Late In Life Eagle

[John-in-KC]

This is trending.  You can also find a version at scoutingnewsroom, but my isp is not friendly to that ip/domain.

 

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2015/06/14/3768685_boy-scout-finds-eagle-application.html?rh=1

 

Gist of the story:

 

Scout completes requirements before age 18.

 

Unit screws up the paperwork.

 

Eventually, a copy of the app is found.  Submitted through Council to National.

 

National, under current Advancement policy, decides the breakdown is on the adult side of matters, not the youth.

 

National authorizes an EBOR.

 

Old Scouter earns Eagle.

[Gone]

The report I read was that he was 15 when he completed his Eagle requirements. Three years to get an EBOR and the paperwork straightened out is enough. What was he doing for three years? What were his parents doing?

 

I know a guy who quit scouts at 16 having done everything but his EBOR (silly, right?). Should HE be allowed to petition for his Eagle?

 

National is not one for drawing lines and keeping them drawn.

[SSScout]

"ALWAYS keep copies of paperwork until the deed is completed or your grandchildren are no longer interested".

[NJCubScouter]

Bad Wolf, if the guy you know actually completed ALL the requirements before he turned 18, including the Scoutmaster Conference, and has the paperwork to show it, he can probably do the same thing. But I wonder, who would sign the application on behalf of the troop? The 105-year-old long-retired SM and CC? And this article leaves me puzzled as to whether this person's application had the SM/CC signatures from that time. If yes, how did it then end up in Mom's attic? And if not, why is it the "golden bullet"?

[Gone]

Bad Wolf, if the guy you know actually completed ALL the requirements before he turned 18, including the Scoutmaster Conference, and has the paperwork to show it, he can probably do the same thing. But I wonder, who would sign the application on behalf of the troop? The 105-year-old long-retired SM and CC? And this article leaves me puzzled as to whether this person's application had the SM/CC signatures from that time. If yes, how did it then end up in Mom's attic? And if not, why is it the "golden bullet"?

 

He knows he could push the issue. He's come to terms with the fact he dropped the ball and is living with the consequences. It has made him one helluva scouter. He's making up for the fact he didn't get Eagle by getting all the training and experience he can in nearly everything else offered to adults.

 

He laughs when he reads stuff like this. How can three years go by and NO ONE -- not even the then scout -- does anything to push this issue? 50 years later we award it? Just too comical.

[packsaddle]

So: many years ago one of our faculty literally dropped dead one morning as he was brushing his teeth...massive stroke. Not married, no children, distant (in terms of distance) relatives. So the dept scrambled to get others to 'stand in' and finish his courses, etc., and in the process pretty much neglected everything else.

Then, years later, another faculty member recognized a guy who is working at a fast food place. The guy had been a graduate student of the dead faculty member. He had assumed that since his advisor was deceased his degree was over and that was that.

What is the path to fairness in this situation? Do we just accept that the former student had made his decision and was reconciled with the outcome ... and do nothing to help him? Or do we take into account that he did a huge amount of work and merely needed to submit the thesis, inform him that it is still possible to get his degree, and help him with the process so he can graduate?

This is also a real-life story. What path would a good scout take if he discovered this former student and had the ability to help him?

[Gone]

So: many years ago one of our faculty literally dropped dead one morning as he was brushing his teeth...massive stroke. Not married, no children, distant (in terms of distance) relatives. So the dept scrambled to get others to 'stand in' and finish his courses, etc., and in the process pretty much neglected everything else.

Then, years later, another faculty member recognized a guy who is working at a fast food place. The guy had been a graduate student of the dead faculty member. He had assumed that since his advisor was deceased his degree was over and that was that.

What is the path to fairness in this situation? Do we just accept that the former student had made his decision and was reconciled with the outcome ... and do nothing to help him? Or do we take into account that he did a huge amount of work and merely needed to submit the thesis, inform him that it is still possible to get his degree, and help him with the process so he can graduate?

This is also a real-life story. What path would a good scout take if he discovered this former student and had the ability to help him?

