InquisitiveScouter

11 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

My own experience is that scout growth is dramatically slower without older scouts modeling the skills the new scouts need to learn. Troop Guides are OK, but they have to teach most of the skills in more of a classroom setting, while new scouts in a mixed age patrol just have to watch the skills being used in normal activities. The scouts in new scouts patrols tend to get bored because they don't stay busy enough when the troop guide isn't around. There is no resource of experience other than the troop guide. Then usually means the adults have to fill in to make sure the new scouts have a continued program.  

Another problem I observed is most troops put their less experienced younger scouts in the troop Guide position when the minimum age should be 15 or older. The worst Troops Guides I saw or worked with were 14 and younger. The best ones where 15 and older. In fact, our very best troop guides were past SPLs. They said that Troop Guide just seem like a natural progression for them.

A totally scout run patrol is almost impossible with new scout patrols.

Barry

+1

I believe the "regimental system" would be ideal.  That is, a patrol exists in perpetuity.  A Scout grows up in one patrol, and is always a member of that patrol.  As new Scouts join the Troop, they are assigned to patrols as manning needs, based on those who have left or "graduated"

It would be awesome if you had a "Sorting Hat" https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Sorting_Hat  to determine which patrol a Scout should go into.  Alas, we mere mortals must do what we can.  I think random selection is probably best.

The ideal patrol is 5 to 8 Scouts.  Above six, and they naturally break into two sub-units anyway.  Extensive research on optimal group size for task effectiveness has shown the number to be around 5 or 6 (but it does depend on the task.)  Eight allows sufficient team members present when the inevitable absences occur for camping trips and events. 

Here are a few short reads...

https://www.totalteambuilding.com.au/ideal-team-size/

https://conversational-leadership.net/optimal-group-size/#:~:text=Far too often in small,is the optimal group size.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaimepotter/2020/04/27/the-ideal-team-size-at-work-may-be-smaller-than-you-think/?sh=704263b7630a

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/u-s-army-military-organization-from-squad-to-corps-4053660

https://hbr.org/2015/08/what-companies-can-learn-from-military-teams

https://tcscouts.org/UoS/000-NationalTrainingCourses/BSBLT/BP quotes.pdf

BP opined the best Troop size was 16 Scouts (that is, two patrols), but, allowing that others might be twice the man he was, he said it could go to 32.  But that was based on personally knowing and developing each Scout.

"The number in a Troop should preferably not exceed thirty-two.  I suggest this number because in training boys myself I have found that sixteen was about as many as I could deal with-in getting at and bringing out the individual character in each. I allow for other people being twice as capable as myself and hence the total of thirty-two." BP

"Men talk of having fine Troops of 60 or even 100-and their leaders tell me that their boys are equally well trained as in smaller Troops. I express admiration, and I don't believe them." BP

We have 54 Scouts currently... when I go down the roster and count the Scouts who I know, and who do a good job in the woods, or what I would deem "well-trained"... 29 (but that does not include some of the new crossovers who I have not observed yet)

If they were all dedicated, I think 32 is a great number... Four patrols of eight.  

1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

Determining mental and physical Maturity can be tough. My older son weighed 105 lbs at age 16. Yet, he had more backpacking experience than most of our troop. In fact, he once carried his backpack and the backpack of a member of their exhausted crewmate a couple miles on a Philmont trek. On the other hand, I had some tough athletes who fell apart mentally. And that usually happens at the beginning of the trek, so we're stuck with them the whole trek. They are a challenge because everyone, including themselves, assumes they can do the trek based from their physical ability. I was lucky on one such trip that the scout's dad was one of our adults. We let him deal with his son. The constant physical effort of paddling for miles or carrying a 40lb pack up a mountain is as much mental as it is physical. Some folks just aren't conditioned for it. 

Barry

I would push it further and say it is mostly mental/psychological (rather than "as much")

We have some 12 year olds that do just fine. 

We have some 14 year olds that still have significant challenges with anxiety and homesickness.

I have already excluded two 14 year olds from our upcoming trek that have not demonstrated the level of maturity I want.  (Yes, I said "I want", because I will be responsible for them in the wilderness. )

16 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

The problem is that ,many adults are stuck on the imaginary age 14 restriction. Our only restriction was physical fitness maturity to make sure the scouts could physically do the adventure task safely. Except for Philmont. Could not get past that restriction. But, we usually did at least two or our own high adventure pack packing treks anyways. So, everyone that wanted to go backpacking could go. That doesn't include our backpacking weekend campout.

