Adult Eagle Rank

[packsaddle]

Anything First Class or beyond is a perfectly honorable way to finish scouting as a boy and any boy who lasts more than a year or so will make First Class. After that, the lust for merit badges takes over.

 

I tell all the parents that finishing at Star or Life is cause for celebration, not shame, because a boy did achieve something significant. AND if he has any regrets about not making Eagle, it is a powerful lesson about seeking a goal and failing, that didn't actually hurt anything...perhaps a better lesson than being pushed through it and achieving an empty award with little personal value or significance.

 

I tell the boys and the parents that after Life, I leave further advancement to the boy. I help if asked, but I do not push or cajole. If they really want it, they will go for it.

 

I say these things because I do not want anyone who was a scout but didn't make Eagle somehow to be stigmatized because of that fact. I am the only leader in this unit to have made Eagle as a boy and aside from a little notoriety, it hasn't made me a better leader than the others by one bit. Nor a better person. Just a little prettier in uniform

 

[epalmer84]

There is a Wikipedia featured article that explains all of these questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Scout_%28Boy_Scouts_of_America%29

 

You might also want to check out Eugene Fluckey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_B._Fluckey

He was awarded the Medal of Honor before he was awarded Eagle.

 

Ed

[epalmer84]

(got a database error on my previous post)

 

Packsaddle:

 

I agree- First Class is the most important rank. Star, Life and Eagle are a bonus. Right now, 5% of Scouts earn Eagle- that leaves 95% who should have gotten something out of the progam. Anyone know the stats on First Class?

[Trevorum]

A interesting article. I also followed the link to Arthur Rose Eldred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rose_Eldred) who was the first Eagle Scout in 1912.

 

Eldred was the first to earn 21 merit badges, at a time when only 141 merit badges had been awarded nationwide! (He had 15% of all MBs in the entire country!).

 

On his Eagle Board of Review sat James E. West, Ernest Thompson Seton, and Daniel Carter Beard. Wow!

 

Eldred's son was an eagle (1944), his grandson is an eagle, and he has three great-grandsons who are working towards Eagle.

[scoutldr]

Interesting about Eugene Fluckey. My dad served under his command on USS BARB, a submarine in the Pacific war.

[acco40]

A little history may help those who think the idea of an adult earning their Eagle is ridiculous.

 

In 1952, age limits were set so that adults could no longer earn Eagle Scout. I believe that one of the reasons age restrictions were lifted were so servicemen (both my mother and father were serving in the US Navy at 17 years old during WWII) who fought in WWII could earn the rank after they returned.

[Oak Tree]

Ed,

 

I don't know how many boys earn First Class, but I've got to believe it's a substantial majority.

 

I do know that way more than 5% of boys earn Eagle, and every time I hear someone repeat that bogus information it grates on my nerves. It's on the official BSA site, too, so it's not you - it's the National organization that isn't very trustworthy with their information. About 50,000 out of one million Scouts will earn Eagle this year. And another 50,000 will earn it next year, too. It will be a different 50,000, but it won't be a different million boys. Most of the potential pool will be the same. Without knowing how long the average boy stays in Scouts, it's not possible to tell what percentage of boys really earns Eagle, but I'm betting it's more like 15-20%. Still a significant achievement, but not as rare as it's portrayed.

 

Oak Tree

[BrentAllen]

Oak Tree,

Your math on the percentages is wrong. That 1 million Scouts will change somewhere around 1/4 each year. There are over 660,000 Webelos, a little less than half will be Webelos II's. A high number of them will at least cross over and try Boy Scouts. Even those who join and only attend one meeting are counted in determining the percentage. With all those Webelos II's coming in, and the overall number staying around 1 million, that means an equal number must age out or drop out each year. So, for the sake of this argument, let's assume there are 250,000 coming in new each year. My guess is the average age of Scouts earning Eagles is 15, taking them 4 years to earn the rank. If so, there will be close to 1 million new Scouts (250,000 x 4 years) join during those 4 years, in addition to the 1 million who were in when the Scout first started as an 11 year old. That means there have probably been close to 2 million different boys in the Boy Scouts during the 4 years it took a 15 year old to earn Eagle. My numbers come out to 2.5%, which may be low, but give credence to the 5% figure.

 

For your numbers to hold up, the boys would have to be earning Eagle in one or two years, which isn't happening.

 

Why do some people just assume the BSA is lying about everything? If I felt that way, I wouldn't be a part of this organization.

[jg0017]

An older adult scout who has attended the National Camping School tells me that Green Bar Bill earned his Eagle as an adult. I can or can not verify this fact.

 

 

[Cubmaster Randy]

 

 

In addition to being a Danish Knight-Scout, Hillcourt is also an Eagle Scout, having been allowed to work on Scouting advancements prior to a rule change in the 1950's that only allowed Scouts under the age of 18 to become Eagle Scouts. Hilcourt was later recognized with the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award.

