pohsuwed

Is there a "Troll" button anywhere on this site?

I was visiting a scout shop the other day and took a look at the new Venturing Summit medal.  I was taken back by the downgrade in quality in the construction of the medal.  It is now just like the Varsity Denali award which is an emblem hanging from the ribbon which has the header bar glued to the top of the ribbon.  I was quite sad to see this.  Would it have cost BSA too much to keep it the same as the Silver or Ranger award quality?

This is an interesting one. I think we would all agree that Boy Scouts in general has been suffering with its public perception for some time now which has led to a decrease in enrollment and retention. I think we would all love to see this reverse direction.

HOWEVER, we are also a group of people who for some reason are prone to cannibalizing our own whenever anyone gets any attention for what they are doing. It's very evident on these message boards, and it is probably evident in most of our districts and councils as well.

In my case, our Venturing Crew was recently highlighted in the local media for their work in cleaning up roadside trash which included over a hundred cans of "huffed" whipped topping in just one mile of road way. We asked the media to do a story on the dangers of huffing and they included our community service work in their story. One would think that this would be a great multi-benefit story including a public/youth safety story and a great story about young people working to help the community. While there were positive public comments in social media on this, word got back to me through the local scouter network that we were just looking for "atta boys".

If we want to reverse the tide of scouting participation, we need to regain public support for the program by highlighting what we represent. We also need to show parents the type of program we follow and that we aren't just an after-school program.

There is plenty of what could easily be considered bullying going on here on scouter.com by people who don't think twice about their own snide comments at other leaders.

There is ALWAYS more to the story. For example, I recently participated in a discussion with a scout preparing his Eagle application where the scout's Life advancement date was in 2009 and his last leadership date was in 2008. (He thought he was ready for his EBOR!) This was not a surprise to me considering my knowledge of his virtually non-existent troop as well as his personal activity in this "troop". Luckily he had six months until his 18th birthday so I offered him the suggestion of either requesting a leadership position in his troop so he could work to bring it back to life or if that didn't work out to request the position of Den Chief with the local pack. After the conversation with the scout these ideas were also shared with his current Scoutmaster, his former Scoutmaster (from the 2008-2009 era) and his mother. Instead of this scout actually working to complete the requirement, this entire group of people ended up trying to push it up and through the council without the requirement being completed because the scout didn’t want to deal with doing any more than he has already completed. They are saying that what he has completed is enough. There is much more to this story than I'm sharing here, but this is enough to set up my point:

In this case “Myboy†has presented, it seems to appear that the SM is adding requirements. The reality very well could be something completely different just as those involved in my local situation are currently suggesting that additional requirements are being heaped upon them. This situation has certainly made me a lot more skeptical about stories like this floating around. Frankly, I would think that the best assumption would be that the trained SM would have a better grip on what is proper over most parents. I can’t say that this would always hold true, but this may be the place to start working through a problem like this.

Yes, I'm a little late to this party, but I do have a bit I would like to add to this discussion.

Frankly, I get somewhat disgusted with some of the attitude that I find on these forums and this thread is no exception. It really appears as though a few people have latched onto and twisted a concept to make it something that it is not. The addition of quotes from Bill Evans doesn’t really answer the question either as it is evident that this is a poorly constructed award in the first place and even if Bill thought through it clearly he would probably not want to appear to contradict the documentation. And whoever feels important enough to be able to get Bill to answer his questions, maybe next time you should ask real questions that will get to the bottom of the issue.

Consider this example:

It is clear that the NOA Hiking requirements include miles hiked when earning the Hiking merit badge. Does the Hiking merit badge require scouts to work on the badge as a patrol or a troop? Nope. Do the NOA Hiking requirements specifically provide a disqualification on those miles from the Hiking merit badge that would make them ineligible for NOA purposes? Nope. There is the “auspices†thing, but does a scout who hikes the required hikes to earn the Hiking merit badge not do so with a scouting purpose? Or does Basementdweller really want to argue that the inclusion of the “auspices†wording negate the inclusion of the Hiking merit badge miles if done alone? It is only reasonable that if the writers of this award wanted to disqualify Hiking merit badge miles done individually and not as part of a patrol/troop activity that they would have stated that clearly.

