Eagle Scout statistics

[FScouter]

Agreed. Boys that JOINED A TROOP is the number that must be used if one is looking to support or refute the percentage BSA has stated. Other numbers result in different percentages, which explains why we've heard everything from 2% to 40% with accusations that BSA is lying and untrustworthy.

 

By the way Miki101, you could support the credibility of your numbers by quoting the source.

[Miki101]

National Archives

[Beavah]

The numbers went down a lot as you go farther back. In 1981, the 1,000,000th Eagle was given and the cumulative membership was 46,107,939. That makes the percentage 2.17%.

 

Yah, sure, Miki. That may be true. It's certainly the case that more boys percentage-wise are earnin' Eagle than ever before.

 

But FScouter set the criterion eh? He says "Take any 100 boys that join a troop. By the time they quit or age out, 5 will have earned the Eagle rank." That's a current number, eh? Of the boys who join a troop right now, how many will earn Eagle?

 

Based on your numbers, between 1981 and 2004 there were 4.9M unique Boy Scouts/Venturers, and 600K new Eagles. So for that 23 year period, the Eagle percentage was 12%. Higher if you take the girls out of Venturing/Exploring. Since the percent of Eagles as a function of total membership rose during that period, it's perfectly reasonable to guess that the current figure is above 15%.

 

Even so, your early figures don't pass the "sniff test" at first blush. They would make the from-inception Eagle percentage more than five times lower than the current figure. That would mean in the early years the Eagle rate would have been somethin' like 15 to 20 times lower than it is now. We're talkin' fractions of a percent for several decades. I'd be inclined to check da source of the numbers, eh?

 

But if they're accurate, then usin' the low percentage to imply how hard it is to earn Eagle now is da mother of all cow pie salesmanship.

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[FScouter]

Well Miki101, it looks like the ball is in your court now to support the totals youve presented. Numbers right, wrong, or misinterpreted, Id have to say that any purported connection between Scouting and the sale of cow pies is really disgusting.

 

Im really troubled that various Scouters feel the need to dispute a simple statement by our national organization.

[Oak Tree]

I must admit, I've been treating the percent as a current figure. On the web site it says, "Not every boy who joins a troop earns the Eagle Scout rank, only about 5 percent of all Boys Scouts do so." To me, the word 'joins' sort of implies that a boy joining now would expect to have a 5 percent success rate, although I'm sure a lawyer could parse it otherwise.

 

When about 2% of registered Scouts were earning Eagle in a given year, I heard that 2% of all Scouts will earn Eagle. When it was 3%, I heard that 3% of all Scouts will earn Eagle. When it was 4% of registered Scouts who earned Eagle, I heard that 4% of all Scouts will earn Eagle. Now 5% of registered Scouts are earning Eagle in a given year, and National says that 5% of all Scouts will earn Eagle. It has always seemed relatively clear to me that this statement was derived by dividing the number of Eagles by the number of registered Scouts. And I felt that misrepresented the real likelihood of making Eagle.

 

Miki does provide an interesting alternate interpretation, though. Those numbers show a 3% historical average. Since 1981 they show a 12% average. If we had the list (I presume it's not available on-line anywhere), I'll bet we'd see an even higher percentage for the last 5 years.

 

One interesting thing about that 3% number is that it is not what National is currently claiming, either. If they were using this methodology, it would still be misleading if they used it to represent the current likelihood of getting Eagle, but they could argue the historical basis.

 

I also had Beavah's initial reaction to the numbers. That total membership number seems high for 1910 to 1981. According to that statistic, there were over 46 million unique members in the first 71 years, so BSA was signing up an average of 650,000 boys per year over the entire period. Then from 1981 to 2004, we added 4.9 million over 23 years, for an average of 213,000 per year. Now I know Scouts was more popular in the past, but that seems pretty high. The number of births in the U.S. from 1910 to 1945 was under 3 million per year, and half those were girls. From '45 on, it ballpark averaged around 4 million. So BSA signed up around 35% of all boys born in the U.S. for 71 years. Maybe so. But that's the average - there would have to be a number of years where it was above average. I'd love to see the entire table of number of new members by year, total membership by year, and the number of Eagles by year.