Barry

On the trips I lead, I put in the remarks, "Must be 14 by the start date, or with adult leader approval."  I have made a few errors in judgment over the years in opening trips to all ages, only to wind up dealing with problems caused by immaturity or lack of physical ability to do the trip.  (not my own immaturity or inability...for those of you who want to swing at that softball... 😜 )

3 minutes ago, ramanous said:

The leaders are only running the program National is pushing

Its one thing when a Scout advances quickly using thier own ambition, but pushing for 1st class in a year, and Eagle by 16 waters down the brand. The fact that there's are competing interests, and not enough "bandwidth", just means a Scout has to make tough decisions about what they think is important. Hence, why some Scoutd will earn Eagle and other won't. If all Scouts earned Eagle, then its just another particpation trophy.

 

 

 

Even with an aggressive and skill intensive program, in which we provide huge amounts of opportunity, it takes new Scouts on average about two years to get to First Class.  That is, actually doing the requirements as written, without them being spoon-fed by adults.  (Fitness requirements, for example.)

If a Scout focuses and learns by her own ambition and initiative, First Class can be done in about 90 days, which is the minimum time.   (This is for the ones who join later, like the 15/16 year olds.)

18 minutes ago, Calion said:

Why were these done away with?

Great question!  In reality, they weren't.  That is, you can organize your Troop any way you wish, and if you want to have an older group called the Venture Patrol, then go for it.

Here's a website with some more details... http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/seniorscoutsite/venture.html

Programmatically, who knows why the BSA moved away from this?  The old heads here (like me) remember the Leadership Corps, which was essentially the same thing.  http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/seniorscoutsite/leadershipcorps.html

The REALLY old heads will remember Rovers, Emergency Service, Senior Scouts, etc...

http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/

Enjoy the reads...

33 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Quite right. The leaders are only running the program National is pushing. Thanks for the correction.

Barry

We 'make it work' by using Troop Guides during the first six months and a lot of adult skill instruction during the first year.  I wish we didn't have to 'make it work.' 

Our reality is that, around 16, our Scouts move on to other things.  Venturing, OA, jobs, girls, cars, hanging with friends, school clubs, music, sports, martial arts, etc, etc.

Loyalty to an institution is not part of our wider cultural mindset any more.  In general, there is more of a narcissistic "What's in it for me?" attitude, and the belief that you must be involved in all those other activities in order to compete for college (which I do not believe is reality)

They just do not have the bandwidth to do all the things they want to do (neither do I, for that matter), and after 5 years of Scouting and Eagle, most move on.  I have learned to be OK with that.  For the ones that do stay,  we offer more adventures further afield, but the expectation is that, during 'regular' troop programming, they serve and help the SPL with leadership tasks. 

After 16, we hang on to about one third of them.

13 minutes ago, curious_scouter said:

If there is no fire, it's easy to scratch off. 

Our fire position is responsible for stove set up and getting an adult to check, charcoal prep if we are Dutch oven cooking, and firewood gathering/prep/lighting.  There must always be enough tinder/kindling/fuel on hand for the next fire.  At the end of the trip, we leave it for the next group.

14 minutes ago, yknot said:

Wow...  Those were a couple examples for illustrative purposes. As far as Covid, I didn't think you'd dismiss the thousands of health care workers, from physicians to nurses to aides, who have died in the past few years from Covid, far eclipsing fatalities in any other profession. Infection doesn't count in your book? That doesn't qualify as bravery or a high risk profession?  Wow.  Those were not people who got infected and just got sick... Those are people who died. Google yourself how many. You won't believe what I post anyway.  
 

J'ai mon voyage

You are mixing apples and oranges...

The article is referencing physical assaults, not fatalities.  Would you agree one is worse than the other?  (Just to be clear, a fatality is worse than an assault, in my book.)

And DWB is 45K people from around the planet.  Can we limit our discussions to folks in the US as our target population?  If so, there are 22.3M healthcare workers in the US.  Even if I allow you the courtesy of saying all 45K were from the US, they are still only 0.2% of the entire healthcare workforce.  Obviously, far less than that fits the bill...

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-are-our-health-care-workers.html

My cousin's uncle's brother's sister's dog once barked at the moon.  Doesn't make the dog an astronaut.

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Health care for example is one of the highest risk professions.

