or flies that have poles with velcro or shock cord with little hooks, or guylines with those plastic or metal thingys. And even if you have to string a line somewhere, well, there are lots of "knots" that a lad can make up on the spot that will do the job (though messier and not as well). And really, would you ever lash together a "useful camp gadget" when you can get what you need at Wal-Mart or Sports Authority? So there are two problems here. One problem is that the rank requirements include many traditional skills that are no longer fully compatible with modern equipment and practices. In order to teach and learn those skills, the troop has to create artificial situations and environments. The other problem is that in order to maintain skill and knowledge, they must be practiced and repeated. A troop has to come up with ways to do that outside and in addition to the rank advancement system. We have to understand that rank requirements offer nothing more than an introduction or exposure to skills, knowledge, and experience; and that the Advancement system does _not_ include standards for maintaining skill and knowledge once aquired. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

BSA long ago departed from Baden-Powell's standards for satisfying badge requirements. See Baden-Powell's Outlook, http://usscouts.org/history/bpoutlook4.asp#_Toc536191302 (below). In any event, our Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class requirements are not written in a manner that would require practice and proficiency, but rather ask only that a Scout complete a particular task once, or regurgitate information once, or have a particular experience once or a limited number of times. And then we bar re-testing. And a Scout never has to duplicate a skill or knowledge requirement in order to earn a higher level rank. The Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures booklet calls for proficiency, but most Scouters have never heard of it, much less read it. The Advancement requirements found in the back of the Boy Scout Handbook drive the troop program, in the sense that they tell the troop the minimum contents of the troop program. And since anything beyond the minimum is optional, it is no wonder that many troop programs settle at (and sometimes struggle with) the minimum (or perhaps just below it). In short, if you want a troop program that values competence in outdoor skills (and particularly in _modern_ outdoor skills), you cannot look to rank requirements for guidance or for a long-term structure for skill development. Rather, the troop must create its own standards and expectations (since we can't add requirements for ranks) and provide opportunities for Scouts to meet those standards and expectations -- and incidentally getting those pesky rank requirements out of the way as it goes along. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA ----------- Standardisation of Badges IN view of a very elaborate curriculum that was recently drawn up by one authority for standardising the tests for badges, I was obliged to criticise it in this sense: "I hope that the compilers are not losing sight of the aim and spirit of the Movement by making it into a training school of efficiency through curricula, marks, and standards. "Our aim is merely to help the boys, especially the least scholarly ones, to become personally enthused in subjects that appeal to them individually, and that will be helpful to them. "We do this through the fun and jollity of Scouting; by progressive stages they can then be led on, naturally and unconsciously, to develop for themselves their knowledge. "But if once we make it into a formal scheme of serious instruction for efficiency, we miss the whole point and value of the Scout training, and we trench on the work of the schools without the trained experts for carrying it out. "We have to remember that the Scoutmasters are voluntary play leaders in the game of Scouting, and not qualified school teachers, and that to give them a hard-and-fast syllabus is to check their ardour and their originality in dealing with their boys according to local conditions. "I could quite imagine it frightening away many Scoutmasters of the right sort. "The syllabus as suggested seems to go a good deal beyond what is prescribed as our dose in Scouting for Boys; and if the proportions of the ingredients given in a prescription are not adhered to you cannot well blame the doctor if the medicine doesn't work. "Our standard for badge earning -- as I have frequently said -- is not the attainment of a certain level of quality of work (as in the school), but the AMOUNT OF EFFORT EXERCISED BY THE INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATE. This brings the most hopeless case on to a footing of equal possibility with his more brilliant or better-off brother. "We want to get them ALL along through cheery self-development from within and not through the imposition of formal instruction from without." November, 1921. -----------

