HelpfulTracks

All the heavy lifting is done by the scouts and unit scouters. 

 

It is true that district and council leaders don't get there by accident. They get there by donating large sums of money to help pay for the execs bloated salaries. In return, the execs give council leaders prestigious looking positions on the committees. One hand washes the other. 

 

Scouts will never have much say at the district, council, or national level. They don't have the big bucks to buy a committee post.

I hold District and Council positions and I am Committee’s at both levels. I cannot and don’t give big money to any level of BSA. I give to FoS when I can and I designate that my United Way contribution at work go to the Council, but that is about it other than paying for my children’s activities (most of which they pay for via fundraising). Sadly, the way United Way is setup with our local Council, no one can even verify that my money gets to the Council.

 

In fact, Charter Organizations hold far more power than most of us on a Committee, they get a vote in Council business, via the CoR’s.

 

As for bloated salaries, I know the starting salaries for DE’s in my area is under $38k, about $13k less than the average for bachelor degree.on top of that they are working 60-80 hours a week.

Some of the folks here talk a great game about Boy led but when it comes to issues like the future of Scouting you don’t trust them? I smell hypocracy. Either you believe in Boy led and the patrol method or you don’t. If you’re not willing to put the decision of who scouts let in to Scouting you then maybe such people should open their own over 30 adult scouting group and you make your own rules.

Back Pack, how do you see that being structured and operated? I’m curious because I am always interested in being more boy-led, but there are issues I am struggling to see how, what I think you are proposing, working.

The problem that Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are having is NOT caused by the kids, it is caused by bad adult leaders.  Yes, I have meet some great adult leaders, but there are too many bad adult leaders out there.  I have see too many good leaders driven out of the program by the bad ones gunning for them, it is heart breaking to so the good ones walk away, and end up stuck with horrible leader in a high position that no adult wants to follow, because they know they will regret it. 

 

I have often said, only partially in jest, that Boy Scouts would be GREAT if we could get the adults out of it.

 

There is far too much adult intervention and "support" that does not fit with the Aims and Methods. I won't call it bad, because most are just trying to help, but they do not understand the difference between Cub and Boy Scouts, or the BSA mission, Aims & Methods, boy-led philosophy or some other pillar of Scouting. For those, we can try to help, train and guide just like we do Scouts.

 

However, just like every other part of society, there are those that want to do things their way, because they know best. Moving them out of the way isn't really an option because we risk loosing their youth, who are often the ones that need Scouting the most. However, we can stand in the gap and be a constant reminder of how things work in BSA, give them jobs to keep them occupied and continue to try to educate them on how BSA works. Unfortunately, those people are often the cause of good Scouts and Scouters either leaving the program or moving on to other unit and weakening the unit they to which they belong.

Ok. So survey the other 2.1m of us. It’s our organization and not some old guys in Dallas or wherever.

 

 

That comment is out of line. There are a lot of "old guys in Dallas" who have dedicated their lives to this organization. I don't know what makes you think you have more right and say in it than them. Unless of course you don't think you need the old guys and your age group could just run the whole thing yourselves. 

 

Maybe it is more misinformed than out of line. The average Scout/Scouter have no idea of the inner workings of BSA, even at a District or Council level. I'll admit I am very deep into scouting and the intricacies often confuse me and force me to go look things up.

 

But those old men and women, didn't get there by accident. And that starts at your local district and council. The people that make the committees and boards up have a very keen interest in Scouting, they make it go, giving and raising money, serving in various positions (at local levels often several positions, because they are the ones that step up when no one else does). They are nominated and elected to those positions by fellow Scouters (and Scouts) serving on committees, and without them the program would be much different, if it existed at all.

 

And contrary to popular belief the professionals are not the ones deciding everything. In fact, I think the only professional that has a vote is the National Chief Executive and that is only on the Executive Committee. Local Executives do not vote on the Council Committee.

 

Many, if not most, were scouts as youth, including the current executive (Eagle Scout) and Commissioner (cub, boy Scout and Explore). So, while they are old men, they got there through years of dedicated service to Scouting.

I was a Scout since 2009 and no one asked us who or what we wanted in our program. Wouldn’t it be nice if young men were elected to national office in scouting to make decisions for the rest of us under 21? It seems wrong to have guys in their 50s (no offense) to try to imagine what it’s like to be 15 these days.

 

Actually, the National Chief (OA) is on the board, as well as 3-4 more youth. I think the National VOA President is one of those. Not sure how the others are selected.