Then consider this example:

For several awards in Boy Scouts and Venturing a scout needs to establish and follow through on a fitness plan. Let’s say a scout determines that as part of his fitness plan that he will mountain bike 10 miles each Saturday morning. This is definitely a scouting activity, and it makes perfect sense that this is done as an individual activity rather than as a patrol or troop activity. If given the opportunity, would Bill Evans state that this would not be considered under the auspices of scouting? In his questioning to Bill, Scouter99 referenced non patrol/troop activities as “individual pursuit†suggesting that they have no connection to scouting. Scouter99 also stated that Bill’s answer came back very quickly during Jamboree weekâ€â€is it reasonable that Bill actually took the time to consider anything other than Scouter99’s slanted question when he responded with his fourteen word response?

And sure, there are select individuals who will say that boys will manipulate the requirements to include something as simple as ride their bikes to get ice cream. Their response is to then add to the requirements to require a percentage of a scout’s patrol to participate before the scout can count the activity. Is this about a scout getting into the outdoors or about a scout maintaining a high level of activity by scouts in the troop? There are other awards for thatâ€â€let this award be about getting into the outdoors.

With this said, I’m a proponent of being consistent and reasonable for this award. Camping nights have always been based on patrol/troop activities and this should continue to apply. Hiking miles have never excluded individual hikes and this should continue to apply. Riding miles have also never excluded individual miles (Cycling merit badge states “BSA Buddy System†which is an obvious statement about scout safety and not about doing this as a patrol/troop). And none of the aquatics merit badges require patrol/troop participation. Adventure activities are pretty much described as patrol/troop activities which makes sense that these follow this guidance. It’s really not that difficult.

(By the way, I find it interesting that those types of folks who argue against groups working on merit badges together are trying to suggest just that.)

And finally how about this:

Would BSA really want to create an individual award but require them to be part of a highly active troop to be able to qualify for it? Nope. Obviously, some troops have things going on a bit better than others. But does a proactive scout in a less-than-ideal troop have to suffer if they have personal goals? And should that scout be criticized that doing so is what is causing the troop to be less-than-ideal? Nope. Certainly not by people who would have absolutely no idea about the difficulties in that troop. After all, we all know that running a good program is always a challenge even for well-seasoned troops.

Thanks charmoc!

I may be wrong, but these boards have at least few conversations about the program being "boy led". It is interesting to find that Beaverrr and Mad Max take the different approach of controlling progression and constraining advancement, putting the control of the program into the pages of some unwritten book. Wouldn't "boy led" include the fact that if some boys run with the program faster than others and that we should let them run? Clearly each boy is unique and responds to motivation differently. The scout leaders should always emphasize the eight methods to create the environment where boys can build themselves, but why would anyone suggest that they shouldn't advance at whatever speed they choose?

And where the heck is the "maturity" requirement? I have looked for it before, and I still can't find it anywhere. Frankly I get so tired of leaders thinking that they know the program so well that they have the perfect application for it--when it means treating them all alike and running them through a constrained course of advancement like they were robots.

Does Mad Max prescribe to this so when the next boy he has never met before comes in for the 301st Eagle board of review he has a good feeling about the maturity of that boy solely based on that conversation? That would be quite a mistake as eloquence is also not a requirement for any rank advancement either. It is inappropriate to add requirements to an Eagle Scout. And we are all aware that there is no such thing as a maturity requirement in scouting. My personal opinion is that more respect for the program can be found in younger scouts than older ones anyway.

And Beaver still alludes to the idea that (without any personal knowledge) this scout listed in this post has only participated in one of the methods of scouting. I think a positive person would only assume that any Eagle scout has benefited from all of the methods of scouting, until maybe proven otherwise.

And I'm sorry, but what is the "Promise of Scouting" Mad Max refers to? I have searched for this as well, and have found nothing about the bestowal or delivery of something like this. Is this another made up requirement?

