21 As Required Age For Unit Leaders

[teacher/scout]

Beavhah-It's hard to answer that question because I have never asked that question or looked it up. I'm sure some psychological study has been done, or it has been used in children around that age who needs therapy. I remember taking a similar test freshman year of high school and the Myer-Briggs pretty well matched it. Personally, I think it would be extremely similiar, if not the same if you took the test at 11 years old, then at 18, then at 30.

[Beavah]

So 16 year old Scoutmasters should be permitted by the same reasoning?

 

Yah, sure. If a court of competent jurisdiction has found that da 16 year old is an adult in the eyes of the law, and the troop community and chartered organization feel after considering all of their options that the person is the best candidate for the job, why would yeh substitute a generic number for such an overwhelming weight of evidence?

 

But movin' off da outlier cases, we were talkin' about 19 and 20 year old legal adults who are engaged to be married, one of whom appears to be a certified K-8 substitute teacher in her second or third year of undergraduate study who knows more about child psychology than most of us here do. I forget MTIB's background other than bein' an Eagle Scout, ALS/WSI trained, which still puts him ahead of many SMs I know and work with. If da parent community votes for 'em (as they almost did) and the COR approves and the kids love 'em, what's the problem?

 

I reckon it's us old folks and our black-and-white thinking and prejudices, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

Yah, packsaddle's the academic, eh? I wouldn't believe what he thinks either.

 

Sure, association is a fundamental liberty, but I didn't see anyone advocate that da government should force the BSA to accept 19 year old scoutmasters. We all know da limit is allowable, just as any private prejudice or black-and-white thinking is allowable. Just as it's also an associational right for the chartered organization to assign tasks to its volunteers, eh? Including assigning all outings, meetings, and PLC work to an ASM.

 

The question raised by the original poster was not whether the BSA's age 21 minimum was allowable. We were asked to discuss whether or not it is justified.. We must ask if it's a good choice or not, eh? Is it ethical? Is it fair? Is it practical? Does it help or hurt program? Is it sensible? Should it be supported? Are our attitudes and policies toward young adults consistent with our Mission and our Timeless Values?

 

We are, after all, the program that advocates for youth leadership. That believes we should never do for a young person what they are capable of doin' for themselves.

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad]

Hmmmmmm.... This thread has certainly taken an interesting course....

 

Having been gone most of the day and reading the whole thread to catch up (okay, I admit skipping all the psychology stuff) I'm struck by the couple of "correct" answers posted earlier and glossed over.

 

The first from RichardB -- "could it have just been based on knowledge of orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) development and it's relationship to risk taking behaviour......"

 

Well, yes. It is interesting to me that recent developments in neurology supports the age-old wisdom of 21 as the age of majority. The old timers may not have had MRI technology, but the understood at the age most folks developed the ability to forsee consequences around 21. Reducing the age of majority to 18 was a Vietnam-era political decision which has partially been rolled back as a result of all drunk 18-year-olds killing themselves and other. Yet we wonder why giving an 18-year-old a high-balance credit card turns into a car wreck too.

 

The second from Beavah -- "Generalizations are useful only when applied to general groups.... Now, yeh might say that da cost of doin individual evaluations in some cases is too high, eh? So when da negative consequences are low and the cost of doin a better job is too high, we settle on applying a general rule to individuals. We set da age of majority to 18 and so on (and then allow for exceptions). "

 

Which is exactly what national is doing in setting the age for SM and committee members at 21. Beav goes on to make the point that because individual units are making individual evaluations of SM candidates, that those individual decisions should be allowed over generalized national policy. But that's beside the point. For the folks in Irving making the policy THEY aren't making the individual evaluations, so setting general policy requirements is a perfectly rational approach, from their point of view.

 

Some of the tangent's y'all have wandered down today bear that our. 16-y-o SM? Really? You're really arguing the low corners of the bell curve aren't you? National is, of course, dealing with the fat part of he curve. A million-and-a-half volunteers is a large enough population to begin making some generalizations.

 

 

[Oak Tree]

SeattlePioneer - I'm not sure I get what you're saying...we all agree that BSA has the right to set the age anywhere it wants to. The discussion is over whether it should. Also, how often it would matter is pretty much irrelevant on this forum, but I do agree it would be pretty rare in these parts.