Bring in the girls, marketing research shows that only 10% of boys have any interest in Boy Scouts, but 90% of girls are interested joining cubs and 87% want to join boy scouts. That is almost a 900% growth rate!

 

BSA Quote:  "A recent surveys of parents not involved with Scouting showed high interest in getting their daughters signed up for programs like Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, with 90 percent expressing interest in a program like Cub Scouts and 87 percent expressing interest in a program like Boy Scouts.  Education experts also evaluated the curriculum and content and confirmed relevancy of the program for young women."[/size]

I would urge caution on using that math. The BSA quote says “87% expressed INTEREST in a program LIKE†Boy Scouts.

 

I have not seen what question they asked or how it was answered. Let alone the sample size or methods. I’m not questioning anyone’s integrity, but the question may have simply been would you be interested in a program that develops character, citizenship and fitness, with no reference to how the program is delivered. I think most people would answer yes. But that question doesn’t show what degree of interest or how such a program would be delivered.

 

While I have no doubt the statement is accurate, without seeing the actual data and results, I am not sure what it really tells us.

That's a different thing than what I understood in your earlier post--you didn't define "Moms and Dads" as helicopter parents.  I'm all for not allowing parents to interfere.  However, I don't think of attending a meeting quietly as interfering.  That, and IMHO, one of the most important jobs of adult leaders is to keep parents from interfering.

I agree that attending is not interfering. And parents are welcome to come and observe, just not as “mom and dad helicopter “ parents.

 

We are more than glad to have them as leaders, instructors, MB counselors, etc., but not to interfere with the youth leadership and patrol method, or to be their child’s personal valets.

If you had tried to stop me, as a parent, from going to a meeting or any other event, the council would be receiving a YPT violation report from me.  That said, parents should be seen and not heard at a troop meeting (unless specifically called upon or if they are troop leaders).

 

Please see my other post for context. I am defining “Mom and dad†as helicopter parents and doing more than observing. We are YP compliant on this issue.

 

If after reading my other post you would still want to have a discussion with the Council I would welcome that opportunity.

Edit hours later.  Thank you for more information.

 

>Paint Ball is a pretty expensive activity.  Who was going to pay? Some camps will only charge $50/day per participant, gear and ammo supplied.  Were the parent going to be OK with the bruises that commonly result despite good protective gear? 

 

Not really that expensive. About the same as going to a movie if you get a drink and popcorn. And it last about 2-3 times as long as a movie. A good many youth around here do paintball, many have their own equipment and some to share, that lowers the cost even more. I am going to guess that since parents allow their youth to play paintball outside of scouting they would not have objections to them playing it with Scouts. But hey, it's a fickle world.

 

How did Scouting grow to include 2/3 of all boys without Paint Ball? 

 

I don't think Scouting has ever included 2/3 of all boys, it certainly doesn't now. In fact many more people play paintball that are in Scouting.

 

>Water Tubing is expressly allowed.  Who was your G2SS subject matter expert?

 

No expert, but I can read:

Per the Guide to Safe Scouting

 

Unauthorized and Restricted Activities

15. Parasailing, or any activity in which a person is carried aloft by a parachute,

parasail, kite, or other device towed by a motorboat, including a tube, or by

any other means, is unauthorized.

 

 

>Four wheeling?  How was that going to work?  Does the Troop have its own vehicles?  Loaners? Insurance? Expert supervision? (We had a kid killed last year on his family property.  No Scouting connection, just dead.)  Site?  Or was this another pay-to-play activity?  Did anyone price Council possibilities vs. alternatives?  Five councils in an hours drive from us offer ATV activities, except when booked solid during Summer Camp or when the weather is prohibitive.

 

Troop has no ATVs, but several family members do, as well as property. When this was last brought up the closest camp was about a 4 hour drive, really not a good option for a weekend camping event.

 

>You have personal watercraft for the Troop to use?   We do too, and use them when we run our own troop summer camp.  As long as we follow Safety Afloat, our Council thinks its OK. What have we (Troop and Council) missed?

Several families have PWC to use, but we can't.

Here is what you Committee and Council missed.

Per the Guide to Safe Scouting

Unauthorized and Restricted Activities

13. Motorized personal watercraft (PWC), such as Jet-Skis®, are not authorized

for use in Scouting aquatics, and their use should not be permitted in or near

BSA program areas. The exception is council-approved PWC programs.

They are not approved for unit use.

 

>Towed Parasailing.  That seems excessively risky. 