Depends on how you define "risk" I suppose....for infection?  Sure.  For fatalities? No way...

https://www.facilities.udel.edu/safety/4689/

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Most of these clips/posts are by male authors with self validating biases.

So being male disqualifies them?  How sexist of you!  I hope the moderators take note of your discriminatory comments and take the action against you that you prescribe as you twisted others words to match your own biases and angst.

And Dr. Barber and Dr. Peterson are more studied in their fields than, I assume, you are.  Unless you care to reveal your academic credentials or put up the research and experience of others.

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Health care for example is one of the highest risk professions.

????  Gobbledygook

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Those Medieval opinions are not worth the etherspace that they are wafted upon. I think they are beneath this forum.  

The only opinions talked about there are Google's... However, there are upwards of forty citations to scientific research made in his memo.  Recommended reading for you.

2 hours ago, yknot said:

someone who essentially did.

"essentially" ??? Words matter, and you are attributing words to others that they did not write.  "Essentially" you are the guilty party in trying to stir up an argument based on your feelings and a perception of some offense offered, rather than what is actually there. 

6 minutes ago, yknot said:

How so? I don't see that. 

Please view a few of the videos I posted, which discuss the science behind the gender differences, and I'll be glad to engage further...

4 minutes ago, yknot said:

You're talking about making assessments about what is optimal for boys vs. girls based on views that are  discriminatory and offensive. Differences in behaviors is one thing; claiming differences in skills and/or character development to justify excluding girls is another thing entirely. Believing that girls are neurotypically prewired to plan menus is akin to saying a woman's place is in the kitchen and she likes it there. If you don't see the problem with that then I am here to say -- you need to see the problem with that. 
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson

@yknot, it seems you are twisting @Eagle1993 's words a bit.

4 minutes ago, skeptic said:

There goes one week of cookie profit.  And into the pot for survivors I would think.

https://jenikaplan.medium.com/the-great-girl-scout-cookie-scam-b024ffad6e1b

1 hour ago, Cburkhardt said:

 

BSA Seeking $16+ Million from GSUSA regarding dismissed Trademark Suit

Below is introductory text of a BSA Motion to recover $16+ Million of attorneys fees and costs incurred by the BSA during the recently-dismissed trademark suit filed by the GSUSA against the BSA.  The link to the full motion document, which provides granular information of what organizational moves GSUA was making proximate to the Scouts BSA announcement, is pasted below.  It is worth the read.

“Preliminary Statement

By any measure, this trademark case is “exceptional” under the fee award provision of the Lanham Act. That is, it “stands out from others.” As the summary judgment evidence showed, Girl Scouts of the United States of America (“GSUSA”) filed this lawsuit for an improper, anticompetitive purpose, with the Court finding that “[i]n truth, Girl Scouts’ complaint is based, not on concern for trademark confusion, but on fear for their competitive position in a market with gender neutral options for scouting.” SJ Order at 21. Under binding Second Circuit precedent, GSUSA’s decision to initiate litigation against the BSA as a competitive ploy satisfies the exceptional case standard under the Lanham Act without more.  But there is more. GSUSA’s claims were substantively meritless, which also makes this an exceptional case. Lacking any evidence of actual confusion, GSUSA nonetheless pressed the absurd argument that the BSA should not be permitted to use its long-standing SCOUT-formative trademarks for programs that included both male and female members, despite having already done so for 50 years. Indeed, on summary judgment, GSUSA failed to persuade the Court that even a single factor weighed in GSUSA’s favor to support a likelihood of confusion finding under the Polaroid test.  After improvidently filing this case for an improper purpose and with baseless claims, GSUSA then pursued it for years in an excessively costly and contentious manner. Examples include the following:

GSUSA designated twenty witnesses to provide 30(b)(6) testimony on two topics concerning instances of alleged consumer confusion, for which none of those witnesses had actual, first-hand knowledge.

GSUSA resisted producing documents until ordered by the Court, as reflected by the parties’ discovery motion practice.

GSUSA improperly redacted hundreds of produced documents on grounds of purported “non-responsiveness” in an attempt to conceal highly relevant information evidencing the meritless nature of GSUSA’s claims.

GSUSA concealed its communications with its PR agency on highly relevant subjects such as GSUSA’s attempts to undermine the BSA’s reputation through an orchestrated smear campaign in the run-up to the filing of this lawsuit, resulting in the BSA’s service of a Rule 11 motion and GSUSA’s voluntary dismissal of its tarnishment claims.