 

And Twocub, I find myself almost always in agreement with you, but I'll have to differ on this one. Sure, the BSA has to deal in generalities, but they very often have ways in place to handle exceptions. You have to qualify for Eagle by 18, unless you go through the exception process. You have to have your board of review within three months of that birthday, unless you go through the exception process. A unit has to have at least five Scouts to charter/recharter, unless they go through the exception process. The rules in the G2SS come with my personal favorite G2SS line - "Every possible contingency will not be covered with a hard-and-fast rule, and rules are poor substitutes for experience." For Philmont you have to meet the height/weight guidelines, unless you go through the exception process.

 

It would be easy enough for them to allow for some type of exception process here.

[KC9DDI]

I would hope nobody would argue that these are serious roles that roles that require maturity and responsibility there.

 

MIB - I don't anyone ever did.

 

Yah, but then I mentioned that da minimum age to be a school teacher in most states is 18. Surely yeh can't claim that being a school teacher does not involve building a long term mentoring relationship with a group of youth!

 

Beav - Nope, can't claim that. But there's something else that differentiates teachers from Scoutmasters. Or aircraft instructors from Scoutmasters. Or lifeguards from Scoutmasters. Long-term mentoring is only one example of the multiple duties and responsibilities a Scoutmaster has. Can I ask just how many 18 year olds are teaching seniors in high school full time?

 

can we really claim that there is any justice in not allowing someone that age to take a group of boys camping?

 

Nope, an ASM at age 18 can take a group of boys camping. But we ask more of our scoutmasters than just to chaperon boys on a camping trip.

 

The second is even if the generality is reasonable, justice demands exceptions.

 

No argument there, but this isn't really what we have been talking about. We've been talking about a generalize rule to apply to the 4+ million people affiliated with the BSA. Whether or not exceptions can or should be made in certain circumstances is an entirely different matter. And, personally, I would agree that exceptions can and should be made in this case.

 

But, why don't we allow, as a general rule, 13 year olds to drive, 12 year olds to join Venturing crews, 14 year olds to join Wolf Dens...?

 

As soon as I turn 20 I am eligable to teach at the high school level-if I had the desire to do so.

 

teacher/scout - Hmmm... sounds similar to how the BSA will allow you to take on certain positions of responsibility at 18, and then wait a few years before becoming qualified to take on other positions. Where's the outrage, and accusations of prejudice?

 

I'm not sure how bringing in Myers-Brigg is relevant here. I've taken that test a few times, got a different answer each time. But either way you've sold me on the idea that personality is mostly set in stone by age 11 or so. But that still brings us back to asking why we bother trying to teach leadership skills to 14 year old scouts (Doesn't make sense logically. You said leadership is part of personality. Personality is immutable after age 11. So how do we justify teaching leadership skills to Scouts older than 11?) If the experiences you gain after age 11 don't contribute to personality, what do they contribute to?

 

I reckon it's us old folks and our black-and-white thinking and prejudices, eh?

 

Beav - the mud-slinging and ad hominems is getting in the way of what otherwise seems to be a very good discussion. Check the dictionary for the definition of prejudice, and decide if that's really what's going on here. I think what's going on is that many good quality arguments are being made for either lowering or doing away with an age requirement for certain adult positions. Other good quality arguments are being made for keeping these requirements. The fact the you happen to find your own arguments more convincing does not mean that your opponents are prejudiced.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Oak Tree,

 

 

Beavah has claimed that age restrictions are a matter of arbitrary "prejudice," which I don't think is the case. Scouting makes lots of judgments about issues of all kinds, some of which might be backed up by evidence that might convince an academic and others may not. But keeping academics happy isn't the purpose or method of Scouting.

 

That's true for a lot of age restrictions. Obviously there's little objective difference between someone taking a drink of alcohol the day before their 21st birthday and the day they are 21, but one is legal and the other isn't.

 

After reading through this discussion, I can see arguments both for keeping the age restriction for adult leaders where it is OR reducing it to something less than 21. It's a judgment call.