 

It may seem that way, but while they make headlines when they happen, deaths are pretty rare. Particularly when compared to other activities that Scouting does allow.

 

>Hot Air Balloons - ditto.  Experts kill themselves.  Lovely YT videos of flaming crashes.

 

Again, statistically not as hazardous as it appears.

 

You forgot landmine removal and bull-riding, also thrilling.

 

Why do you feel the need to be a snarky? I elaborated because you asked.

 

>Dodgeball is a regular activity at our Council camp. Sam Houston Council has an annual Dodgeball Challenge. 

 

As I said, I couldn't find it is G2SS, but we have heard from some that it falls under the same concept of "not kind" like water guns.

 

I find no prohibition in G2SS.  Dodgeball with rocks, or from hot air balloons or towed parasails or ATVs, is probably not OK.

 

Again with the condesending remarks.

 

> Karate- What does "qualified" mean?   Many martial arts teachers are stiffs who promote hyper-aggression.  I had bloody teeth slide across a floor and into my feet at a karate tournament.  The head judge, a very highly ranked master, walked out due to the violence (lack of control). There is not a nationally recognized accreditation program as there is for range masters.  Instead many asociations offer their own, competing version of acccreditation.

It is the case that, "In truth, there are no legal or business certification requirements preventing you [i.e. anyone] from declaring yourself a karate or martial arts instructor."   How would BSA determine if Joe and Art will be safe managers of the fighting? 

My son is a 6th Degree Black-belt in Aikido after twenty years of learning and teaching.  He teaches Cub-aged kids up to senior citizens.  He is excellent with the little 'uns.  His own two children participate.   I should ask him if he thinks it would be a good casual activity for a troop. 

 

I don't think it would take a black belt to observe how an instructor conducts a class and have a discussion with him about what he does during his "introductory classes." THere is a huge difference between an introductory class and a tournament. As Scouters we do not turn our brain off and are capable of assessing all types of risk, and certainly the difference between a introductory class where no contact with others is being made and tournament that you describe. . Clearly you have assessed that your son is good with "little 'uns," I assume that you didn't turn your brain off while making that assessment. Perhaps it is possible that others are capable of making a valid assessment as well.

 

Who did you ask? 

 

I asked my co-worker. He is a Olympic level qualified Judo Judge and travels world wide to judge competitions. He is a very qualified and reasonable man, whose judgement I trust. .

 

Consideration of MMA?

 

Again, why do you feel the need to be condescending?!?

 

>Pioneering   Lots of legend involved here, including in district and council publications.

 

So far as I know, there never was a rule about the height of signal towers EXCEPT those built at council camps.  Even that rule has been revised recently to allow greater height before safety gear is required.  http://www.scouting.org/filestore/youthprotection/pdf/NCAP_Circular_2.pdfat pp 3-4   That is little more than the federal government, through OSHA, requires for adult workers working above six feet.  Less for kids?  But away from Camp, you have always been on your own. And the campers liked the zip line across the lake better than pioneering anyhow.  Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

There was a rule in the G2SS specifically about monkey bridges (just after the section on knives). It limited height of the foot rope to 4-5 feet and length to 25-40 feet, depending on the subjective experience of the Scouts, but it went away some years ago.

 

There is a nice plan for a 20 ft signal tower in the current National Camping School Outdoors Skills Resource Manuel on p. 28.  (But you can't parasail down.)

 

BSA has "work height" restrictions - for "working" on "service projects" ( Working at Heights and Elevations ). They do not, by their terms apply to pioneering projects. If they meant pioneering projects, they could have easily said so, and thus the rules do not apply to pioneering projects by normal canons of construction.

 

Who is your pioneering expert?  At a council camp we attended eleven years ago, the Pioneering Merit Badge staff built a 20 ft+ tower with bailing twine when the Area Director was away.  Happily, no one was badly hurt when it collapsed with four of the staff on its highest level.  When planning a tower, we ask: How old are the ropes?  How much grit in them?  How exposed to UV? How long have tight knots been left tied in them.  What load was on those ropes and knots? How heavy are the Wooden members?  For what working load were the ropes rated when new?  Are safety ropes nylon rather than less stretchy materials (like polyester that stops a falling person like a steel rod). How much will the planned knots and lashing weaken the ropes?

 

I have met a couple of Scouters I would trust with my kid on a high tower (one ran the pioneering area at CJ'17.), but the Scouts could have had lots of fun on the  40 ft long, 5 ft high monkey bridge that G2SS expressly authorized under the withdrawn rule and that you might have suggested as a resource person. You could now build it 100 feet with a fortune in rope and lots of spars.

