Pull-ups revisited

[Beavah]

while the swimming requirements also hold some people back, I can't recall people complaining about it.

 

They certainly do around here a fair bit! Far more common to hear complaints about that, and see application for a "special needs" waiver because Joey sinks, than to hear about pullups.

 

In my experience, complaints always go with strictness. Any requirement that a unit is fairly strict about will generate complaints. Complaints are avoided by bein' looser; allowing dog-paddling, counting fractional pullups, etc. Teachers who give out all A's, and units that produce tons of young Eagle Scouts, don't generate complaints, eh? Leastways, not from those in their classes or troops. I suspect a lot o' troops think like Lisa'bob and me; they're willin' to modify a bit on TF pullups, but not on FC swimming.

 

Yah, I agree with Hunt in this case. It's easy to drop pullups. Doin' pushups is a fine measure of upper body strength, and while there are kids who can't do even one pushup, the hurdles to show "improvement" are still lower. We could drop pullups without really hurtin' the goals.

 

A bigger question is whether we should have a more concrete fitness goal for 2nd and 1st Class, eh? After all, we don't say "improve" on your swimming, we say the requirement is to swim. Seems like maybe we should have a similar, concrete basic fitness requirement for a boy who has reached da "good scouting citizen" level of First Class Scout.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

To follow up on that thought, I'd support a requirement that EVERY leader meet those same requirements, whatever they were, every year. Now THAT would just be delicious!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Gunny2862]

Okay, I am confused. Straighten me out, please.

 

Just exactly where does it say that there has to be improvement in each area? And there's no metric that says it has to be whole number changes. If there isn't, does that mean the 1/4 mile can be interpreted to mean a whole minute faster? Because over a 1/4 mile, if the Scout ran, that is a big(small) number to chase.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be improvement in each area - especially if the Scout hasn't been active previously, just that I'm not reading a REQUIREMENT for improvement in EACH area. Is it somewhere else, other than pp57-58 of the 11th edition Handbook?

 

Kittle, did your situation ever get resolved?

 

 

[packsaddle]

I hesitate to mention this but...'1' is a always a whole number whether it is applied to minutes, seconds, or hours. A whole number is a whole number and if you apply it to fathoms, klicks, cubits, or furlongs, I don't give a farthing.

[Gunny2862]

Okay packsaddle, point taken. That and two quid should get me a pint but it doesn't answer the question poised previously.

 

After all the 1/4 mile run segment doesn't say if you time it in hours, minutes, or minutes and seconds or just seconds(which should be easy to improve on ) and who says I have any common sense anyway?

[packsaddle]

Hey, I like that idea about the pint but it's going to take a while to come up with two squids.

So.....anyone like my idea about leaders meeting the same requirements? H'mmmm?

[Beavah]

To follow up on that thought, I'd support a requirement that EVERY leader meet those same requirements, whatever they were, every year.

 

Sauce for the goose, eh?

 

I'm all for it, myself.

 

Everybody goes on about bein' a good example to the boys by wearin' their uniform. Dat's easy, it doesn't require much effort or sacrifice from an adult, the way it does for a kid.

 

A Scouter should be able to swim, plan and cook a dinner, or run a mile without dyin'. As long as the requirements were age-appropriate, seems like a fine notion.

 

Beavah

 

[Oak Tree]

Gunny,

 

We had this debate in our troop. When the requirement says "Show improvement in the activities listed in requirement 10a...", does it mean in EACH of the activities listed, or in some overall holistic sense? There were some who thought that improvement in four of the five activities met the standard, but there were others who argued that the common-sense interpretation of the requirement is to show improvement in all of the activities.

 

I think when it says "the activities listed", it means all of the activities on the list. As an aside, this was actually a board of review issue in our troop. The BoR said that improving in four of the five activities meant that the requirement was not complete.

 

Oak Tree

[FScouter]

The wording will never be precise or clear enough for he that does not want to do the requirement.