My point here is that why not simply congratulate the scout and have hopes that he, just like every other boy in scouting, gets out of it what he can to prepare him for the rest of his life. The idea of tearing them down based on silly assumptions is rediculous. And Beaverrrr, while you may have congratulated him at first, taking a slap at assumed deficiencies in his development so far negates the congratulations.

And one note about speedy advancement is that Eagle is certainly not the "end" in scouting. So if anyone is thinking that these scouts then have nothing to do therefore they will drop out, you may want to look again. Some scouts will simply reach for Eagle, and it may take them years to do it. But for others, Eagle may just be a few steps into the journey.(This message has been edited by pohsuwed)

Thank you, NJCubScouter. I seriously don't understand why Beaverrrr tends to jump to the most negative possible conclusions. In this case it is to attempt to discredit a scout he knows absolutely nothing about but his age. Really? Why can't the conclusion that he jumped to be positive such that the scout has done a great job grasping the learning opportunities of scouting. Heck, why can't it even be a neutral response and at least provide a congratulation?

How many scouters are out there who don't realize that all scouts are different and work on advancement at different speeds. So why not just accept them for how they are rather than discredit them? Frankly, it smells of redistribution of wealth discussions.

A discussion I had with a person just last week at WashJam was somewhat similar. For some reason the person started criticizing scouts who achieve quickly and how scouting isn't about passing off requirements, but it is a journey. My opinion is that if it wasn't about checking off requirements the program should simply pass out Eagle participation badges. Requirements are the foundation of the journey--we based our various and diversified activities around opportunities to learn and earn badges and rank advancements. Some focus on the journey, and others don't. I support all journeys, fast or slow. The type who neglect the journey and then come back at the last minute to journey a bit more bug me, but I still support them.

Beavah - I catch your fine-tuning, but it's really not relevant to the primary issue at hand. With that being said, this part of the thread has drifted a bit anyway, so why not a little more drift? Thanks.

Here's my rub. Life, and BSA, is what you make of it. As BSA is largely a volunteer organization the training is largely a function of our own efforts. If we choose to be trained and hence turn and train others (scouters and scouts) because we want the program to improve it will happen. If we would rather just criticize the program and the efforts of the organization to get people more involved it will not survive. Thank goodness for those who want it to survive.

Maybe we were typing at the same time. But once again, how does the uniform dictate a person's indoor/outdoor emphasis? I show no correlation. However, pushing for more outdoor emphasis in leaders would help out a lot. I have told local leaders here that if they were to structure their programs around activities around scouts qualifying for the National Outdoor Award their programs would improve greatly and I think it would attract a lot more dedicated participation by scouts and more support from scout parents. This wouldn't ignore advancement to Eagle as this would happen more naturally in the process. Greater outdoor emphasis, in my opinion, would have a direct correlation to the improving the overall program and bringing it out of mediocrity.

MC - Once again, completely ill-conceived correlations created between factors that are not close to having any direct correlation. Unless I am mistaken, it appears as though if /some/ adults give up their uniforms the program will come out of mediocrity?

In my opinion, the rubber meets the road at the troop level. If the program is not well presented and managed by the troop committee and the scoutmaster the troop will be mediocre. (Please nobody jump in and say that it must be boy-led for sake of this discussion.) If MC's correlation were true, then what he is saying is that this group of individuals would begin to act differently because the committee wouldn't be able to wear uniforms, nor would most of the council staff. How would this have any impact on their efforts? I would say that the uniform is one additional thing that would tie them all together in a common cause in unity that they could receive visual feedback of this common cause every time they met together. If anything, stripping them of uniform wear would cause a detraction in their purpose.

I don't recall ever seeing a photo of Baden Powell in anything but his uniform. Sure, some may say that he was a "scoutmaster", therefore he fit into MC's concept. Most would say because he represents everything about boy scouts.

I feel that if everyone wore their uniforms with pride setting the example for the boys and did their best to do a better job in providing the program to the boys without exerting their energy into jealous attachs about how other scouters have more knots than them we stand a better chance of pulling this program out of mediocrity.

Great comments, especially the final comment by SeattlePioneer. I also have never seen any mud flung by a "have knot" at a "have not knot", but I have seen it the other way around plenty. (Pun intended, yet absolutely serious.)