 

Ever make THAT CALL to a  Scout parent?  I have not.  Don't want to.  But I got to tell a wife her husband would not be coming home from work.  Thankfully for me, she had to tell the kids.  He landed on his head from sixteen feet up because he didn't wear his safety belt and it unexpectedly became necessary.  A passing mom with a stroller was in the splatter zone.  It gives me a different perspective on silly ol' safety rules.  Things rarely fail according to plan.

 

Given choices like backpacking in the Whites or canoeing in Canada or on Isle Royale, I have a hard time feeling limited.  My job, in part, is to offer choices, not to moan about the choices we don't have - much less about restrictions that are imagined.

 

Pioneering has been beat to death in other post so I will not continue on it, other than to say you are correct, some info about pioneering has been clarified and updated.

 

In closing, I am not sure what have said that has caused you to feel the need to take such a condescending tone. I have read your post in the past and agreed with many of them, but I have not noticed this very un-scout-like tone and attitude previously. If I have said something that you feel deserves such an attitude, please let me know. I will be glad to discuss it in an adult manner.

If enough scouts really enjoy big pioneering projects then just make a training course that's hands on. We do climbing and shotgun, why not pioneering?

 

It would be better to be proactive and react to what the scouts want rather than defensive and react to what the lawyers want.

Actually, I proposed that in a previous thread. There were some folks that were less than enthusiastic about the idea, but most seemed to be supportive.

 

I have already stared moving forward by reaching out to some people in different fields that could be of assistance in writing such a plan, proposal and training curriculum. I have also started work on identifying some possible champions for such a program.

Good question. Answer, they have never been asked. The troop has been very much adult led, not youth led. As soon as we begin starting getting on track, something happens.

Then that is where I would start. The Youth need to be leading, and that is not really an option. If they adults are not on board I would look for a troop that is boy led or at least making strides in that direction.

 

My guess is that whatever the “something†that happens and end up derailing things, most likely has to do with adults stepping in where they shouldn’t.

 

If you can get the troop moving toward boy led and using the patrol method that will take a good bit of the craziness caused by adults out of things. Helicopter parents get bored when they are relegated to being distant bystanders. And the youth will almost certainly put them their if given the room and support to make their own decisions.

 

Easier said than done, but certainly worth the effort, not to mention the right way to do Scouting.

Candidly not sure we follow 100% of these, but many are allowed in some form

 

Paintball - Yep have to use targets to be compliant

Laser Tag - Yep have to use targets to be compliant

Water guns - Not specifically mentioned by name

Water Tubing - Tubing is allowed with PFD's

Four wheeling - As part of council program to be compliant

Personal Water Craft - Yep

Towed Para Sailing - Yep

Hot Air Balloon rides - Yep unless tethered

Dodgeball ( i still argue this it's different that using paint/laser guns) - Well not mentioned by name so......

Introductory Karate Class with qualified instructors - Yep 

Certain pioneering projects - Yep due to height

Floating in a tube is allowed, yes. Being towed behind a boat gets a little confusing. It is mentioned in two places with contradicting allowances. It seems to be okay under Tow Sports, but specifically ruled out in Unathorized and Reatricted Activities #15.

Well it just got escalated.

 

Long story short, an online discussion noted how one of the new scouters is now bringing his wife and Tiger to the camporee this weekend. I made comments about how this is a Boy Scout event, and Cubs are not suppose to be there. Major  pushback about how the troop had allowed 10-15 years ago siblings to camp with them, and other major pushback. Noted all the factors involved in why Cubs do not need to be there. More push back. Then 2 other private discussions on push back. One ASM of the troop is one of those pushing back. Apparently his troop growing up allowed siblings and did a lot of family camping. So he sees nothing wrong and thinks I am overreacting. He also stated " you are fighting a battle you will lose."

 

The troop is no longer fun anymore.

 

One good friend has backed off because of the new parents. Officially a second has backed off a lot due to other obligations. But I think he is disgusted with things and doesn't want to deal with the drama.  And a 3rd experienced Scouter has expressed a desire to transfer to another troop. I'll be active a little longer, long enough for a leaders' meeting the current SM wants because of all the crap going on. I know he is tired of all the garbage going on, and hopefully he will get things straight.

 

But it is definitely no longer fun. I already told my oldest I am backing away as It is stressing me out.

What does the PLC have to say about it?

