Scout non-responsive to Life BoR questions; fails BoR; passes new BoR outside his unit

[mashmaster]

So in Sea Scouts it is a Bridge of Review performed by the scouts.  We have an adult in the room but the scouts are much harder in their questions that Adults.  We commonly have to tell them they aren't there to re-test the scout.  But the scout is usually much more responsive to the other scouts and rolls with the questions than I have seen in troop situations where they feel they are being grilled by the adults.  

A lot of times it is perspective about who the scout is talking to.  For Quarterdeck it is Adults like it is for Eagle and the scouts are much more nervous.  And this is the easiest requirement of all, but it is really nerve wracking for them.  

I wish that the youth were involved in the Boards of review in Troops as well.  IMHO

The Skippers conference or Scoutmaster conference is easy because they usually already have a strong repertoire with the scout and it always starts with "this isn't a conference it is a conversation"  I can see the stress leave their body once I say that. 

[fred8033]

7 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

I wish that the youth were involved in the Boards of review in Troops as well.  IMHO

After years of my arguing, I'm flipping sides.   I'd like to see youth run/staffed BORs too.  Troop adults get much value out of the BORs.  It's often uncomfortable and clumsy.  But, there could be lots of value having scouts listen to one of their own give them feedback.  Perhaps one or two adults sitting at a distance, but within hearing range.  It opens conversations between the scouts.  It creates connections.  It also would help an 11 year old feel comfortable talking to a 16/17 year old.  etc, etc, etc.  

I will respect, salute and fulfil the GTA rules, but I'd like to see it changed. 

Edited November 2, 2022 by fred8033

[mashmaster]

1 minute ago, fred8033 said:

After years of my arguing, I'm beginning to flip sides.  Troop adults get much value out of the BORs.  It's often uncomfortable and clumsy.  But, there could be lots of value having scouts listen to one of their own give them feedback.  Perhaps one or two adults sitting at a distance, but within hearing range.  It opens conversations between the scouts.  It creates connections.  It also would help an 11 year old feel comfortable talking to a 16/17 year old.  etc, etc, etc.  

Agreed, it is truly youth led.  Have adults in the back listen is great.  I might even say, maybe a mix of older youth and adults for the board.  I just think having "adults" be the board, doesn't enforce to the scouts that it is youth led.  So IDK, I just like having the youth more involved at all levels.

[qwazse]

53 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

After years of my arguing, I'm flipping sides.   I'd like to see youth run/staffed BORs too.  ...

 

49 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

Agreed, it is truly youth led.  Have adults in the back listen is great.  I might even say, maybe a mix of older youth and adults for the board ...   So IDK, I just like having the youth more involved at all levels.

How about a committee lead by SPLs to review adults before earning their "trained" patch?

[FireStone]

On 10/4/2022 at 9:14 PM, mtgavin said:

1) Was it acceptable and proper for the BoR to decline advancing the Scout to Life Rank since the Scout would not answer standard well-intentioned questions such as those found in the Guide to Advancement (#33088), when given every opportunity to do so? I've read the Guide to Advancement thoroughly and I believe the answer is yes, but it seems murky.

Even at the most basic level of participating in the BoR, it seems the scout did not fulfill that requirement.

The content, tone, or delivery of the questions almost doesn't matter. If there was basically no participation by the scout, regardless of how the board felt about his responses he really did not "complete" a BoR.

The requirement doesn't say "show up and sit there". It says "successfully complete" a BoR.

Even just saying "I'm sorry, I'm a bit nervous," is more useful to a board and can at least initiate a conversation or allow the board to adjust their questions to make the scout more comfortable answering. Saying/doing almost nothing is not really participating in the BoR.

Edited November 2, 2022 by FireStone

[Eagledad]

3 hours ago, qwazse said:

 

How about a committee lead by SPLs to review adults before earning their "trained" patch?

Our ASMs were provided a scout to brief them of the PLC meetings and help train the new ASMs to the troop program on campouts. We created the idea to help the ASMs to work equally with scouts as team members to prevent the common problem of adults treating scouts as youth. We didn’t do a trained patch, but the ASMs were required to get Woods Tools training which was signed off by the scouts.

Barry

[mrjohns2]

4 hours ago, mashmaster said:

 

So in Sea Scouts it is a Bridge of Review performed by the scouts. 