 

And there's probably a lot more documentary evidence that could be assembled to lead to a wise decision than the highly limited amount we've had here.

 

One issue I'm particularly interested in is finding ways to keep Scout's we've trained and developed with care participating in the program in much greater numbers beyond age 18. It's a tragedy that so many leave Scouting perhaps for decades until they have children interested in becoming Tiger Cubs.

 

Offering a more meaningful leadership role in units might keep the interest of those people in a good community and program and benefit everyone. That's worth considering in my view.

[Beavah]

But there's something else that differentiates teachers from Scoutmasters. Or aircraft instructors from Scoutmasters. Or lifeguards from Scoutmasters. Long-term mentoring is only one example of the multiple duties and responsibilities a Scoutmaster has.

 

Oh, come now. Are yeh really trying to claim that da volunteer position of SM is so exceptional that it's something beyond da skills of a teacher, an outdoor guide, someone who trains people in performing objectively dangerous activities (like flying), an EMT, a firefighter, a newspaper reporter, a social worker, and a parent all rolled into one? Because young adults under age 21 can do all of those things, eh?

 

Which is also what gives the lie to the popular press interpretation of "brain research". Those are studies of a few dozen Americans, eh? Hardly a large sample. And if yeh read the fine print, what da work shows is that da growth of brain structures are a result of learning, not a cause of it. If you learn to play tennis, the neurons your brain uses to play tennis will develop all kinds of interestin' changes that show up on fMRI. Only thing is, after a certain age that growth slows, which makes it harder for us to learn. Learn tennis at age 9, yeh learn fast and deep. Learn tennis at age 49, it takes longer and yeh never get as good.

 

Which is another argument for 18 year olds over 49 year olds, eh? They learn new stuff faster and better. Which is why, despite da "brain research" , young adults are successful at all those jobs above that require maturity and judgment.

 

Beav - the mud-slinging and ad hominems is getting in the way ...

 

Yeh missed my emoticons then. Tone is gently chiding with a smiling face, not loudly accusatory.

 

But then go back a ways, eh? "Black and white thinking" was a charge Lisabob and I leveled at young people in da previous thread, that other older adults agreed with. So if that's ad hominem, it was we adults who started it. I was mostly making fun of myself, since I recognized my error and apologized to them.

 

We'll just have to disagree about prejudice. I think judging an individual's capability based on the general perception or averages of their demographic group is prejudice, and just plain wrong. Women on average score lower on tests of abstract reasoning and math/spacial relationships. So should I deny all women jobs that require those abilities? Should the government refuse to offer positions in public engineering schools to women because it makes sense to use a generality when setting policy nationwide for millions of people? Wouldn't we all agree that would be prejudice and discrimination and unjust?

 

So I fail to see da difference between that and what we're discussing here. Most jurisdictions prohibit discrimination against those over age 40 even though the same research you report shows that, in general, those over age 40 are poor learners who have difficulty adapting to new environments.

 

Of course we never want to see ourselves as prejudiced, or admit we're usin' da law and public policy to protect privilege for our own group over others, by making it legal to discriminate against da young but not the old.

 

But if we honestly look ourselves and the data in the mirror and resolve not to lie to our children or our scouts, I think we have to admit our own bias. That's not mud-slinging or personal. It's just recognizing a behavior for what it is, eh? Prejudiced. When I made that generalization of young adults, I showed my prejudice. And I'm making fun of myself for it, so that I don't continue to make that grave error.

 

Beavah

[SeattlePioneer]

 

 

 

That shoe fits on the other foor just as easily. You have been waving charges of prejudice and discrimination around self righteously on this thread as a way of selling your ideas and to beat up on those who disagree with you.

 

I used your own ideas to suggest that the age for adult leaders should be reduced to age 16 based on the logic of your arguments, and you couldn't disagree. How about 14?

 

I think we can all agree that there isn't a difference in the ability of someone's ability to be a Scoutmaster that magically changes on the day of their 21st birthday.

 

It might be that there are sufficient reasons for reducing that age limit. In the end, someone is going to make a judgment about what that should be, and it will always be subject to attack that it is arbitrary and unreasonable, and could just as well be a day, week or month earlier.