 

You had an adult, in a graduate program, too stupid to go to the Dean and ask, "What happens now that Mr. Smith is dead?" 

 

C'mon, really? At what point in our lives to we step up and take personal accountability for our action and our destiny, rather than to blindly slough around waiting for others to save us from ourselves?

 

In your scenario, the guy is an adult. He was in a graduate program -- I hope to God not in medicine, law or anything where peoples' lives were at stake -- and he didn't have the brains to ask another prof, department head, dean, counselor or fellow students what he's supposed to do? Sorry, he got what he deserved...no degree. His fault. Oh well.

 

As to this 65 year-old Scout, I blame the parents and him. THREE YEARS they sat around wondering what happens now? C'mon, people!! 

 

I really meant to buy Apple in 1978. I should call my broker and tell him that I really meant too, I was just too lazy to do anything about it back then but I'd love to buy now at 1978 prices. 

[packsaddle]

So...a good scout would do nothing to help? Is that your answer?

[Gone]

So...a good scout would do nothing to help? Is that your answer?

My answer is what I said above. I don't see that being a good scout running contrary to holding one responsible for their actions/inactions.

 

If you use the "what would a good scout do" excuse one could wiggle their way in to ANY missed opportunity. Where do you draw the line when you do that?

 

A good scout knows when to draw the line. People learn a hard lesson and move on. What you propose is the academic equivalent of helicopter parenting.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[desertrat77]

Always a bit of mystery in these scenarios.  

 

For an Eagle that misses the age-18-goal-line, for one reason or another, I'd err on the side of mercy.   Not too much, just a bit, particularly if it was a paperwork snafu.   The BSA is not known for its administrative brilliance.  

 

But Bad Wolf raises a good point re the case at hand...what was happening in the ensuing three years after the submission?

 

For the grad student who ended up at the fast food joint, I concur with Bad Wolf on this as well.  It does not speak highly of the former student, nor of the school.   A grad student--not an 18 year old freshman wandering around with a map of the school, wondering where his classes are being held--but someone who has a BA/BS shows up to class one day, no prof, and what happens?   The school doesn't communicate with the grad student, the grad student doesn't make an appointment with a counsellor or dept chair to ask 'what's next?'...he just drifts away?  Sadly, it just reinforces an old stereotype about the cloistered nature of academia....

Edited June 18, 2015 by desertrat77

[packsaddle]

Then the answer is 'no' and in both of your views a good scout encountering this kind of situation would do nothing. Actually given the condemnation I'm reading here, 'nothing' is mild in comparison, lol.

So who benefits from the decision to do nothing?

Would 'help' in this situation provide benefit to anyone? Who 'loses' or is 'harmed' by providing the help?

[Gone]

Then the answer is 'no' and in both of your views a good scout encountering this kind of situation would do nothing. Actually given the condemnation I'm reading here, 'nothing' is mild in comparison, lol.

So who benefits from the decision to do nothing?

Would 'help' in this situation provide benefit to anyone? Who 'loses' or is 'harmed' by providing the help?

Why not let the guy who has 5 months and 30 days and not six months of leadership a pass? Why not give the guy who has an SMC one day AFTER his 18th a pass?

 

Why is it okay to bend one rule and not another? Where does it end?

[packsaddle]

Or you could answer the question. I am not advocating anything. YOU are advocating doing nothing and I'm merely trying to find out what the benefit is for a good scout not to provide help in a situation like this. Or I'll accept identification of the 'harm' of providing the help. That works too. Answer please.

[qwazse]

Having a brother in this situation (albeit less of a paper trail), I've avoided replying.

So far @@packsaddle's attitude is the one I think he would like to hear.

[Gone]

Or you could answer the question. I am not advocating anything. YOU are advocating doing nothing and I'm merely trying to find out what the benefit is for a good scout not to provide help in a situation like this. Or I'll accept identification of the 'harm' of providing the help. That works too. Answer please.

Asked and answered. The harm is moving the line. Where does it end? When do we say no? You have your answer.