And the rest of my experience is similar to ScoutFish. It is the often the egos who first target those with knots as those who surely must have the ego when all they are doing is getting on with the program and doing their best. After all, isn't part of our creed to do our best?(This message has been edited by pohsuwed)

What drives me crazy about these forums is that you have a bunch of adults who suggest using the book to provide direction as to what to do. They then make up their own rules and suggest correlations between ideas that really have no direct correlation.

For example, not having knots does not mean a scoutmaster is a better scoutmaster than others. He very well may be a better scoutmaster than others, but it is not due to his lack of knots (whether he has never earned one or just choose not to wear them, it doesn't matter). Likewise, having a rack of knots also doesn't automatically make a scoutmaster better than one who doesn't have them. However, I would venture to bet that the one with knots has a higher probability to be more in tune with the program to be better able to provide a better program to the boys.

You can inspire your boys by providing a great program to the boys, even without knots on your shirt. However, why not provide the additional inspiration to your boys by showing them your dedication to the program through the wearing of your knots on top of that? You don't have to choose between a quality program with no knots and a poor program with knots. This is a scouting myth that is perpetuated by the same dynamics found in schoolyards across the country. Those who call knots "bling" are teaching scouts to underplay the importance of achievement and the uniform. Frankly, those same individuals might as well tell their boys to just quit or stay at Tenderfoot their entire career so they can avoid the "bling trap" called advancement.

I wear a CO patch under my flag on my right shoulder. I think it's an important thing to represent my CO with my scouts.

Frankly, this same banter is found among youth scouts who compare their own merit badge sashes and rank advancement patches with those other scouts who have accomplished more, and then find ways to criticize those scouts. (It's just as easy to criticize the "easy knots" as it is to criticize the "easy merit badges".) It's pretty simple that the uniform is one of the methods of scouting for a reason. I would suggest using it as intended and wear the recognition you have earned. I would think that providing an achievement motivation to your scouts is much better than providing an attitude against achievement.

I would venture to bet that on this forum if a high-achieving boy-led troop where the scouts have above-average achievement they would still be called a "mill." The reason I say this is because nobody is willing to look deep enough before they accuse the unit of being a "mill." And a "mill" on this forum has no positive connotation. Some of the most enthusiastic "mostly boy-led" troops that I have known would be flushed down the toilet on this forum for over-achievement.

And regarding one of the original questions "What can be done to treat it?" my answer is that we all simply relax and realize that no unit is perfect, but hopefully the boys are benefiting from the program in some way. And if it so be that you feel your boys are getting more simply because you follow the methods of scouting more purely, keep it to yourself or else someone just might find some way to criticize you because you are doing better than them in some way . . . or call you a "mill" of some kind.

Why don't we get real here. The idea of a "mill" on this message board is always brought up as a negative attack at a unit for the appearance of a level of advancement or some other achievement greater than "average." I say average, but my true opinion is that it is simply a perceived level higher than the person claiming another unit is a "mill". Call it an inferiority complex if you will. Nobody ever attempts to understand the interworkings of these "overachieving" units before they give them negative labels--they simply tear them down with criticism every chance they can get.

Sure, some of the items outlined above may reflect on a unit that may benefit from a little different approach, but at the end of the day, every unit is uniquely different with much of the differences coming from the skill sets of available and willing leaders to guide the troop. So when one leader on this message board is criticizing another unit of being another "mill" he is simply not recognizing that maybe the troop wouldn't even be around if it wasn't run the way it is. And what we get are a bunch of high and mighty scouters who think their way is the only way to do things. I could create a similar list illustrating how you can identify these "OFS", or "old fogey scouters". Similarly, I could be criticized by this comment in that it uses a unique reference point of my own thinking that I am younger than others. When in reality, there are probably others younger than me on this board, and then some younger than those. And so on and so on. Therefore, using the definition of the mill simply being the troop that has more advancement than others there is really only one mill or all but one unit are mills. It really depends on your perspective.