 

Leadership means having the COURAGE to make needed decisions in such situations.

 

Frankly Beavah, I think you are in the throes of an intellectual cunundrum from which you can't escape. Waving around charges of prejudice and discrimination is absurd in this kind of issue. You want to compare it to race and sex discrimination to add some legitimacy to your argument, but it isn't race discrimination.

 

 

>

 

 

That may be true, Beavah, although I did a lot better taking college Calculus at age 40 than trig when I was in High School.

 

But the knowledge and experience of a 49 year old has accumulated will usually make that person FAR more competent at a skilled task than someone completing entry level requirements for a trade or profession at age 18. That's why the 49 year old is going to be the teachwer and the 18 year old the student almost always. There are exceptions, such as athletes where young people may hopelessly outclass older people.

 

 

>

 

 

Personally I think restrictions on discriminating against those 40+ are unreasonable and should be eliminated. If you can't cut the mustard, tough.

 

 

>

 

 

Again you confuse the issue by trying to bring in legal issues. People and institutions are FREE to discriminate based on age in all cases but a very few, and this aint one of them. Not only FREE to make such decisions, but they are among our precious liberties. Freedom of association is one of our precious liberties, and only COMPELLING situations should permit government to intrude upon those liberties.

 

Instead, you want to argue that because a tiny handful of intrusions upon fredom of association are illegal, all such freedoms are properly suspect. That is just plain wrong in my view.

 

We have a responsibility to use such liberties wisely, and discussing whether they are being used wisely is a discussion worth having. But we still have the privilege and responsibility to decide --- or at least BSA does.

[Beavah]

Again you confuse the issue by trying to bring in legal issues.

 

Yah, sorry about that. Old fellahs like me tend to fall back on da stuff we know best, eh? . All this other stuff about adolescent psychology and whatnot is pretty far afield and harder for me to speak to.

 

Prejudice, though, is what it is, eh? None of us like admitting our biases, but we all have 'em. When we selectively read and remember a couple of small, limited fMRI studies and ignore a much larger and longer term body of cognitive psychology, that's bias. It's not deliberate, eh? We're doing what we all do, reading and remembering the things we like or agree with. Defending da things we like or agree with. Racial, gender, ethnic, age, intellectual, social, and other biases aren't conscious. That's why they're biases. They're hard to recognize in ourselves. I have a bias toward legal thinking. It's a bigger stretch for me to do packsaddle's scientific thinking, and I reckon I'll never figure out how women think.

 

But because we can't easily recognize our own biases, I think we need to be thoughtful about it when others call us up on such things. That's naught more than a friend sayin' "your thinking is stuck in a rut". Teacher/scout did that for me, and she was right. You just did it for me on da legal argument thing, and you are right. I'm trying to do it for some folks on the age thing. But I might be wrong!

 

So, if a person can be (and is allowed to be) a successful school teacher, a successful EMT, a successful professional wilderness guide, etc. at an age of less than 21, by what rational basis other than prejudice can we say that no one in the country under the age of 21 can be a successful SM? Especially when da rest of the world uses young Rovers as scoutmasters.

 

It is courageous to make decisions only if you make them based on what's right and true, against the popular trend or da biases and prejudices of others. Just making decisions that aren't necessary, or making decisions based on popularity or our own bias is not courageous. It's foolish.

 

Do yeh really think da world will end if we just left the decision on who should be SM to the people in the unit and CO who know the program and the people the best? To slip back into legal thinking, don't regulate what yeh don't have to.

 

Beavah

[KC9DDI]

Oh, come now. Are yeh really trying to claim that da volunteer position of SM is so exceptional that it's something beyond da skills of a teacher, an outdoor guide, someone who trains people in performing objectively dangerous activities (like flying), an EMT, a firefighter, a newspaper reporter, a social worker, and a parent all rolled into one? Because young adults under age 21 can do all of those things, eh?

 

Exceptional? Not inherently, though I have had the privilege of working with and learning from some exceptional Scoutmasters. What I'm saying is that its very different from all of those other things. Sure there are similarities, but look at some of the differences. For example, many of those roles you mention involve some required education and licensing or credentialing guidelines, which serve to prepare the candidates to some minimal baseline, and also theoretically "weed out" some of the less qualified candidates early.

