Re: I'm not sure, Bruce Cobern
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Fri, 2 Jan 1998 16:13:42 -0500
At 11:59 AM 1/2/98 -0600, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>I can't locate the post quickly but you mentioned to the effect that Eagle
>projects should perhaps be tailored to an individual. Before I respond let
>me state that Bruce and I usually agree by the time we get to the bottom
>line! Our main difference is that everything is competition to me!
I expected to hear from you, but not really on this part of my reply. :-)
I would have been disappointed otherwise. Maybe it was partially a troll. :-)
>I have some difficulty with your statement. On the surface it sounds as if
>some kids should have to run only 90 yards of a 100 yard race and others
>have to run 110 yards to qualify. I know you didn't meant it this way but I
>have a real problem with people "dumbing down" this country, and Scouts, by
>accepting almost any performance where an individual makes an effort.
>Receiving the Eagle Scout award should be the result of superior effort by a
>candidate. Whether he is 13 or 17 the measure should be the results IMO -
>not results modified by age or some other criterion, except in the case of
>handicapped people which I never discuss.
I never said anything about lowering standards. However, the real standard
of an Eagle project is the demonstration of leadership which, by the
requirement, is directed towards community service. Thus, when deciding
whether to accept a project or not we need to evaluate whether it will allow
the candidate to demonstrate that leadership. We also help the candidate
establish goals for that project. These goals need to spur him towards the
superior performance you describe.
It is this goal setting that is usually the most difficult part of the
project and the area where I really envision a "case by case" evaluation.
However, I can also see advising against a particular Scout doing a
particular type of project while I might not do so for another candidate.
Sometimes, after all the discussion, it is obvious that the particular
project being discussed is too difficult for the candidate to accomplish.
One thing we are NOT in the business of is setting people up for failure.
Thus, if it is evident to those meeting to approve the project (myself, SM,
MC) that this is the case we might either not approve the project or
recommend a modification of the goals.
On the flip side, it is also possible that our evaluation leads to the
conclusion that the project being discussed is no challenge at all for the
candidate and that he will skate through it. Once again the results of our
meeting are likely to be either a change of project or a modification of the
goals.
I find that the most common problem I have is that these teenagers have
absolutely no idea of their capabilities and are lacking in the
self-confidence necessary to set an aggressive goal. Thus, it is the second
scenario which is more common, with us encouraging or requiring the Scout to
expand the goals of the project. The most common comment I hear at Eagle
Boards when I ask what they would have done differently is that they would
have done more.
<diatribe about tolerating mediocrity snipped>
>I know this is further than you went, Bruce, and I apologize to you and the
>group. Once in awhile I need to get the thorn out of my paw and my wife is
>tired of listening. 8-) I still believe in awarding superior performance and
>in bringing the mediocre up to standard - never the lowering of standards.
You certainly did read more into my comments than I intended. Go back to
annoying your wife. :-)
--
Bruce E. Cobern
mailto:bec@pipeline.com
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City | 