The best way to approach this subject is for each one of us to simply be the best leaders we can by providing opportunities across all methods of scouting for the benefit of the boys. And then ignore the OFSs on this board who will undoubtedly tell you how you are doing it wrong and that you must do things as they have in their 80 years of scouting.

DWS et al -

Thank you for referring to the Eagle Scout Magazine. I incorrectly referenced it as the Scouting Magazine.

However, I think a couple of deeper considerations should be in order here.

You mentioned the scout not wanting to play the bugle any more after earning the merit badge. You make it sound as though he already didn't like it before he attempted the merit badge, thus he did something only to get the badge. I would think that the "can-do attitude" type of individual might look at it this way:

1. He started the merit badge because he set forth a goal for himself to complete all the merit badges.

2. He learned that he wasn't fond of the subject matter.

3. He completed it anyway at least to the point of showing competency sufficient to pass off the merit badge.

4. He earned the merit badge as a mark of him doing something that he might not otherwise have attempted to do in his life.

Now doesn't that provide for a more positive perspective on this?

And regarding the Waterskiing merit badge. This is all a matter of perspective as well. You have no idea the exact status of his shoulders or knees, so I would suggest that allowing them to be the judge of that would probably be a good idea. Plus, how many stories have you heard of in your life where someone in their old age does something because it was a lifelong dream with the potential of personal loss for doing so? It wasn't too long ago that George Bush Sr went sky diving because he had always wanted to. Could several factors relating to his personal health caused this to end in tragedy? So why then has everyone applauded him for his courage?

And frankly, a question may be issued to the editorial staff of the magazine as to why they decided to print these snippets if they presented such a divergence from the spirit of the merit badge program. I would venture to guess that they used it to express his willingness to grab the bull by the horns and try new things and extend himself in areas where others might have given up before even starting.

Another question to consider regarding the "for the sake of the badge" comment is this: How many merit badges are specifically earned "for the sake of the badge"? I would guess that each Eagle Scout earns up to a dozen merit badges for the sake of the badge--yes, I'm referring to the required merit badges. I'm not sure how many scouts would eagerly select these merit badges if they were electives, especially if they were just shooting for the magic 21. Similarly, after they are done with them, how many of them would be jumping at the chance of visiting another federal facility (Citizenship in the Nation) or how many of them spend their time on the internet perusing the State Department's website (Citizenship in the World), or how many of them would specifically go into the woods on six different occasions to spend time observing the ecosystem and journaling about what they have found (Environmental Science). All of these things are done for the sake of something. So I guess it is all about what that "sake" is. For some, it is to minimally fulfill the requirements of Eagle. For others, it is to take advantage of a program to its fullest and explore a wide variety of areas. And I would also guess that most of these merit badges that have been awarded over the years was not because the scout was "truly interested" in the topic.

Going back to the wide and shallow puddle concept, I have done a little more thinking about this and will share a few more thoughts. We are all very well aware that as scout leaders we cannot add to the requirements of BSA rank requirements or merit badge requirements. This goes back to Beavah's nitpicking on the term "exposure" and assuming that this doesn't involve any retention of the subject matter. I don't see any of the requirements suggesting that the scout must maintain long-term retention of the subject matter. If the counselor feels as though the scout has sufficiently achieved the requirements of the merit badge then he should receive the merit badge. If the counselor feels as though he would like to go further with the scout into more detail regarding the subject matter of the merit badge, that is purely up to him. However, if the scout sufficiently completes the requirements, the counselor should not require more.

Regarding the perception that a badge every three weeks is too quick, I guess this is again a matter of perspective. My mother taught me to always be doing something "constructive." This means that when I got home from school I didn't watch much TV and I surely didn't sit in front of the game console for hours. So let's add up time another way to see how things add up:

1. A boy finishes school any given day at 3:00pm. If his bedtime is 9:00pm then this gives six hours each day for activities.