Tampa Turtle wrote: "I am too depressed to address dkurtenbach's comments; I have gotten that response too from some parlour-types." "Parlour-types"? Hee hee hee. You might consider re-reading my comments. I believe in the fun and adventure of traditional Scouting skills, including the challenge of a thing as simple as hiking -- that the Scouts I am working with are salivating for. I'm scratching my head over the notion that The Summit is somehow the "professionalization" of Scouting activities or that it is syptomactic of a de-emphasis on regular monthly outdoor activities. Rather, I see it as part of a general BSA RE-emphasis on Scouting outdoor adventure. But I see that re-emphasis on outdoor adventure happening separately from, and in parallel with (1) a BSA effort to emphasize intangibles such as character and leadership as the goal and image of Scouting -- and that includes an emphasis on Eagle Scout as the image of Scout character development and leadership, and (2) a BSA effort to promote recruitment and retention through promoting things like rapid rank advancement (which supposedly assists retention), the mythos of Eagle Scout rank as the "summit" [pun intended] of leadership and character, and creation of soccer programs (to recruit Hispanic families). In short, I think the importance of competence in and retention of outdoor skills as part of the Advancement system has been effectively replaced. It is no longer important that a Scout actually know and be good at outdoor skills or be competent in the subject of particular merit badges in order to advance in rank or receive such merit badges. The old Advancement system has been replaced with a semi-official (if not official -- yet) approach that Advancement is about simply exposure to particular skills (including the need to do them only once) and simply participating (once, or a limited number of times) in particular activities. That is how the Advancement Requirements are written. It is only in the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures -- a relatively obscure or unknown text to most Scouters -- that calls for competence in skills before a requirement is signed off or a rank awarded. You couldn't tell from the language of rank requirements themselves that competence or practice was required. Thus it is no surprise when folks read the lists in the back of the Boy Scout Handbook and think that rank requirements can be completed quickly and easily. And so we have BSA promoting outdoor adventure for Scouts while at the same time de-emphasizing strong outdoor skills as necessary for Advancement. That is, outdoor adventure is something that Scouts _also_ do, when they have time off from leadership and character development. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Last week I had an introductory meeting for Scouts -- and their parents -- who will be taking the Hiking merit badge that I am counseling. We talked about each of the requirements in some depth, and about the amount of work that these boys would have to do. I didn't hear any complaints from the boys; rather, the more we talked, the more excited the Scouts got. Nor did I hear any complaints from the parents; rather, the more we talked, the more they looked forward to seeing their sons take on these challenges. They weren't excited about simply earning a merit badge. Since almost all of them had already earned the Swimming merit badge, that Eagle requirement was already satisfied and Hiking would "count" no more than Fingerprinting or Reading. I would agree with the notion that BSA over the years has watered down Advancement requirements. Did you know that an Eagle Scout need only hike six miles in his Boy Scouting career? Five miles for the Second Class hike, and one mile for the First Class orienteering requirement. That's it. At the same time, I think BSA over the last several years has been putting more emphasis on outdoor adventure. I've seen more encouragement of Cub Scout camping; more non-Advancement adventure programs for older youth at summer camp; and development of The Summit in West Virginia -- a huge investment when BSA is shrinking and really did not need a fourth national high adventure base. But I'm also seeing that the outdoor program is being more and more pushed away from other "core" Scouting elements such as Advancement and Ideals. Some examples are CSE Mazzuca's statements about developing Scouts by having them sit side by side at the computer with adults of character (Kudu has a complete catalog). I have a set of the DVDs of the first two seasons of the Scout outdoor adventure show that ran on the Outdoor channel. Despite the sweaty, dirty adventure presented in the actual shows, the cover shows a Boy Scout in full uniform and regalia holding an American flag. Huh? So what seems to me to be happening is that outdoors and preparedness skill, knowledge, and experience is being separated from Advancement. More and more it is up to the unit to provide program above and beyond what is called for by the Advancement requirements to promote retention of skills (such as those suggested by Oak Tree and Horizon) and provide adventure. I agree to a certain extent with the issues discussed by Tahawk and Abel Magwich -- some (not all) summer camps handle some (not all) merit badges and Advancement requirements in a rather slipshod fashion, as do some district merit badge clinics, some Eagle Mill troops, and some troop "New Scout" campouts designed to knock out as many T-2-1 Advancement requirements as possible. Over-emphasis on Advancement, to the detriment of real skills, is far more widespread than summer camps. But while yes, summer camps should know better, there is also this: If you know anything about how Advancement is supposed to work according to the book, and if you know anything about merit badge-based summer camps work, then you take Scouts to such a camp with eyes wide open, aware of the "risks." As Twocubdad wrote: "we 'nutritional advocates' tend to be the wholesale buyers of the Big Macs." Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

I would humbly suggest that much of this discussion is looking at the merit badge mill problem in much the same way as nutrition advocates look at the McDonald's menu. The fundamental problem is that most consumers of McDonald's food aren't interested in the same things that nutrition advocates are. While the consumers appreciate their efforts, the consumers' interests are in inexpensive, reasonably tasty, and tummy satisfying food; if it happens to be nutritious too, well that's fine but not particularly important to the consumers. Naturally, the corporation is more interested in what the consumers want than in what the nutrition advocates want. Our Scouting culture today largely driven by the completion of advancement requirements, including merit badges. The interests of most Scouting consumers are centered (at least in substantial part) on measurable results in the form of checked-off requirements and signed blue cards. This is how most average Scouts, average parents, and average Joe and Jane Scouter think about Program. This is somewhat intensified with Summer Camp because Summer Camp is a big deal and costs a lot of money. That doesn't make this sort of discussion and all of these concerns about merit badge mills futile. It just means that these concerns aren't at the top of the list of either the consumers or the providers of summer camp. It also means that while these issues are real, they do not signal the demise of Scouting any more than a Big Mac signals the demise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Packsaddle, thanks for your comments. I said it publicly to make a point: That other members should take advantage of this wonderful tool. Sadly, there are folks on public forums who make a practice of insulting other members, berating other members, inciting conflict -- and then of course denying it when challenged. Naturally, there are other members who respond to such provocations, and you end up with lengthy bitter exchanges and often long-term feuds. That sort of thing was one of the major factors that killed the newborn Scouting Community (formerly on www.myscouting.org) that BSA had offered. Thankfully, Scouter.com has provided us with the "ignore" feature that allows us to exclude, at least for ourselves, the static of members whose seeds of discord make the conversation far less congenial and useful than it otherwise can be. The tool is not used nearly enough, I'm afraid, for there are far too many unfriendly and discourteous exchanges. If there were a feature I would like to see taken away, it would be the use of "handles" rather than real names. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA