Eagle or not?

[moosetracker]

Sorry, I see both sides.. Probably more so though Beavah's & Spencer's..

 

I am happy to see that for his Eagle project, he got the help he deserved.. He wasn't there for his fellow scouts, except for personal friends, the troop saw no reason to be there for them. Actions have consequences, that in itself is a learning experiences.. I was thinking he might have done it using a group outside scouting for example a church group if the project was for a church..

 

Maybe Spencer would have felt differently had his troop molded him in his early years, but from what I see, they had nothing to do with his development, so did not feel comfortable signing off on it.. This kid was a stranger to them..

 

Sort of like awarding the Eagle to some kid not involved in Scouting but developing his character through ROTC.. Good kid, glad he developed a solid character, but if he wasn't a scout why award him the Eagle? The ROTC have their own awards..

 

But, I also see that normally if a scout is involved in the troop, and develops in the troop early on, leaves for a few years, comes back in the last year and completes things but doesn't have alot of time to spend on scouting. A troop may remember him in his younger years, know they had a hand in the development, and be just fine with it.. If they can state he has the character Scouting wants to see in their Eagles. Not so fine with it, if the kid does not have good character, just goes through the motions to advancement.

 

Yes Advancement IS only 1/8th of the methods of scouting. But to get most of the other 7/8ths you need to be involved in the scouting program also. In the last 4 years advancment is ALL the scout did or got out of the scouting program.

 

Maybe his old troop would have felt more at ease signing his papers, knowing they had a part in developing a great kid. This troop did not have that feeling. To them he was a stranger.

[Beavah]

Second Class:

>>I'd suggest yeh start by havin' your SPL or PLC go over the roster each year at recharter time and tellin' yeh who should be dropped from the roster because they haven't met their commitment or duty to the program as an active member.

Really, you would do this?

And I guess you have, since you suggested it. How did that work out for your unit? What did you tell the parents of the scouts deemed "not worthy"?

 

Yah, sure. In da troops I'm familiar with that do such things, it was the PLC that requested it at least half the time. If yeh have a real youth-led, patrol-method troop, the youth leaders become really frustrated with no-show scouts, eh? Because they're puttin' in all kinds of time and effort to provide a good program and they feel they're being taken advantage of. Those no-show scouts as younger fellows also don't develop skills very well, so they constantly require extra effort by their PL and the scouts who do show up. When it's older boys who are no-shows, the other older boys who have worked hard to help their patrol and the troop, and have given up other things to that hard work because they felt some loyalty and obligation to the troop - they feel cheated. Ask 'em. They'll tell yeh.

 

So from what I've seen it's worked out just fine for those units. They tend to have very active programs with enthusiastic scouts in high-performing patrols. Attendance expectations are part of just about every other youth program, eh? So da parents are very familiar with the routine and understand it completely. Buy-in is pretty easy from both kids and parents, and of course the PL will warn a boy in advance. Usually there's positive peer pressure as well.

 

Again, this assumes real patrol method and youth leadership; in an adult-run unit the dynamics are different, eh?

 

SpencerCheatham

 

Yep, SpencerCheatham, yeh can have rules for your troop. Pretty much whatever yeh can think of. If BrentAllen is around somewhere he'll chime in and tell yeh his troop uses the quote from GreenBar Bill and the old Scout Handbook:

 

"The real price of membership in this Troop will be unfailing regular attendance at its meetings and outings, and steady progress in all the things that make a Scout "Prepared." If we put our own time into the activities of this Troop, we shall certainly expect you to do your part with equal faithfulness."

 

To most youth leaders and many adults, that's just part of courtesy and character, eh? A patrol is a team, and yeh show up to support your team.

 

So that's the second thing I think yeh should look at, eh? How are yeh usin' patrol method and youth leadership? If your patrols are strong and youth leadership sound, they'll be pushin' some of the rules yeh want themselves. Fred 8033 is right, eh? Advancement is only one piece of da puzzle.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Lisabob]

I am not sure that I really want to advocate this, but as a point of discussion:

 

The problem with scouts who "vanish" and come back just in time for Eagle could be resolved by requiring that they hold a position of leadership and/or meet a certain threshold of activity within the last 18 months. That way, a boy who effectively drops out except on paper as a Life Scout at age 13, can't come back at 17 and say "ok I want Eagle now" to a bunch of strangers.