 

There were decades where the number of Eagles was under 10,000 per year - 20's, 30's, 40's, I'm guessing. Miki can probably fill in for sure. But that would suggest that there were indeed many years where the percentage of registered Scouts who earned Eagle would have been well below 1%.

 

I still hold that BSA is misrepresenting the likelihood of current boys earning Eagle, but I'll keep the historical interpretation in mind. And when I see articles (every Eagle article, just about) that says somewhere between 2-5% of boys earn Eagle, I'll just remind myself that that hasn't been true for at least a generation (25 yrs).

 

And I'm not sure it's all that reassuring to know that it's now 10-20x more likely for a boy to get Eagle.

 

Oak Tree

(This message has been edited by Oak Tree)

[Miki101]

"Even so, your early figures don't pass the "sniff test" at first blush."

 

Sorry Beavah, those are the numbers...for right or wrong. I stand by my statements. Prove me wrong with the facts. Why don't you just visit the Archives and go get 'em yourself.

 

Not that it really matters at this point but does the fact the there were about 50 Eagles in the first 6 years make a difference to you? That does skew to average down a bit doesn't it? (9 a year average to 50,000 a year) I'll go fetch those membership numbers for you next week if this thread lasts that long. I just don't understand what all the fuss is about. Is it really that big of a deal?

 

Oh, I suggest that you give another go at your "sniffer" and prove me wrong with facts. Sounds like to need to make a visit to the Federal census stats.

 

And I'll look forward to the results of your research.

 

And as for your "Cow pie salesmanship" comment - how crude.

 

[SSScout]

miki101: You and your classmates have finally reached the REAL answer. The design of a statistical study will ultimately determine the result, raw data not withstanding.

 

The base Eagle rate is 1.98%.(and I don't think that reflects the elimination of boys who join LATE in the game, and could not possibly earn Eagle before age 18).

Now, one must establish a rate of change over the years. so EACH year must be calculated (potential Eagles/ Eagle awarded) per year and the rate of change over the past 90 years (dE/dY ?) calculated. If the rate is highly positive (I would expect) then either (1) the awards are more attractive (more Scouts decide they WANT it), or (2)Scouts are becoming more capable (smarter?) or (3)the awards are being made easier (merit badge mills, excessive "coaching", pushy parents, accomodating MB counselors) or (4)the EBOR/judges (called "gatekeepers" in another thread) are being more complacent.

 

Anyone discern any other possibilities?

 

 

[Beavah]

Sorry Beavah, those are the numbers...for right or wrong.

 

Yah, it's a sniff test, eh? To stay mentally awake, a good scout always keeps a bit of skepticism about numbers he gets from any "authoritative" source. Mistakes get made even by archivists. And as we've learned from Enron and Worldcom and Atlanta Council and Greater Alabama Council and Crater Lake Council, some folks just cheat.

 

As Oak Tree points out, da claim your numbers make is that from the founding of the BSA 'til 1981, the BSA averaged three times as many members in any given year as it has now. From the BSA web site, we find out that from the founding until sometime after 1935 (the first 25 years), the membership in troops was lower than it is at present (1935 was when BSA total membership hit 1M, but that included the new cub program). So when we take those years out, the remaining years from 1936 to 1981 the BSA had to sign up on average 890,000 boys per year. In other words, we had to be admitting each year a number of scouts pretty close to our entire current membership.

 

Naturally, in the years close to 1935 and 1981 the number would have to be much smaller to avoid a discontinuity, so that means there really should be about a 20 year stretch where we were admitting over 1.5M boys to troops per year - about 5 times the current figure. Given that the total BSA membership during the "heydays" of the 60's didn't get above 2 times the current total membership, this seems very unlikely.

 

I can't figure where the error is without knowin' the data collection method, eh? Mebbe your archive figures used sales of the Scout Handbook rather than registrations durin' the early years. Mebbe an archivist confused total membership with troop membership for some period. And maybe I'm all wet, and the big membership spike in the 50s and 60s really was enough to get to those numbers. But on the surface, there's a reason for skepticism, eh? They don't pass a "ballpark audit."