 

[Oak Tree]

Brent,

 

Ok, let's use your numbers. There are 250,000 new Scouts each year. Each year 50,000 Scouts earn Eagle. That means that 20% of Scouts are earning Eagle. Look at it long-term - over 10 years that would be 2.5 million Scouts, and 500,000 Eagles. Or over 100 years it would be 25 million Scouts, and 5 million Eagles. If I should happen to have my math wrong, I'll gladly admit it. But trust me on this one - I don't very often have my math wrong.

 

The flaw in your argument is that the 2 million boys you mention joined over a period of 8 years. But you only count the number of Eagles earned in 1 of those years. If you counted the Eagles from all 8 years as well, you'd have 400,000 Eagles earned, which is 20% of the 2 million. It's not all the same boys - some of the Eagles came from boys who joined before the period in question - but some of the boys who joined will go on to earn Eagle in a later period. It will all balance out to 20%.

 

I do not assume that BSA is "lying about everything." I do think that they are lying about this, and I wish they wouldn't. For symbolic purposes, I know that they can't just change the wording to make it sound all that much easier - but they could state something like "Only 5% of Scouts earn Eagle each year."

 

There are previous threads on this topic. If you were to search them (I can't get search to work right now) I can assure you that you'd find that I'm not the only one who sees a problem with the stated numbers.

 

Just my pet peeve.

 

Oak Tree

[BrentAllen]

Oak Tree,

You are still only counting one part of then entire set of Scouts - you have to count both - the existing Scouts and the Scouts that enter and leave in a year.

 

Just for the sake of clarity, let's assume Scouting started in the year 2000. There are 1 million Scouts, from ages 11 - 17, but all are Tenderfoots. In 2001, 250,000 new Scouts enter and the same number age out (the number of total Scouts doesn't change much each year, correct?). We now have some Scouts who have reached First Class, and the total set of Scouts has grown from 1 million to 1,250,000. In the year 2002, we have the same change - 250,000 new Webelos join, and the same number leaves. We now have some Star and Life Scouts, and the total set of boys who were Scouts has grown to 1,500,000. Now it is 2003, and our first 50,0000 Eagles are earned. We have the same change, with 250,000 new Scouts in and 250,000 out, keeping the ranks at 1 million for the year. But the number of boys who have been in Scouting while these 50,000 earned their Eagle is 2 million. In 2004, the same will happen - 50,000 earn Eagle, but none of these are boys that just joined in 2004. It takes 4 years to earn Eagle, so you have to count the total number of boys who have entered and left during those 4 years. This pattern will repeat itself over and over again.

 

Another way to look at it. Imagine marbles laid out on the floor in the following pattern, representing each age group in Scouts, and each marble represents 10,000 Scouts, for a total of 1 million.

17 - 4

16 - 7

15 - 10

14 - 14

13 - 18

12 - 22

11 - 25

 

Now, picture a second group of marbles, which are those that drop out. Each year, a new group of 25 comes in at the bottom. As the kids move up in age, a number of them will drop out - correct? We know from looking at the numbers that the total number of boys in Scouts each year remains almost constant. Count the number of marbles moved to the drop out group (25-22, 22-18, etc...) and you come up with 21. Those were kids who were in Scouts, but never reached Eagle. You have to count them, along with the 1 million that are still in. Add another group of 25 at the bottom for another year, and subtract out those who dropped out, and add them to the drop out group. You are now up to 42 for the second year. It takes a Scout at least 4 years to earn Eagle, most are probably around 5 or 6 years. In those years, there will be 1 million boys (100 marbles) that entered and dropped out, in addition to the 1 million that are still in during a given year. It will be the same for the 50,000 Eagles that earn the rank next year. You have to count the number of boys that stayed in, and all the boys that dropped out from the time the Eagle first joined Scouts, 4, 5 or 6 years earlier. You have to count both groups of marbles for the period of time it took the Scout to earn Eagle.

[packsaddle]

I think both of your arguments have merit. If you think about this in terms of production of crops, for example, Brent's approach is to relate each crop of eagles to the current standing crop. This is a snapshot of total enrollment and that proportion of the total that matured that year. I think this is a sound approach as long as the parameters are well-defined.

Alternatively, the production can be viewed in fluid terms. If there is a net influx of scouts each year, balanced by the outgoing scouts, then the proportion of that flux that is represented by eagles is the view proposed by Oak Tree. This is also a sound approach but because for each view the parameters are different, it is difficult to compare them.

 

As for me, I tend to think in Brent's terms because at any moment I tend to see the current standing crop and the the eagles that are produced during that year. And the 5% figure seems about right under those conditions. But, I have to ask, why are we arguing about this anyway?

[FScouter]

What were trying to measure with the Eagle percentage is the percent of boys that attained the Eagle rank during their tenure as Boy Scouts. Out of a group of Scouts, what percentage earn the Eagle rank?

 

Look at all the boys that left Scouting. It doesnt matter whether they aged out or quit early. Now look at the rank they attained when they left. How many earned Eagle? The calculation is very simple; the number of Eagles that left Scouting divided by the total number of boys that left.

[BrentAllen]

I don't know, pack - I guess we ran out of other subjects to argue about. :-) Do you know of any Troops where 15 - 20% of the boys earn Eagle? I sure don't.