You will eventually get called on that. As YP states "All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents..."

 

http://www.scouting.org/youthprotection.aspx

My bad, that was misleading. Let me clear it up. We do not prevent parents from attending meetings or outings. They can come, in fact we often need transportation. By not allowing moms and dads I mean they are not there in that capacity. ( I made reference to this in an earlier post in this thread) They are more than welcome to observe from a distance with the rest of the adults and adult leaders.

 

The youth lead, adults only step-in when asked by youth leaders or when it become an issue of safety or policy. The only adults that are allowed to step-in are registered leaders, unless a registered leader ask the parents for assistance or it is an emergency.

 

We don’t allow mom and dad to “do things†for their youth or “visit†their camp sites, without good reason. (They stay in the adults campsite). In fact we don’t want them correcting or disciplining them either. If some type of corrective action is required we follow the boy led philosophy and move to registered leaders if needed. They youth are leading when it is Scouting time and we do not want that to be interfered with. We have had a couple of bumps, but after a talk with the parents they get it. They may need a few extra pills on their shirt sleeve before they remember it, but eventually they figure it out.

 

We are most certainly YP compliant in our actions.

Here is a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Association_of_Girl_Guides_and_Girl_Scouts_members

 

GSUSA is a member of WAGGGS

 

Calling the Girl Boy Scouts Girl Guides would be all sorts of problems with the GSUSA.

 

 

Personally, I think the Boy Scouts should be extra brave and call the new program GIRL SCOUTS OF AMERICA ( GSA ) That would be a BOLD move.

Did a quick trademark search and it does not look like GSUSA has any claim legally to Girl Guides. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be continuous.

I was, however, frustrated with parents that wanted to jump in and solve problems for the scouts at meetings. The idea that every problem could be a learning experience for the boys just doesn't seem to be soaking in.

Precisely why we do not allow “moms and dads†on outings or in meetings. The youth lead and run things, if an adult is needed it is a registered Scouter that steps in. If mom or dad wants to register as a leader, great! But that means they have an obligation to the youth of the Unit not just their child. When they have the uniform on they are adult leaders, not Mom and dad.

Yes. I have said something like this before. I don't think it is helpful in this context, especially because historically "separate but equal" was really code for "separate and unequal." If the "black schools" of Topeka, Kansas had actually provided an education that was "equal" (or anywhere near equal) to the "white" schools, Brown v. Board of Education might have been decided differently. I am pretty sure that formalized publicly-mandated racial segregation still would have been struck down, but at a later time, in a different case and using different terminology.

Absolutely. I think there are some that are using the phrase because they oppose the policy change and want to make the connection. I prefer a discussion based on merit rather than creating a bias by attempting to connect the two very different issues.

I have no problems saying it without rolling my eyes.

The phrase “separate but equal†has a heavily charged history and meaning wrapped around its use and instantly changes the discussion.

"Each year our Scouts bring a list of activities to the PLC and annual planning, because those items are what they youth WANT in their program. Each year there are some request we must alter considerably or out right reject due to the Guide to Safe Scouting. And I am not talking crazy request, these are activities they already do with their families, church groups and other organizations. It is disheartening to Scouts and Scouters alike."

 

To help my aged mind understand, might you give examples of proposed activities barred by  the G2SS?  

 

Sure:

Paintball

Laser Tag

Water guns

Water Tubing

Four wheeling

Personal Water Craft

Towed Para Sailing

Hot Air Balloon rides

Dodgeball ( i still argue this it's different that using paint/laser guns)

Introductory Karate Class with qualified instructors

Certain pioneering projects

 

Those are some of the items I can remember that have been suggested by our Scouts that they have done on other youth organizations, but did not meet G2SC requirements. Mind you I do not disagree that some of them should be excluded but some of the others I think are a bit over zealous.

Yet another reason why, if they were going to do this, they should have waited until they had an actual program in place, with an actual name.  At this point "girl boy scouts" is probably the most logical thing to call this nameless hypothetical program and its hypothetical future members, but it sounds ridiculous.

 

I realize that doesn't answer the issue you are writing about, but I don't have an answer.

 Yes, but you know if they had decided to keep the announcement under wraps until they had a detailed program they thunder we hear would have been just as loud, only withe the subject of why were we not included in developing the program and similar arguments..

 

Besides even if no one on the committee were to leak the information (which I doubt), as soon as planning started and the circle of those in the know grew, it certainly would have come out.