 

Of course, there would be other problems with this approach. Put a new hurdle in place and people will inevitably figure out how to get around, over, under, or through it in ways you don't intend.

------------------------------------------

While it would have been better (simpler, easier) for the boy to have finished his 4 badges & project way back when, it doesn't sound to me like there's a lot of room for complaint with what he actually did. The real complaint appears to be that you don't know the boy very well.

 

Having said that, SpencerCheatham, I think you miss the point of Scouting. The point is NOT mainly to provide service to Scouting, itself (else OA would be the highest recognition, not Eagle) nor are a scout's camping skills the primary point (then we'd end with 1st Class). The point is to help young men develop their character and leadership, using the outdoors and scouting skills as backdrop and tools along the way. While I don't want to diminish those tools, you should be leery of confusing the tools with the results.

 

If you look at several different versions of the "Eagle Charge" you will see that all of them direct the new Eagle to think well beyond scouting, be involved in their communities, to continue developing the habits of good citizenship, etc.

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

The bottom line for me is that the Scout met the requirements, and is therefore entitled to the rank. Obviously this is not how we would want to see a young man go through Scouting. The fact that he did not go on a single camping trip or hike in four years is disturbing. But the fact that the troop leadership was not "in contact" with the Scout for at least three years is also disturbing. There were definitely failures on all sides here. Maybe with some good communication and encouragement when he was new to the troop, or when it became clear that his participation was below-par, the Scout would have become more involved with the troop. Or maybe not, but the point is, it doesn't sound like anybody really tried. And I think SpencerCheatham acknowledges that, so hopefully this situation will not happen again in his troop.

 

As for this issue of crossing boys off the recharter roster if they don't attend a certain percentage of troop activities, I don't know how anybody else does it, but we leave a boy on the charter if he has paid his annual dues (which includes the recharter fees), unless he has expressly "dropped out." A Scout who attends an average of one troop meeting a month, even if he does nothing else (which seems to be the case here) would remain on our roster, assuming the dues have been paid. I am not sure whether there is a national rule on this or not.

[SSScout]

The requirements for Eagle rank have changed over the years. The requirements that I fulfilled are not the same as those that Scoutson fulfilled. (he will be awarded the Eagle at the CoH next month).

On face, the requirements are still daunting, but they are , afterall, cumulative. If the Eagle candidate seems lacking when he is at the point of final application for the rank, it is not for the final "sign off-ers" to look back and say, hey, this or that is not up to OUR standards. Can you tie a square knot NOW? Well, that's not relevant. He tied it THEN.

If the candidate passed SOMEONE'S standard, back then, then he cannot be held to task now. Yes, it is ultimately up to the candidate to make sure he has all his i's dotted and t's crossed, but it is not up to him to say HOW or WHETHER they are crossed and dotted.

Do the Adult Scout Leaders have a say in this process? Of course. They should keep track of who is and who is not active, who is "showing up", who is available and interested to help. They should encourage the PLC and SPL to hold practice and competitions to keep your Scout Skills sharp. Encouraging the Scouts to be ACTIVE on the trails, so to speak. Go places and do things. But the ASLs can not look back and say, "hey, you were not active by our definition" when the Scout HAS been active by BSA's definition. They cannot ask, "prove that you can identify the local trees, like your Forestry Merit Badge says you can". Been there, he's done that. Not relevant now.

In some ways, Scoutson's Eagle was tougher than mine. I had to prove service to my community and Scouting. Scoutson had to find, plan, execute to their satisfaction a work project to benefit a non-profit community organization.

Merit Badges? Yep, we both racked up sufficient number. His included some I never had to face. Personal Management? Never heard of it. Troop Leadership? We both had fun being PLs and other things. JASM and Bugler counted for mine. No JASMs in his Troop. ("What's that?")

So times change. Maybe for the better, maybe it doesn't matter.

Explaining to Scoutson what an ignition point is might be illustrative. He and I connect with automotive things. He grasps the theory of electromagnetism and sparkplugs, but no modern car has "points" . The magneto on our lawn tractor is different, and the Hall Effect module on our old Dodge van is another. Scoutson complains "dad, it's not fair. You didn't have to learn as much history as I do".

He's right. But if he learns about points and magnetos and Hall Effects and why diesels don't have any of those things, he will be that much further ahead of the game.

It is ultimately up to us ASL to be true to our calling and make sure the boy meets the requirements THEN (if he wants to), not later.

 

If the boy met the requirements, doesn't matter when (before 18!) only if. It is too late to say "hey , you should've been doing this a year ago" when the boy thought he had been doing it.

We should have been saying "hey, a year from now, you might not want to look back and think I shoulda been doing this".

YiS.

(This message has been edited by SSScout)

[OldGreyEagle]

I have asked this a few times, to my recollection it has not as yet garnered an answer but here goes.

 

You have two scouts, Scout A is gangbusters on Advancment. Goes on every event and rises quickly through the ranks. He performs quite well his Positions of Responsibility and at age 14 he earns Eagle. The Troop is proud of him. At his Eagle Court of Honor he thanks everyone and smiles, gets his photo taken with every one and is never seen again. Doesnt call, doesnt write, nada

 

Then Scout B, he is not a ball of fire. Takes him a few years to make first class and then sputters along. Finally at age 17 and 2 months decides he wants to earn Eagle. He has always done what was expected in the Positions of responsibility he held for the 4 or 6 months time frame. He would just drop out of sight afterwards. if he comes back and does an Eagle project and earns 21 merit badges is his Eagle more, less or equal to Scout A's Eagle?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[bacchus]

OGE,

That's like the old question as to what they call the guy who graduates medical school with the lowest GPA?

 

Doctor.

[fred8033]

OldGreyEagle - Eagle. Every scout has his own path. Some fast. Some slow. Some outstanding. Some just scraping by. Each scout has his own path.

 

I remember a scoutmaster who kept singing the praises of this young scout and kept saying the scout was definitely eagle and SPL material. Yep the kid earned eagle and became SPL. But in the end, the kid lacked humility and empathy and was sort of pompous. I kept thinking that this kid was affected by the SM's special comments in the same way kids are affected when parents say the kid can't camp without them.

 

...

 

As a devil's advocate...

 

Perhaps if cases like this are tough, then the real option is to not accept those scouts into the troop. You won't have enough explicit requirements to use to hold the scout accountable. Oh. A 13/14 year old life scout and only have four badges and one project left??? Already got the POR / active part done? Hmmm... Probably not a good fit for our troop as there's not much left in your scouting journey.

 

I'm not really advocating for this, but it's sort of what I'm hearing. The scout could have camped more. The scout could have stepped up to help others more. BUT ... he'd already completed the BSA requirements. There's usually alot of wishing involved when we talk about shoulda coulda woulda.

 

Just be happy the scout valued scouting at the level to finish the badges and perform the project. Congratulate him on his achievement.

 

...

 

On a side note, it feels like there's a joke in here somewhere. An Eagle BOR is staffed by a pastor, a laywer and an engineer. (Switched priest to pastor to avoid Catholic bashing). They face a 14 year old scout with 70 nights of camping and 30 merit badges. The pastor congratulates him for being such a dedicated loyal scout. The lawyer congratulates him for completing the requirements as published. The engineer questions the scout's commitment to the Scout Oath's mentally awake because the scout had 49 more nights of camping and 9 more merit badges than needed.

 

I wish us engineers were better at writing jokes.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm....

 

Yeh know, if yeh talk to most coaches, they will tell yeh that the real purpose of sports is not to develop skill kickin' a ball around, it's to develop character and teamwork. Same as Scouting.

 

Now, here's a question. In that sports program whose real goal is to develop character, a lad does a great job as a middle school athlete in some other school. Good enough that his other school thought he could make Varsity as a freshman had he stayed.

 

At his current high school, he shows up for one practice out of three. Over the course of four years, he attends not a single game. Doesn't even come out to cheer. Now, by all reports he is a fine young fellow. Done a good job for the school newspaper, got solid grades, etc. The school is proud of him.

 

Does he deserve a Varsity Letter? Do we think that any sports program anywhere in da country would give him one, based on reports of his general character as assistant editor of the newspaper? Has his commitment to the team demonstrated the sort of character that the team should recognize?

 

I think we all know the answer, eh?

 

The question is why we believe scouts should demonstrate less character and commitment than would be expected of kids kickin' a ball around a field.

 

Now the lad who struggles with his chosen sport, who comes to every practice for four years, who makes every game even though he rides the bench much of the time, who cheers for and supports his comrades - in many if not most sports programs, that boy will get a Varsity letter in his senior year. He has demonstrated commitment and character throughout his career.

 

OGE

You have two scouts, Scout A is gangbusters on Advancment... Then Scout B, he is not a ball of fire.

 

I think like the example above, Scout A was a fine middle school lad, but his scoutin' program was a failure.

 

And that's the real question, eh? What SpencerCheatham is talkin' about is not the worth of the boy, but the quality of the program. He wants his troop to be higher quality, with vision and standards. If yeh have a program where your gangbuster enthusiast middle schooler races through the ranks and drops out, you've failed. Yeh haven't taught important lessons about loyalty and givin' back. Yeh haven't demonstrated the joy of helpin' mentor others in a way he could grasp, yeh haven't held the interest of your best and brightest. Your program needs work.

 

Hopefully whatever other activity he has moved on to will teach the lad the lessons he didn't learn from Scoutin'.

 

By contrast, Scout B was a win.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Tampa Turtle]

Beavah, yes, yes, yes! (I bet it was a long time since you heard that.

 

I was saying those words yesterday on the way back from a campout. You play football, you are in band--you sure wear the uniform , go to practices, and attend games or else. But scouts you can go AWOL and still expect credit for your POR. I am fighting that fight now. I don't mind an otherwise engaged boy being in our Troop but don't expect to advance as fast and don't expect to fill a leadership slot unless you make it a priority. It is just unfair to the other boys and undermines the whole boy-led thing.

 

In HS I played football and got injured. I was off the team and couldn't get my letter (I had not played long enough --less than 1/2 the season). So I became as assistant swim coach and washed a lot of towels. It wasn't sexy but I got my letter.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

I think Beavah's sports analogy is even further off-target than most of the analogies I see in this forum, and that's saying something.

 

In fact, I think it supports the opposite conclusion.

 

In all likelihood, the rules of the high school say (something like) that to get a varsity letter, you have to show up for X percent of the games and X percent of the practices, with allowances for medical reasons. (I'm guessing those percentages are pretty high.) One would hope those rules are in writing somewhere. Maybe the rules also say that you have to be selected for the team. Whatever they say, if you MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, you should get the letter, and if you don't, you shouldn't. (Let's leave aside the situation in which the rules are not reasonable; say a failure to recognize legitimate medical reasons for missing a practice.)

 

It's the same thing with this Scout. He MET THE REQUIREMENTS, so he gets the rank. Maybe his leaders don't feel as proud of him as they would if he camped eight times a year and served as SPL and JASM. Maybe he's not proud of himself. It doesn't matter. He met the requirements.

 

The middle school/high school part of the analogy is especially inapplicable here. Apparently this young man made Life and fulfilled a substantial portion of the requirements for Eagle (including, apparently, both of the 6-month requirements) in another troop. But the other troop is still part of the BSA; it's not "another school." It's the same program and the same set of requirements, just in a different place. (It is a different CO, but the CO can't change the requirements.) The requirements that the Scout has satisfied in one troop are transferred to the other troop.

 

Let's accept that the purpose of both the sport and Scouting is to develop character. But in neither activity do you get the "highest award" just for showing good character. In fact, the "good character" may be a byproduct of the effort required to get the award, and may not show itself until the boy is most of the way through the activity, or even afterwards. You make Eagle by completing the requirements. Now, if you show a clear LACK of good character before you earn the award, say by committing a serious crime (regardless of whether you are participating in a Scouting activity at the time), you may be denied the award. Similarly, I suspect the athlete who commits a serious crime may be removed from the sports team and denied the "letter."

 

The question is why we believe scouts should demonstrate less character and commitment than would be expected of kids kickin' a ball around a field.

 

That is what is called a "straw man" argument. Nobody believes that. It has nothing to do with the subject.

 

What SpencerCheatham is talkin' about is not the worth of the boy, but the quality of the program.

 

Actually, I don't think he's talking about either. He's talking about whether a boy needs to participate at a particular level in a troop's program when he has already fulfilled the "active" requirement in another troop, and fulfills the remainder of the Eagle requirements in "your" troop.

[fred8033]

Beavah wrote: "Now the lad who struggles with his chosen sport, who comes to every practice for four years, who makes every game even though he rides the bench much of the time, who cheers for and supports his comrades - in many if not most sports programs, that boy will get a Varsity letter in his senior year. He has demonstrated commitment and character throughout his career."

 

Yeah well... Probably not the best analogy. We don't hand Eagle out to any scout who stays long enough. In fact, I know plenty who argue against awards for just being there ... including you I believe. You need to demonstrate the criteria laid out for the achievement.