2. Assume household activities (chores) take one hour per day.

3. Assume dinner takes one hour per day.

4. Assume homework takes one hour per day.

5. Assume personal entertainment is one hour per day.

6. That still leaves two hours per day of other activity time that generally gets used by number 5 above.

What if those extra two hours per day are used doing something more constructive? And what if we use this same assumption for Saturday and Sunday as well (meaning, we are only using two constructive hours per day). That would provide for 42 hours every three weeks for a scout to achieve each merit badge. Now how does that look? Of course, I'm not suggesting that this must be a highly regimented action plan for earning more than the minimum merit badges for Eagle. However, I am saying that those who would rather have a "can't-do attitude" wouldn't look at all of the truly wasted time kids these days let slip through their fingers doing things that don't benefit them in the least bit. (I would venture to bet that if any of you are merit badge counselors and you had a scout spend 42 hours on your merit badge you would probably have the best prepared scout standing in front of you. The reality is that very few merit badges would require even near that much time to prepare for the merit badge. Thus, the "three week per merit badge" become even easier.

Personally, I would rather have my son do an activity to learn that he wouldn't prefer to do it again later than him not even attempt it in the first place. This is part of that growing experience we call life. And it's a great thing that the Scouting program provides for some structure for us to use in this great experience. If as parents and scout leaders we didn't offer and provide for these opportunities these kids would become absolute slugs.

And I really don't get Beavah's concept that if a troop has a lot of scouts earning merit badges there must be something wrong in the program and that the leaders need additional training??? I would think that if there were any specific trigger that could be viewed from outside the troop suggesting the need for adult training it would be a noticable lack of activity. Sometimes with the thoughtless and random comments about "mills" I wonder if people really would prefer scouts to settle for average and no more. If this were the case, each troop should limit Eagle "production" to one per year and no more just to make sure they don't exceed the average of 3% (or whatever the number really is) of scouts who reach the rank of Eagle. I would much rather have my son in a "mill" full of activity than a "first-come first-served none above average" troop.

And finally, Beavah, if you would actually be neutral on the judgement of a boy based on a large number of merit badges, yet offer a negative judgement on the program that the boy was a part of, in what situation would you offer any positive judgement? Unfortunately, if you use solely qualitative means as you tend to suggest you will always still only see what you want to see and each scout and program would have to be put up to a court of consensus to determine their approved or unapproved status. Why don't we stick with the program allowing those scouts who meet the requirements receive the recognition they deserve. Using airplane boy as a prime example, while he performed specific and seemingly mundane activities on his journey, he came out with something much more than a list of places he has been. He has come out with an excitement and energy to direct his life in a particular direction in that his career choice was related to his experience.

So rather than berate those extending themselves to gain more experience, why don't we celebrate their broader experience base from which they can build the rest of their lives?

And I'll stand by my words that you didn't read it thoroughly. Therefore, to make it simpler the Cliffnotes version is this:

While there is a grid that would illustrate the appropriate combination of palms earned and worn by scouts, eventually there isn't enough space on the designated area of the uniform for the higher combinations. The premise of the website therefore suggests a square knot in lieu of this large number of palms that won't fit. So it clearly recognizes the earning of palms. It just also recognizes the fact that the insignia guide falls short in allowing large amounts of palms to be worn.

I guess I missed this thread a while back. I must have been busy being "more balanced" in my life.

One day I'll start a new post with more of my thoughts on this whole deal. But for today I'll just highlight the key points of this thread. (Sorry for bringing up an otherwise dead thread, but I just have to speak up a bit.)

OldGreyEagle really hit it on the spot with his comments about "judging a book by its cover" and "so, what we got is a program where some people don't want boys to earn Eagle by completing merely the minimum requirements but then again others do not wish to see over achievers go much past those same requirments".

For some reason too many people have this complex about overachievement. Anyone who even has the appearance of achieving more than others is blacklisted by others within the organization. This idea that a scout having earned more merit badges being labeled as a mud puddle wide and shallow is so base and ignorant that it truly makes me laugh. This statement is obviously being made to compare to other scouts with fewer merit badges as a class in general. Is the writer of this statement then willing to say that all other scouts must surely have more depth of knowledge and understanding in all areas of their "more balanced" life? In a program where we are concerned with maintaining youth activity I'm sure we really don't want to pull those down who want to do more.