[packsaddle]

Beavah, Sauce for the goose - exactly!

You know, thinking about it some...I like it more and more. I wonder how we could start an initiative to make something like this part of the requirements for leadership. The age-appropriate part might need some study, maybe by an exercise physiologist or something, but I really like it. For that matter, I think 1/4 mile ought to be within the ability almost without regard to age, with exceptions for disabilities, of course (out-of-shape doesn't count).

Any pros out there listening? You guys interested in giving it a try as well?

[GernBlansten]

I'm rather surprised you all don't do the requirements with your scouts. I certainly do. Even show them I improve in 30 days. Of course, I might sandbag a bit on the initial measurement. Hard to improve on perfection, you know!

[kittle]

Gunny2862,

 

No resolution yet. The lady who brought this to our attention hasn't gotten back with us. I am hoping that she will be able to give him an answer Monday at the meeting. If she does and it is in his favor, he will have his SM conference Monday and his BOR Tuesday.

[Kudu]

Beavah writes:

 

"A bigger question is whether we should have a more concrete fitness goal for 2nd and 1st Class, eh? After all, we don't say "improve" on your swimming, we say the requirement is to swim. Seems like maybe we should have a similar, concrete basic fitness requirement for a boy who has reached da "good scouting citizen" level of First Class Scout."

 

The bigger question is what do these relatively recent indoor school gym class requirements have to do with Scouting? The answer is absolutely nothing.

 

The idea of Scouting is to mold citizens through the very indirect means of a rugged outdoor game called "Scouting." Scouting is "education" (understanding from within) as opposed to "instruction" (facts learned in lectures). Scouting was designed as an alternative to school and church school. In Scouting, Scouts learn important natural principles through their desire to directly encounter the natural world ("education"). These experiences later supplement their formal school and religious "instruction" with real-world knowledge (read Louv's Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder).

 

BSA Scouting has been destroyed by dumbing down the Outdoor program and replacing it with the school model for achieving the so-called "Aims of Scouting." For instance school citizenship classes to meet the "Citizenship Aim" and school gym class exercises to meet the "Fitness Aim."

 

This is Wood Badge Logic and it is the opposite of real Scouting.

 

In a real Outdoor program, Beavah's "concrete fitness goal for Second Class" is to make a journey of 8 miles with a couple of other Tenderfoot Scouts. The concrete fitness goal for First Class is hauling a backpack for 14 miles on an overnight journey with another Second Class Scout.

 

In BSA Scouting, we no longer even require the tiny 3 mile journey for Camping Merit Badge! This allows a Scout to add "Eagle" to his business resume without EVER having walked into the woods with a pack on his wimpy "show improvement in 30 days" back!

 

As far as swimming requirements go, as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Scouting (on an island, no less!) it is significant that while Baden-Powell firmly believed that every boy should learn how to swim (a radical idea at the time), he did NOT include any swimming requirements to become a First Class Scout.

 

Kudu

 

[packsaddle]

Kudu, what you say makes sense ideally. As a practical matter, Baden Powell formed his ideas before certain aspect of our habitat attained their current status. This brought fewer opportunities of some kinds and greater opportunities of other kinds.

If we take to heart BP's intentions, is it not fair to provide access to new opportunities for boys, ones that didn't exist before, IF we still meet the spirit of BP's vision (and I'm not arguing that BSA necessarily does today, just hypothetically).

 

That said, perhaps even if we were using a program like Kudu describes, prospective leaders should go through the process of qualifying for First Class (every part of it) before they get leadership status. Anyone up for that idea? I've done it before, I can do it again.

[Kudu]

packsaddle writes:

 

"Kudu, what you say makes sense ideally. As a practical matter, Baden Powell formed his ideas before certain aspect of our habitat attained their current status. This brought fewer opportunities of some kinds and greater opportunities of other kinds."

 

packsaddle, would you give some specific examples?