 

Yah, as to cow pies, well, I'm with Oak Tree. When we take an Oath and promise to be Trustworthy, it means not misrepresentin' our figures. Even with your numbers, the Eagle % doesn't match the BSA's published figure, and the current % is well up into the teens or higher. As we see here, doin' so does disservice to a lot of good volunteers who care. So an honorable man blows da whistle, and calls a spade a spade. Or a cow pie a cow pie. When you've got friends walkin' through a field, best to tell 'em where not to step, eh?(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[John-in-KC]

SSScout:

 

5) The trail to Eagle itself has been modified over the years.

I was a youth member from 1968 to 1974 (a bit after 11 to a bit after 17).

For STAR: 5 Merit Badges, ONE must be Eagle Required.

For LIFE: 10 Merit Badges, FOUR must be Eagle Required.

 

The Scout has a substantial uphill portion of his trail to Eagle.

 

Look at our current (2000) requirements:

For STAR: 6 Merit Badges, FOUR must be Eagle Required.

For LIFE: 11 Merit Badges, SEVEN must be Eagle Required.

 

The program is designed to have the Scout at trails crest and looking downhill as he achieves Life. Is it possible to make Life and not be at the crest of the trail? Yes. Suppose a Scouts MB list is:

 

Swimming, Lifesaving, First Aid, Emergency Prepardness, Environmental Science, Bicycling, and Hiking.

 

The young man has managed to max out both "pick one" categories in the Eagle List. He still has to earn:

 

Citizenship in the Community/Nation/World

Camping

Communications

Environmental Science

Family Life

Personal Fitness

Personal Management

 

Here the Scout has a total of nine Eagle Required MBs to earn, and yet he is Life. That's an uphill battle.

 

6) We have far more in-troop merit badge counselors. When I was a Scout, I do not remember taking any merit badges from my troop adults. We took First Aid from a local dentist. Can't remember who I took hiking from, but I remember failing Camping on the firsr pass because I couldn't throw a diamond hitch. These days, is there a Scout Reservation in the Nation that does not offer Camping as a routine part of the program?

 

7) Scout camps themselves are designed to get more merit badges in the time you're there. When I was a Scout, NRA youth marksmanship medals were part of the process. Every troop went to the range for an orientation shoot, both with rifle and shotgun. Fundamentals of weapons safety was NOT an option. It was bloody near 1:1 ratio of shooters to staffers, too.

 

Are things better? Worse? Just different? IMO, the redesign of advancement is an improvement. Having watched a few young men achieve Eagle now, the plethora of in-troop counselors probably is not an improvement, we've diluted Adult Association (otoh, youth safety is a far higher concern than it was in the late 60s). Camp programs? They're probably just different.

 

My thoughts.

[Oak Tree]

SSScout,

 

One other possibility in your category #3 is that the merit badges are objectively easier, i.e. the requirements are less demanding.

 

Here are a few examples, comparing the 1949 requirements to today's:

Bird Study

1949 - Identify 40 species of birds

2006 - Identify 20 species of birds

 

Camping

1949 - Camp out 50 days and nights

2006 - Camp out 20 days and nights

 

Cycling

1949 - Six 25-mile trips and one 50-miler.

2006 - Two 10-mile trips, two 15-mile trips, two 25-mile trips, and one 50-miler

 

Dog Care

1949 - Take care of your dog for six months

2006 - Take care of your dog for two months

 

Reading

1949 - Read 12 books

2006 - Read 6 books

 

Rocks and Minerals/Geology

1949 - Collect 25 specimens

2006 - Collect 10 specimens

 

I've heard from people that the marksmanship requirements are much easier as well. I'm not sure how much effect each of the things you mention has on the overall process, but I'd guess that they all play a part. In general there seems to be a desire to make it easier for boys to advance so that they'll stay with the program longer. I'm not sure whether this really has the desired effect.

 

Oak Tree

[Oak Tree]

Miki101 posts, "Is it really that big of a deal?"