Interestingly, people outside of the organization seem to think that achievement is a great thing. It's those within who would rather tear down.

And for the statement by dcsimmons, he? obviously judged the book by its cover as his statement about the website making the mistake of linking merit badges with Eagle comes from left field based on the actual content of the website.

But this is the common theme . . . speaking before thinking.

Along these same lines, another infamous statement that even made it into Scouting magazine's 100th anniversary edition is the "doing few things well versus doing many things poorly" statement. I'm not saying anything about the origination of this quote in the magazine, but do we really want to continually make blanket statements such as this giving every boy out there an automatic "out" not to explain their inactivity, but to allow them to suggest that they can criticize others by saying how poorly they must surely do things compared to their otherwise unknown level of activity?

Do we really want to truly want to build into our kid's minds that those who extend themselves in any way must surely be doing it for their own detriment as they will only be doing it poorly? What if we were to tear down every great American or other personal example we have in our lives to nothing just so everyone felt good about themselves? What would we end up with? I won't provide my personal answer to this rhetorical question here as it would come across as politically charged, and I don't want to open that can of worms.

I had a conversation with a man just this last week regarding his sons' achievements in scouting. They were a very active family being highly involved in scouting where both sons also earned great recognition outside of scouting for their scouting efforts. In scouting, both sons were Eagles and they probably had 200 merit badges between the two of them. Unfortunately, much of his comments centered around another scout not in his family where this boy earned all of the merit badges, yet he couldn't see how it could have been done. There was even the tone in the conversation that the boy must have cheated. --So in a case where this family would otherwise be looked down on by the masses as being "too wide and shallow" they took the same approach when criticizing another boy as being "too wide and shallow."

Personally, I think the "too wide and shallow" mostly fits those who would rather criticize with a "can't do" attitude than those with a "can do" attitude who go out there and do it.

And pardon me for commenting on sherminator505's comment, but I see many Eagles getting their Eagle solely for the notoriety of it as well.

And Eamonn, it very well could be assumed that airport boy had a significant experience in terms of going out on his own into the big world interacting with hundreds of people and having many new experiences during his trip. Other boys at that time might just have been at home playing their xBox 360s for hours at a time. Plus, your conclusion doesn't make sense in that he went on in a career that correlated directly with his experience.

eghiglie, I'm sure scouts under you appreciate your support, even those who are just after the "magic 21". I liked how you said that as this reinforces the reality in most situations--scouts really in general are just interested in achieving the minimum.

Eagle92, I think you missed reading the meritbadgknot.com website before you commented on it. Otherwise, your comments may have been a little different.

And finally, in the last Scouting magazine there were either five or six of the scouts on the list at meritbadgeknot.com who have been awarded scholarships. I guess that says something about how "shallow" these scouts are.

John,

I agree that I will never be 100% on this list. I also agree that there are many more scouts out there who I will never find and that the number 106 (at this point) is far short of accurate.

At the same time, does this mean that there is no sense in trying as it will "never" be complete? I don't think so. Just like everything else, if a person were to avoid activities due to perceived difficulties or the fact that it will never be "perfect" the person will just end up sitting on the couch watching TV.

Interestingly, when I started the list I had read in several places that people estimated that the total number of scouts ever to have earned all the merit badges to be less than 100. At least I have shown that this is a more common achievement than otherwise assumed. Sure, many of them have completed them in the last few years, but I am also sure that there are a significant number over the years to easily add up to the several hundreds, if not more.

And in each of these cases if the scouts quit because they felt the task was too large I'm sure they would have missed out on plenty of great adventures in life and being a great example to other scouts and people around them.

Similarly, if I quit putting the list together after I first started this thread based on the feedback I got on it we wouldn't have any of this information recorded. And by the way, I receive comments on the website frequently, especially from scouts and families who are progressing through scouting with this as a goal of theirs. I firmly believe that this is providing a great deal of motivation for scouts to remain active in their troops and continue to be productive.

And yes, I always hear about questions of whether these scouts are benefiting from the other methods of scouting and having tunnelvision on merit badges. My question is how could they not be benefiting from and adding value to the program otherwise? It's difficult to walk through the rain and not get wet.

