What thinks the group?

[Col. Flagg]

Thanks @@NJCubScouter. I suspected what your thoughts were and, wait for it, I have to agree.

 

I'd like to see more of what my cousin calls the "core Scouting skills". Things like cooking, camping, map/compass/orienteering, first aid, personal management, personal fitness, swimming/hiking, lifesaving/eprep, communications and such should continue to be required.

 

As BSA tries to move with the times, I'd like to see subjects like these below become part of the curriculum of required skills:

• fire safety,
• home repair (which would be revamped to cover things like electricity, plumbing, carpentry and other trade skills),  
• digital technology (to include computers, networks, mobile devices, applications, etc),
• soil/water conservation/environmental science,
• weather  

The biggest waste of time for my Scouts are the "citizenship" badges. Can't we lump the major concepts of these three into one badge? If you must have a Cit in the World badge then have it be non-required.

[skeptic]

Without writing too much of a book, and this is really just a compilation of things I have written over the past few years:

 

Generally BSA is afflicted with what I call "good idea syndrome" in which everything that occurs to someone in control as being a "good idea" is put into place either as an advancement requirement or a new "award" without adequate consideration of the consequences.  Some of the consequences of this regarding advancement are:

• There are now 13 Eagle required MB's out of the total of 21, it used to be 11 and maybe even 10 depending on how far back you go.  I think this is out of balance, and it results from the fact that everybody has ideas about what to add to the list, but nobody wants to remove one because they are all "good ideas."  Cooking was a good addition, but BSA National should have made the tough decision to remove one, or two. (Which ones can be discussed in the Advancement section, and it would not be a new discussion there.  Usually those discussions end up ADDING to the list, not reducing it.)  I believe the BSA literature still emphasizes the fact that many Scouts get introduced to their future career through the MB program, but I wonder whether this is as commonplace as it used to be; after all, most of the career-oriented MB's are non-required.  What is the motivation for a kid to earn Journalism or Law MB, for example?  (My son did earn Engineering MB, but he was already pretty much set on that as a career already.)
• In my opinion, the lower-rank requirements have gotten a bit too lengthy, particularly with the 2016 rewrite.  The only example I can think of as I sit here is that for the new Scout rank, a brand new Scout is expected to know the structure of the troop and patrol, different types of patrols, the merit badge system and some other things.  Can't we let the kid get in the door and experience how things work before we make him explain them?  What's the rush?  It's not a BAD thing, but it isn't really necessary in my opinion.
• This is closely related to my first point, and it is summed up in a phrase often seen here, "homework badges."  Citizenship is very important.  Personal finance/management is very important.  Communications is very important.  But when you add together all these "good ideas", the "outdoor badges" as well as the non-required hobby and career MB's get overwhelmed. 
• We recently had a comparison of the 1911 and 2017 requirements for Camping MB, which showed among other things that there has been a massive addition of verbiage without a corresponding improvement in how much you know about camping when you're done.  (And arguably a negative impact since the number of nights camping has gone down from 50 to 20, and as we have seen in recent threads, there is quite a bit of amateur lawyering done about how you count the 20.)  I am not saying we should go back to 1911, but I do think some of the required MB's could use some simplification.  Again, almost all the requirements are "good ideas", but are they all necessary?

I could go on but I think I've made my point, and it ended up being a book anyway.  

It once was; they called it Civics.  Surely could go back to that with a bit of work and maybe even see them understand the interconnections more easily.

[TAHAWK]

Without writing too much of a book, and this is really just a compilation of things I have written over the past few years:

 

Generally BSA is afflicted with what I call "good idea syndrome" in which everything that occurs to someone in control as being a "good idea" is put into place either as an advancement requirement or a new "award" without adequate consideration of the consequences.  Some of the consequences of this regarding advancement are:

• There are now 13 Eagle required MB's out of the total of 21, it used to be 11 and maybe even 10 depending on how far back you go.  I think this is out of balance, and it results from the fact that everybody has ideas about what to add to the list, but nobody wants to remove one because they are all "good ideas."  Cooking was a good addition, but BSA National should have made the tough decision to remove one, or two. (Which ones can be discussed in the Advancement section, and it would not be a new discussion there.  Usually those discussions end up ADDING to the list, not reducing it.)  I believe the BSA literature still emphasizes the fact that many Scouts get introduced to their future career through the MB program, but I wonder whether this is as commonplace as it used to be; after all, most of the career-oriented MB's are non-required.  What is the motivation for a kid to earn Journalism or Law MB, for example?  (My son did earn Engineering MB, but he was already pretty much set on that as a career already.)
• In my opinion, the lower-rank requirements have gotten a bit too lengthy, particularly with the 2016 rewrite.  The only example I can think of as I sit here is that for the new Scout rank, a brand new Scout is expected to know the structure of the troop and patrol, different types of patrols, the merit badge system and some other things.  Can't we let the kid get in the door and experience how things work before we make him explain them?  What's the rush?  It's not a BAD thing, but it isn't really necessary in my opinion.
• This is closely related to my first point, and it is summed up in a phrase often seen here, "homework badges."  Citizenship is very important.  Personal finance/management is very important.  Communications is very important.  But when you add together all these "good ideas", the "outdoor badges" as well as the non-required hobby and career MB's get overwhelmed. 
• We recently had a comparison of the 1911 and 2017 requirements for Camping MB, which showed among other things that there has been a massive addition of verbiage without a corresponding improvement in how much you know about camping when you're done.  (And arguably a negative impact since the number of nights camping has gone down from 50 to 20, and as we have seen in recent threads, there is quite a bit of amateur lawyering done about how you count the 20.)  I am not saying we should go back to 1911, but I do think some of the required MB's could use some simplification.  Again, almost all the requirements are "good ideas", but are they all necessary?