 

Scouting doesn't really have that for most positions. I see age requirements as a general way to begin to accomplish that same goal, though. Not a perfect way, but maybe the best way available to the program as a whole.

 

And to look at the issue more specifically, I think when part of a Scoutmaster's specific job is to work with youths in various capacities, its necessary to have a couple years age difference between the oldest youth member of the troop and the adult ultimately responsible for the troop. I don't know much about psychology, brain development or MRIs, but I'm not sure how much understanding those things would help in this thread. So far it seems that we've learned that all of the traits necessary to be a good Scoutmaster are immutable after age 11, which is counter-intuitive at the very least.

 

by what rational basis other than prejudice can we say that no one in the country under the age of 21 can be a successful SM?

 

No one is saying that no one in the country under the age of 21 can be a successful Scoutmaster. What I, for one, am saying is that the rare occasions where a troop will be best served by an SM under 21 do not outweigh the occasions where a troop is best served by an SM older than 21, nor the unique challenges brought about by an SM under 21. Rational, non-prejudiced bases have been opined throughout the previous four pages of discussion.

 

I guess for me to be able to understand your position, I'd have to know how you would apply it to other situations where age requirements are used as a means of managing a huge affected population. What do we do with the 12 year old who wants to join the Venturing crew? The 13 year old who wants to get a driver's license? The 14 year old who wants to join a Wolf Den? What about teacher/scout's situation, which, if I understand it correctly, will not let her teach a certain age group until she herself reaches a certain age? And we're not talking about rare exceptions or special cases, we're talking about a general baseline guideline to be applied to millions of people.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

[Beavah]

What I'm saying is that its very different from all of those other things

 

Then yeh are left with da fact that in the rest of the world, Rovers under the age of 21 can be Scoutmasters (and it's odd for an older person to serve in that role).

 

So now you're left with tryin' to justify an age limit that's based not on any requirement of intellect or maturity, and not on any skill set that is unique to scoutmastering. So what's it based on?

 

I don't think it's kosher to make age-based distinctions between adults. So raising other administrative issues involving younger kids isn't relevant. Children cannot become Scoutmasters, we all agree.

 

And I just don't see how allowing an under-21 Scoutmaster when that's the best choice for a unit prevents selecting an over-21 Scoutmaster when that's the best choice. You'll have to explain that to me again. Both have challenges, eh? Young folks might have to work harder to communicate with parents. Old folks might have to work harder to relate to and be a role model for kids. In both cases, yeh just provide training and support, and take da weaknesses along with the strengths. One or the other might be the right choice depending on the needs of an individual unit, eh?

 

So why is it necessary to take the choice away from the competent adults who are in charge of and responsible for the individual unit? Because that's all a national policy does, eh? It takes discretion away from the local people who know the kids, the families, the candidates, the parents, and the chartered organization the best.

 

Beavah

[Scoutfish]

"So why is it necessary to take the choice away from the competent adults who are in charge of and responsible for the individual unit? Because that's all a national policy does, eh? It takes discretion away from the local people who know the kids, the families, the candidates, the parents, and the chartered organization the best."

 

WEll, there is another reason too: Just look at the Original Thread this was grabbed from; The competent adults made back handed deals to get what they wanted, but later backed out of that same deal to get what they wanted.

 

Then take the folks who add to requirements as a condition of advancement.

 

Look at troops that are either mills or adult lead in spite of the general idea that they should be youth run and lead.

 

Look at those who expect scouts to print on paper AND copy to disk their eagle projects as a requirement to earn that Eagle, then also require not only a full uniform at an EBOR, but also consider the handbook a part of the rerquirement.

 

Take the CM who thinks he is the ultimate voive of authority over everybody else including the COR. Or the SM who instates himself as SM withgout the vote, cionsideration or even agreement of anybody else on the Committee.

 

Grown ups are the heart and soul behind the programs working...

 

But they are also the gas and matches that burn the program down.