 

I think this is why BSA has worked pretty hard to define explicit criteria for each rank. So that it doesn't become an attendance reward. So that it stays under the control of the scout. So that everyone knows what's expected.

 

IMHO, I think scout A did fine. If he moves on, fine. Maybe for him, he's got all he can get out of scouting. Let him learn more life lessons elsewhere.

 

...

 

Ya know Eagle only requires six months of being active. Odds are if a life scout is in your troop for four years, he's probably easily fulfilled the active requirements. I'd be more concerned with the scout pushing the other envelope the other direction and trying to advance with five months and 25 days when six months are required.

 

...

 

On a side note, I find it interesting that Arthur Eldred completed his eagle requirements in about 18 months. But his board of review did include practical tests on merit badge expertise. Interesting.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Oak Tree]

As I understand this, the question is essentially, "Should a boy have to make Scouting a high enough priority in his life in order to get Eagle?" And in this case, the adults have some particular mental picture of what level that priority should be.

 

Now, National has recently allowed units to do this, by setting attendance requirements. But this unit didn't have those.

 

I would have signed the application with no problem. The Scout knew the requirements, he met the requirements. Some other Scouts may exceed the requirements. That doesn't mean that all Scouts need to exceed the requirements. I don't like it when adults change the actual requirements. The fair thing to the Scout is that he's able to determine whether his efforts will meet the requirements. I guess I don't see the issue here.

 

Is there a hidden item in the Scout Law? "A Scout is enthusiastic about Scouting."

[Twocubdad]

No one has addressed what I see as the real problem here -- that this young man was allowed to blow through to Life in two or three years. I don't know what sort of program this Scout was in. Maybe he was UberScout in his old troop, but something happened that he was barely breathing in the new one. Consequently, this isn't aimed so much at this particular young man or either Spencer's troop or the other one, rather all the Scouts who quit Scouting but remain on the charter.

 

First of all, I think Beav's thought to regularly purge the unit of inactive Scouts is a good one. His reasoning for doing so is sound. Not that our troop does it but why not assign scouts to "inactive" status (as provided for in the BSA bylaws) for Scouts who don't meet activity expectations? Instead of abruptly dropping them at recharter, put them on inactive status for a period with a clear outline of what they need to do to regain active status. As this is a membership issue (not advancement) it would seem to be the CO's call.

 

Let's jump back to the discussions regarding Scoutmaster's approval of blue cards and related topics. (Sounds like a high-jacking, but bear with me.) The situation in the OP is what we cruel, egotistical child abusers are seeking to avoid when we throw up road blocks, add to the requirements and torture boys by making them hold off on merit badges at our whim. Our -- at least my -- purpose is to help the Scout get the most out of the advancement program by taking the time to mature through it, to understand the sense of accomplishment of really mastering a subject and achieving a goal through real effort and determination. That doesn't come at a six-hour merit badge university class.

 

Keeping older Scouts is all about presenting them with programs offering greater and greater challenges resulting in greater and greater payoffs. It's a three legged stool -- adventure, leadership and -- wait for it -- ADVANCEMENT.

 

Everyone understands the adventure part -- starting with simple campouts and moving on to backpacking, climbing, Philmont, Seabase. The progressiveness of adventure programs is built in. On the front end, younger Scouts are limited by physical ability and, in some cases, age restrictions. On the back end, there is no limit to the challenge of high adventure programs. Anything the Scouts can safely do is wide open.

 

Leadership is more subtle, mostly because leadership itself is more elusive. It's easy for the boys to decide they do or don't like backpacking, or climbing. Figuring out their place in the leadership of the troop is more difficult. But for the boys who take up the challenge and put the work into in, it can be as rewarding as summiting Mt. Phillips.

 

But frankly, when it comes to advancement, BSA has allowed the wheels come off the wagon. Reading the new Advancment Guide and the blogs and newsletters from the national advancement team, it is clear to me these folks have NO CLUE how to maintain a progressive advancement program which is attractive to Scouts aged 11 to 18. They've take what should be the reasonable flexibility of the program and twisted it into a mandate that everything must be doable by an 11 year old. "Any Scout can complete any MB at an any time" should mean there are no impediments to an 11-y.o. Scout training for a spot on the Olympic swim team to complete Swimming or Lifesaving MB. A state finalist debater should be allowed to work on Communications. But that directive has been twisted to mean that EVERY Scout should be allowed to complete EVERY merit badge NOW. I have no problem with boys choosing the MBs they want to persue on their own timetable. But when and 11-y.o. "Scout" Scout wants to pull blue card for Personal Fitness, EnviroSci, PerMgt and all three citizenships, the anwser is going to be "No" followed by a nice chat about his journey through Scouting, smelling roses and the Tenderfoot requirements.