And finally, the previous post regarding Nathaniel Buffington is a great story and written well by the reporter. I would suggest everyone read it and share it with their troops. It highlights family involvement and exploring the many areas the merit badge program offers life experience.

Congratulations to Nathaniel for his achievement! I have posted his information to the list.

Deacon Lance - Very good input. Thank you for this. The best response I have to this is that I did consider the option of a different device. However, the overriding issue in my mind is that I believe there is a natural desire to avoid knot devices by those who earn them simply because they can be a bother to deal with. Taking them on and off again to wash uniforms and the risk of them falling off unexpectedly are my two primary reasons for suggesting the knot rather than the device.

JoeBob - Thank you for your input as well. I appreciate your approach and your support. While I don't think BSA will support the idea of an approved private issue knot it would nonetheless satisfy the issue. Thanks!

Interesting. . .

You appear to be an interesting fellow, although not quite as interesting as Bob White. My stance is my stance, and I won't back down from it because I feel there is a hole (a small hole, that is) in the program that can be resolved.

I had no reason to respond to your comment on a knot with a palm on it as it fills the same purpose I support. It had nothing to do with my elitist ego. If I were to respond to your comment I would have told you that you just don't make sense as you appear to be against the idea and then for the idea. The overriding position of your post was that you were against the idea so I focused on that and the inconsistency of your profile.

And frankly, my comment on your profile was not to suggest you change it. I really don't care what your profile says. It was simply to show you that you indeed feel the same way I do about certain things! You may not like that, but it indeed has been proven to be the case.

(And by the way, in case you think I'm suggesting that I do not appreciate or consider the efforts and role of the US military I think it is great that you are a 12 year active duty veteran.)

At the end of the day, it may be worth your time to thoughtfully read the website. The point is that BSA provides for scouts to continue wearing palms while they are a scouter as a knot device. My stance is that there are some scouts who have too many palms to fit on the knot, hence I am suggesting an alternative.

Unfortunately, this type of issue will always raise itself in forum after forum. One of the more recent iterations in the news is the issue of the capping of executive pay being pushed forward by the democrats. Generally speaking, capping pay will only cause people to work up to their pay and no more. Allowing people to innovate and work hard and get paid for their efforts is the way I feel about this issue. I would guess that most of those who are against a scout being able to continue wearing their achievements that BSA says they can wear would likewise be for capping executive pay. I understand that this is a gross generalization, but probably not too far off.

And finally, "elite" is such an interesting word as it is completely subjective. Based on the percentages quoted, an Eagle Scout would also be considered to be "elite." I'm sure you wouldn't be against anyone earning the elite rank of Eagle. But then again, how often does this board ring of people complaining that troops have too many Eagles! Again, I think there is a jealousy complex involved to a higher degree than anyone is willing to admit.

I personally will admit jealousy in scouting. Take a look at some of the scouts on my website and some of the things they have done. I personally was active in my troop until I was age 18 attending summer camp every year and meetings every week. I always had at least two or three scouting irons in the fire along with school and church activities. But did I accomplish as much as scouts like Travis Cochran who earned the Silver and Bronze Hornaday on top of his Eagle and all of the merit badges? And to think that he had his pick of colleges to go to and that he continues to play football at the collegiate level, and that he will probably have any job and career path he desires because of his upbringing? I'm definitely jealous. And look at some of the Eagle projects of the other scouts. Consider Wes Weaver's Eagle project. I'm definitely jealous that my project wasn't near as involved as his. Plus, his project will stand for years with thousands of people using it every year. Now I can use this jealousy to downplay these scouts' accomplishments or I can use this on a more positive note to encourage my scouts to use them as examples of working hard to learn, achieve, and experience the ideals of scouting. I know which option I pick. You and everyone else likewise will have to take your pick as well. And if you are willing to use them as good examples, why discredit them at the same time?

And just to repeat, the concept is that BSA allows for the wearing of palms as knot devices as adult scouters. If there are too many palms, they just don't fit. I'm simply offering an alternative method to accomplish what BSA already allows.