 

So, even though I know there are exzceptions to everything in life ( scouting included) BSA's rule for 21 years old may be to prevent the folks who bed or break every rule from electing a 18 year oild SM, CC anD CM who would do even worse and dumber stuff that could cause the collapse of a unit or district within a few years.

 

Again, there are some 15 year old boys who have twice the intelligence of some of the SM's , CC';s and CM's..but overall in a vast majority, it's better to have that small handful wait a few years than to chance having a majority of units to crash.

 

And I say this based on having to wait 3 months to turn 18 to be a certified FireFighter Level 1 in the state of NC after having to get the approval ( in writing) from my school principle and County School BOE superintendant.

 

I can tell you that I had more fire knowledge and experience than about 1/2 the members of my fire dept and I could make more intelligent decisions.

 

But what I was lacking was the years of maturity to emotionally hyandle when things went wrong or when stuff defied the natural way of working.

 

Plus, just as in firefighting, you ever see what happens when an 18 year old tels somebody twice his age what to do? Doesn't matter if it's correct thing to do or not...the older person is is jesitant and resistant to having a young snot nosed pun k telling him what to do.

 

I became Captain of my Fire dept at age 19, and by 20, I was Assit Chief. By age 20, I was certified trained higher than most paid fire fighters and rescue workers in my statBut at age 17, I did not necesarily have the well bing ( mentally) to run a mass scale fire scene or Trama incident ( which happened a few years later by the way!

 

 

Is the rule perfect? NOpe, sure isn't, but works an overwhelming majority of the time!

 

 

 

 

 

[KC9DDI]

Then yeh are left with da fact that in the rest of the world, Rovers under the age of 21 can be Scoutmasters (and it's odd for an older person to serve in that role).

 

I'm not sure I can address this question real well, because I only have a working knowledge of the BSA. From what I know of other countries' programs, there a programs for "youth" members up until age 25 or so, and these programs seem to be somewhat more established than our Venturing program is. Again, I don't know very much about how the "chain of command" works in other countries. I can say that Scouting programs in other countries seem to take a different approach than our own, which may not view the Scoutmaster in quite the same way that BSA does. I think its also clear that there are cultural differences between our country and others, so it might be possible to make different generalizations with regard to the average 18 year old's maturity, collection of experiences, etc. I would certainly be interested in any information you have access to, especially figures showing how usual/unusual it is for someone in the 18-21 age bracket to hold a role roughly equivalent to the BSA's Scoutmaster.

 

I don't think it's kosher to make age-based distinctions between adults.

 

That's not entirely consistent with what your position thus far has been (allowing a 16 year old emancipated minor to be a Scoutmaster, for instance). But we do make age-based distinctions among adults. Senior discounts, auto and health insurance policies for young adults, etc. And what teacher/scout said about not being able to teach a certain age group until a certain age. Maybe all of these policies arise from prejudice. Maybe others arise from studies, statistics, and generalizations made in good faith.

 

And I just don't see how allowing an under-21 Scoutmaster when that's the best choice for a unit prevents selecting an over-21 Scoutmaster when that's the best choice.

 

Me neither. Never suggested otherwise.

 

So why is it necessary to take the choice away from the competent adults who are in charge of and responsible for the individual unit? Because that's all a national policy does, eh? It takes discretion away from the local people who know the kids, the families, the candidates, the parents, and the chartered organization the best.

 

We finally seem to be at the heart of the issue. Consider this: every adult application has to be approved at the district level or higher. The BSA as an organization is already involved in determining who is an acceptable unit leader. Along your same train of thought, why do we not allow each individual unit to set its own rank requirements, or uniforming standards, or positions of responsibility? To tie this back into your direct question, I would say that its because the chartered organization and the BSA have a shared responsibility to deliver the Scouting program. I think the Scoutmaster, being the unit-level person ultimately responsible for that unit's Scouting program, falls more under the general responsibility of the BSA, rather than the CO. And to best deliver the BSA's troop-level program, the Scoutmaster needs to have a couple years on the oldest youth members of the troop.

 

 

[Oak Tree]

the Scoutmaster needs to have a couple years on the oldest youth members of the troop.

 

So then a Venturing Advisor would have to be 24? Same with an OA Chapter Advisor?