 

Advancement isn't like backpacking. If you earn Personal Management as a 12 year old, you're done. No one goes back and re-earns it as a 17 year old, this time on a steeper, longer trail. And even though the requirements are the same, there is a difference between earning a badge at 11 vs. 17. If we allow or encourage our Scouts to blow through the requirements at 11, 12 or 13, we've taken the advancement leg out from under the stool. We have one less tool for keeping an older Scout interested in the program. The number of 13-year-old Eagles who stick with the program for another five years are as rare as hens' teeth (and I know of what I speak as I stare at one of those young Eagles in the shaving mirror.) And even looking at my own Scouting career and all the fun stuff I did as 14-, 15- or 16-year-old Eagle Scout, one thing I did not do was to learn from the advancement program from the perspective of an older Scout.

 

Regarding participation. I was hopeful the new advancement guide's provision for allowing troops to set reasonable expectations for attendance would be a step in the right direction. It's not. It's the same policy as before, they've just taken two pages of smoke and mirrors to get around to it. The devil is in the details. Troops can set expectations, but as Calico points out, a Scout can cobble together six months of activity any way the like. Show up late and leave early for one troop meeting -- I can count that as a whole week active, right? Or if I'm generally good person, I can count being on the baseball team or attending church as being an active Scout. That's rediculous.

 

Kudu is on the right track, but I don't think we watered down the actual requirements so much as we've created an environment in which they are meaningless. Active doesn't mean active, active means do whatever the hell you want and we'll figure out a way to make it count. We haven't watered them down so much as we've lawyered them into absurdity. (No offense intend, Beav and NJ.)

 

Fred is correct that we do want to our Scouts to apply the lessons of Scouting to their every-day life. I've preached that sermon a number of times. But twisting that to mean other experiences are a substitute for the Scouting program is nuts. So let's take that to it's absurd end -- send district advancement chairmen to every high school graduation ceremony this week and have them hand Eagles to all the JROTC graduates or anyone else deemed to be Scoutlike. Sure, we'll need to do some of that box-checking with which we are so adept, but we can substitute high school civics for the citizenship badges, health classes cover First Aid and Family Life, etc. If we're going to substitue "life experiences" for active membership, why not make these other substitutions?

 

Why not? Because it's not Scouting. As someone else wrote, if they are being honored with the highest award in Scouting, they need to be committed to Scouting. Someone else ask how you write requirements which do that on a consistent basis? Easy. First, we start to look a re-building the advancement program so that Eagle isn't targeted to 14 year olds. We put time-in-service requirements back in the T-2-1 program. Require two Positions of Responsibility for Eagle, one of which should be a LEADERSHIP position, not manager. Heck, add another rank between First Class and Star -- now THERE'S and idea.

 

Secondly, we get rid of the check-box mentality and the folks in Irving who think that any requirement should be doable by an 11 year old. We quit looking for ways to solve every little problem with an exemption -- an exemption which gets twisted as an exception for everyone. Take fire building -- I understand there are some areas of the country under permanent fire bans. In those cases it is reasonable to allow a Scout to complete the requirement without lighting the fire. But instead of a reasonable exemption to solve a specific problem, sooner or later we'll have a kid who wants to build a model of a camp fire instead of building a for-real fire and half you guys lecturing me about "adding to the requirement" for not accepting it.

 

Last, we start building a culture were excellence is rewarded. Promote Beavah's idea that character is the goal of Scouting, not making advancement goals. Emphasize learning and mastery, not merely completion.

[ParkMan]

Should there be an age requirement to Eagle?

 

If the Eagle age requirement were 16, then you could measure that a boy achieved some percentage attendance over the course of his scouting experience. That would then help eliminate cases like this - a boy could not just disappear for 4 years and still meet the attendance requirement. It also would eliminate the cases where a 14 year old earns Eagle to never be seen again.

 

However, there is no age requirement - and as such, I agree with others. As long as a boy fulfills the minimal requirements, we can't prevent him from earning it - no matter how uncomfortable it may seem.