 

Side note. It is no longer a Bridge of Review. It changed last year. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2021/08/02/take-note-of-these-11-key-changes-in-the-2021-guide-to-advancement/amp/

[qwazse]

8 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Side note. It is no longer a Bridge of Review. It changed last year. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2021/08/02/take-note-of-these-11-key-changes-in-the-2021-guide-to-advancement/amp/

There you go reminding us of a scouting-pro's-dozen annual ideas that do nothing to motivate more growth -- be it personal or numeric. 

[mrjohns2]

16 minutes ago, qwazse said:

scouting-pro's-dozen annual ideas that do nothing to motivate more growth

Great point. This happens at times at work where they change the name of tools etc with no real change. I wonder where an idea like this idea gets started and how it gets championed into reality. 

[SiouxRanger]

7 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

This happens at times at work where they change the name of tools etc

You obviously were not on the mailing list of the Bureau Of Pointless Name Changes. Had you been, all would be clear. Just contact Charlie…, no, Bill…-never mind, the name changes at random…

Junior Leader Training is now "NYLT," or some such?

Cub Outdoor Leader training is "Baloo," or some such?

The fundamental principle of communication is that if you are the communicator, it is your responsibility to get you message across to your audience.

If you can't do that, YOU have failed-not your audience.

So, what does "NYLT" mean to a cub or scout parent?

"Baloo?" That projects no meaning to me.  Yeah, and I could cave-in and learn "The Code" and look cool and knowledgeable by keeping up with the trend of meaningless name changes, but I refuse.

How long has Ford, been "Ford?"  Chevrolet, "Chevy?" And the Pope, the "Pope?"

Seems to me that BSA National has frittered its own branding by constantly changing the names of programs that need no name change. And why?

It confuses the scout veterans, and means nothing to new parents.

When Dodge decided to market its "tough" vehicles (maybe a decade ago?), it did not market them as "Millie's Tough Trucks."  But, "Dodge Ram." 

Perhaps the idea of "creating energy" by renaming an existing program? (Though no substantive changes are made?) "We've changed the name, big changes to come…" which never develop.

Something along the line of "We don't have a better idea, so we will just stomp harder to give the impression that we do."

And the lack of change, vision, has failed to produce results.

My council is down 60% in cubs and 35% in scouts. Pretty alarming.

 

[fred8033]

5 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

My council is down 60% in cubs and 35% in scouts. Pretty alarming.

Yeah.  The 60% down in cubs will follow and track to 60% down in troops.  The peaks and valleys can be tracked as they age.  The 911 attack happened during recruiting.  We could see that in numbers for years. 

[mrjohns2]

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Perhaps the idea of "creating energy" by renaming an existing program? (Though no substantive changes are made?) "We've changed the name, big changes to come…" which never develop.

At times it seems to also be an indicator of those “in the know”. A way of creating a clique of those that keep up with the pointless changes. Those people are empowered while all brand equity is thrown out the window. 

[mashmaster]

On 11/2/2022 at 7:59 PM, mrjohns2 said:

Side note. It is no longer a Bridge of Review. It changed last year. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2021/08/02/take-note-of-these-11-key-changes-in-the-2021-guide-to-advancement/amp/

Well that is just idiotic since they are different.  As pointed out they have different members but probably a change made by those in "Tan" that don't understand Sea Scouts.

[Eagle94-A1]

On 11/6/2022 at 12:25 AM, mashmaster said:

Well that is just idiotic since they are different.  As pointed out they have different members but probably a change made by those in "Tan" that don't understand Sea Scouts.

Gott love Mud Scouts.

[Mrjeff]

OK......so it's not acceptable for someone to be turned down for advancement at the BOR.  Then why have one in the first place.  We're not talking about a child were talking about someone who aspires to be a Life Scout. But, if everybody gets a trophy and a first place ribbon for showing up, so be it, but I don't like it.  This is the very reason there are Eagle Scouts who can't light a lantern, or heaven forbid they had to change a mantle.  This is also how so many Scouts strut around with every merit badge and earned them in two years.  Its OK for a kid to be stressed at a BOR........thats how they prepare for their future.  It really helps with job or promotion interviews.   That's my opinion.