 

How does it go? The only way 3 people can keep a secret is if 2 of them are dead. I would have taken the next day in the office pool for how long it would take before the info was leaked. I also imagine I would have lost to someone that picked an earlier time.

Not sure how too much safety is even involved.  Aside from quite a few inaccurate statements, the article advocates a "..well we have a leader who made it up and called it scouting once apon a time and we should be able to do it.." theme.    

 

Some things are just not needed to develop character, citizenship, etc.

 

Pick up a Scout Handbook, do what is in there with youth and you should be good.  

 

The Aims/Mission is character, citizenship an fitness are the destination. The Methods and the program are the vehicles to get there. Most Scouters probably join because they believe in that mission. Most parents probably want their children in Scouting because of that mission. But that is not why Scout want to join or stay in Scouting.

 

While there are many factors that contribute to the downward trajectory of BSA membership over that last few decades, I would argue program is the number one way to reverse that trajectory. And program may be the number one reason for that trajectory to begin with.

 

Each year our Scouts bring a list of activities to the PLC and annual planning, because those items are what they youth WANT in their program. Each year there are some request we must alter considerably or out right reject due to the Guide to Safe Scouting. And I am not talking crazy request, these are activities they already do with their families, church groups and other organizations. It is disheartening to Scouts and Scouters alike.

 

I look at my job as a Scouter as helping Scouts engage in experiences that change their life, get them excited about learning and trying new things, to help them appreciate and love the outdoors and all of the adventures it holds. Along that journey I am going to help them develop character, citizenship and fitness. I know that doing my job of fulfilling the mission of Scouting requires that I do the job getting the Scouts to have fun and embrace the program. The two things are inseparable.

 

I absolutely embrace the need for safety and risk management, however, as Scouters, with boots on the ground dealing with Scout everyday, we have to bring the Scout handbook to life for them or it is nothing more than casual reading and a checklist. As ardent supporter of professionals, and often a defender, I do find it troubling when Scouters are told just follow the book, when we are simply looking for ways to build a better program.

My son was on staff at council summer camp, they designated levels for leaders (yes Helicopter leaders) and parents in the camp

 

- Simple over involved oversight: Helicopter

- More involved, checking on scout, asking questions on their behalf: Blackhawk

- Even more involved, direct involvement during classes, scout is two steps behind: Chinook

- Highest level, it's all about their scout, involves Camp Director in any perceived slight: Sea Stallion

 

You could almost hear their eyes roll when one of these leaders/parents would take up residence in a program area

 One tier higher, Apache Attack Helo: They're reliving their childhood through their Scout/Athlete/Child, directing what THEY (not the youth) will be involved in and haranguing the leadership (youth and adult) to make sure they get what THEY want because THEY didn't get to do/accomplish it a as a youth. Their mantra "I just want what is best for Johnny" - ignoring what Johnny wants or what is really in his best interest.

 

All of the above is in good fun, but setting boundaries for adults is as important, if not more, than it is for the youth.

We don't allow Moms & Dads on outings. If a parent comes on an outing they are there as an adult leader and need to attend to the troops needs, not their own child's needs. The first couple of times it takes some nudging or holding them back. After that, they generally lose interest in coming or get on board with being a member of the unit.

Same for when I coached football. No parents allowed on the field, once Johnny stepped on the field they listened to coaches only. After practice I would listen to the parents complaints/suggestions/critiques, nodding politely and saying thank you for you input. I didn't attempt to explain why Johnny was a tackle and not the QB. On occasion I would respond to the complaint that I was not listening with the response that listening is not the same as capitulating

It is sad you feel that way, because if there is no standard, then the rank of Eagle Scout means nothing.

 

Not every Eagle may be of the same caliber, but I will chose to believe, based on reputation and my personal experience, that Eagle is still a standard of excellence that means something.

Even better are references from former employers or people who really know the person. Resumes only say so much and all Eagle Scouts are not the same. References can add a great deal but few people check references with the same diligence they do applicants.

Having been involved in the hiring process for hundreds positions and seen thousands of applicants I would have to disagree. Unless I personally know the reference I have become accustomed to stock answers from HR folk. With the litigious society we live in, most HR groups will do little more than verify employment, along with dates and salary range. Some will verify if an applicant is eligible for rehire. I cannot tell you the last time I had someone (that I didn’t already know) give me real and solid opinions on a candidates strengths and weaknesses. In fact I have had some very good reference conversations that, in hindsight, I believe were the HR person was just doing some CYA.

 

Every Eagle may not be the same, but at least you have some baseline to start from.