I could go on but I think I've made my point, and it ended up being a book anyway.  

 

And that has been done to training - more good ideas added with a reduction in the time allocated for the course.  The "goals" in the syllabii are wholly unrealistic given the time available.  

 

One goal for one of the sessions is that the participants should be familiar with thirty-one pages of the Handbook.  There are nine other goals for this 75 minute session - all good things to know.

 

To Woods Tools has been added the goal: "Explain the role of adult leaders in ensuring a safe environment for Scouting."  One of nine goals in this 60 minute session.

 

All taught in interactive discussion using EDGE.

 

BSA pretends this material can be covered in the time allocated and the councils pretend that it has been covered.  The staff knows otherwise.

[NJCubScouter]

@@TAHAWK, you know, if the CSE ever does visit one of our troops, we could ask him what a "kind" of animal is.

[MattR]

I could go on but I think I've made my point, and it ended up being a book anyway.  

Here's a shorter, slightly different version: decide what the maximum amount of describe, discuss, and explain should be for any rank or MB, and then stick to it. Hint #1, it should be a lot less than what it is now. Hint #2: kids like to do.

 

It seems that each of T21 class have had an added page of requirements, not to mention Scout rank, without any increase in hands on skills. MBs are worse. It's a giant buzz kill. And, to get back to the OP, it makes summer camp boring.

[Stosh]

While I have all young scouts in my troop, NONE of them picked an Eagle required MB for this year's summer camp.  I think it's great. It's a new camp for them, they will be doing all their own cooking, no mess hall, and taking easy MBs, it can't get any better than that.

[TAHAWK]

@@TAHAWK, you know, if the CSE ever does visit one of our troops, we could ask him what a "kind" of animal is.

"Wild" and "native" first.  

[DuctTape]

I agree. Those in the role of making changes to literature and program need to be acutely aware of how it affects the scouts. 50% of their time should be in this capacity outside of their office and in the field. All should also be required to complete Scout to FC requirements, all of them not just the "options".

[Stosh]

It is my opinion that those creating requirements for the scouts think in the idealistic scout.  What every scout should be able to accomplish in terms of the basics of being highly successful in the woods.  However, with that being said there is also a practical side to the issue. 

 

If BSA touts FC first year, then all the requirements need to be oriented towards 11 year old boys, not some super scout on the verge of taking on more challenging activities.  How many boys at that age can distinguish between a native plant and an invasive plant?  If it is unrealistic for an 11 year old to do so, the requirement needs to state, Identify 10 plants.  I will guarantee it more practical for a boy to identify 10 edible plants, whether they be in a garden or in the woods.   Same for animals.  I know of people who have skunks as pets, same for rabbits.  Does the average 11 year old know the difference between a domestic rabbit and a wild cottontail? 

 

Now, I'm not advocating dumbing down the requirements, but they should offer the 11 year old an introduction into the subject, not a mastery of it. 

 

With that being said, the Eagle MB's should be the next step beyond that.  Sure we have cooking, swimming, first aid as part of the S-FC requirements, but then add a deeper understanding of those subjects once the boys gets through the basics of FC.  Teach basic first aid in the FC level of an 11 year old. then expand on that in the Eagle MB, same for cooking, swimming and other subjects that introduce the subject to spark their interest to go on to a deeper understanding on the MB level.

 

As a side note, NONE of these extended, in depth should be offered at summer camp unless the boy is at an age and skill level to be able to handle it.  Maybe after the boy takes a nature or ecology MB, he will be able to distinguish between a native and an invasive plant and would be able to feed himself in the woods with edible plants.  Wouldn't it be more of a challenge for the boys to provide a meal of edible woodland plants than cooking dinner for the family while taking the cooking MB?  Same for the challenge of Wilderness First Aid as a MB?  These things can be handled by a 15 year old and are far more practical in the long run.

 

BSA goes to great lengths to make activities age appropriate, but with it comes to S->FC, most of that goes out the window.