 

Well, I guess that depends on how big of a deal something has to be in order to merit discussion on these forums. I figure this is like a big campfire where we're all sitting around, throwing out topics about Scouting and occasionally about other things, and we see where the conversation takes us.

 

I've seen times where Scouting makes a big deal about this number. "So many boys fail, but this boy has beaten all the odds and made Eagle, while 95% of the other Scouts don't make it this far, etc, etc."

 

There are a vast number of Scouting topics we could and do discuss. This one seemed interesting to me. I've found Miki101's official numbers very interesting, and I'd be happy to see more.

 

Oak Tree

[EagleInKY]

As with anything, you can use statistics to make almost any point. The way I've always understood the "less than 5%" or "around 2%" numbers was that it was of all the scouts that ever joined, at any level, what percentage made Eagle.

 

For example, if I take the kids my son's age, I can look back at all the boys that came through his den as a Cub Scout. I should know how many there were, but I don't. I remember there being 10 that started together as Tigers. My son is the only one of that group. Others joined as Wolves, Bears, Webelos and Scouts. I would guess that close to 25 joined during Cubs, and a couple more since then. Seven received their AOL and crossed over to Boy Scouts. Of all the boys his age, four are still active in our troop, three are active in other troops. That would make seven out of 25-30 are still active (Star or Life Ranks). That's about 25%, and I think most of them will make Eagle. Now, I think we've got a great program and our retention numbers are higher than most of the troops in our area.

 

When I look at the age group one year older than my son. Only two boys are going to make it (one is Eagle, one is working on his project). Of the group a year ahead of that, only one or two are still active. These seem to be closer to the 5% number.

[Hunt]

I'd also like to point out that this statistic (percentage of joiners who go on to make Eagle)doesn't really say anything about how "hard" it is to make Eagle--it really has more to do with retention. I mean, I dropped out at Second Class after about a year--that says nothing at all about how hard it is to make Eagle.

If you really wanted to compare apples to apples, I think you should ask what percentage of boys who are registered Boy Scouts at age 18 are Eagles. I'll bet you that would be a pretty high number (and it may even be a bit low, because it would exclude boys who get Eagle at a younger age and then drop out before 18).

And furthermore, even that statistic doesn't necessarily tell you whether it's "easier" to make Eagle today, even if a larger percentage of 18-year-old Scouts are Eagles than in prior years. It might also mean that there are fewer "casual" scouts, and that boys who stay in until 18 are more focused on scouting than boys in the past, who may not have had as many alternative activities.

[SSScout]

Alright class, let's consider the difference between anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence.

 

If an Adult Scouter notes that, in his day as a BOY Scout, he had to call the Council office, obtain a list of Merit Badge Counsellors, call up and make an appointment, get there (mom taxi?), make plans to pass the requirements, pass the requirements, have the MBC sign his cards and pass them on to the Scoutmaster, that is anecdotal. If the Scouter says that his boys Troop today has 25 MBCs listed among the Troops leadership, that the Troop offers periodic classes for such MBs as First Aid, Citizenship, Bird Study, Preparedness, and Personal Fitness (among others),that is anecdotal.

Now, take out your texts and turn to the Scout Membership Lists on page umtieleventeen. Look at the Eagle Award Lists.

Calculate the percent of Eagles awarded as a fraction of the membership of each year. See the rise in the graph? That is statistical evidence. Which do you think is more compelling?Yes, I know we are being very simplistic and perhaps not considering all the affective quantities.

 

Yes, Algernon?

[Oak Tree]

Hunt,

 

I've often heard the Eagle percentage given as a testimony to the perseverance of those who earned it. So all those who drop out, for whatever reason, are evidence that only a small percentage have the perseverance to make it to the end.

 

You could be right that one reason the percentage went up was because there were fewer casual Scouts, but one argument against this explanation is that the number of total Eagles is rising, and significantly. It's not just that the number of Scouts is falling.

 

And any explanation we give would pretty much be anecdotal, as SSScout suggests. But hey, we don't have grant money to do a real study, so we can hypothesize away. I'm betting that parents are paying more attention to their sons' advancement nowadays.

 

Oak Tree