GSUSA submitted a massive 151-page response and counterstatement to the BSA’s 17-page statement of undisputed facts on summary judgment, which failed to comply with the Local Rules and reflected a transparent attempt to manufacture disputed facts where none existed.

Abuse of the legal system for anti-competitive ends – especially against a non-profit entity devoted to youth programs – should not be countenanced. The BSA respectfully requests that the Court find that the BSA is entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and related nontaxable expenses for this exceptional case. Upon the granting of this motion, the BSA will submit a fee application setting forth and supporting its calculations of those fees and expenses and their reasonableness.”

 

Here is the full Motion:  https://www.law360.com/articles/1486390/attachments/0 

Ouch!

We do not let youth design the program of Scouting.  I'll refer you to the aims and methods...

8 minutes ago, Tired_Eagle_Feathers said:

Of course, but that is the bulk of it, and what matters to the kids.

Scouting can certainly provide an equality of opportunity for males and females.  The program, as currently written, is essentially gender-blind.  And I concur wholeheartedly that all should be given the opportunity.

However, you can never achieve equality of outcomes in any field of endeavor.  Outcomes are based on opportunities, individual talents, desires, attitudes, behaviors, and probably a few other things I cannot think of at the moment.

I would posit that mixing genders within Scouting changes the outcomes negatively for males.  Or, maybe a better way to say that is, you get better outcomes for the majority of males when Scouting in a single gender environment (and when they are led and mentored by men).  This is entirely an opinion, yes.  But it sure seems that way to me as a father of a daughter and a son (both Eagle Scouts), and having been a Boy Scout leader and a Girl Scout leader, a Scoutmaster for 15 years, and having been a military officer for 2.5 decades, watching and mentoring males and females as they grow and become more proficient in their careers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iudkPi4_sY&ab_channel=Skavlan

Beginning @ 7:15 "The more egalitarian your state, the bigger the personality differences between men and women."

@9:50 "If you minimize the cultural differences, you maximize the biological differences."

43 minutes ago, Tired_Eagle_Feathers said:

I want to clarify here:  I am not saying there are not differences between boys and girls.  Of course there are.

What I'm saying is that with regards to activities in scouting, there is no difference between boys and girls.

In other words, there is nothing in the Scout Oath or Law or scouting activities like hiking, camping, watersports, etc. where your sex makes any significant difference.

There is essentially one prerequisite for participating in scouting:  enjoying outdoors activities.  If you enjoy outdoor activities, then scouting will appeal to you, regardless of your sex.

 

Agreed, but Scouting is more than just the activities.

5 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

Same thing... 

OK, if you are involved with this, recommend:

1.  address discrepancy between rquirement #1 (15 miles), and the statement at the end requiring only 10 miles.

2. be consistent in naming convention...use the name "Erie Canal Trail Medal" (ECTM) throughout.  Avoid "Historic Trail Medal" references, as this could be confused with the BSA Historic Trails Award https://www.scouting.org/awards/awards-central/historic-trails/ (which the ECTM could be used to obtain)

Best wishes

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/202001/why-women-and-men-still-take-different-jobs

12 hours ago, Ojoman said:

A Historic Trails Medal will be awarded for completion of the above requirements and the completion of at least a 10 mile distance along the canal.  There is no time limit or minimum # of hikes to reach 10 miles.

Is the "Historic Trails Medal" something different than the "Erie Canal Trail Medal"??

Welcome! When I was on exchange to the Canadian Forces, and stationed in Ottawa, we would drive down to many Longhouse Council events around the Ogdensburg/Watertown area.

Welcome!

7 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Why would an institution deny opportunity to half the population?

Although I support female youth in Scouting, the answer to your question is that we are wired differently, and there is some benefit in single gender programming.

And for our older Scouts this summer, after summer camp we are cycling over five nights on the Great Allegheny Passage!  I wonder if we can camp at @qwazse's house the night before we hit the trail?

There might be a free dinner and beverages at Hofbräuhaus in it for you 😜

12 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

When i organized our COVID-19 summer camp, I used the European model of troops picking their own program as a model. I talked to the PLC, got their input for activities, and organized it. But we were flexible. we moved activities around based upon weather and the conditions the kids were in (the morning bike ride turned into a morning and afternoon bike ride exhausting everyone.) The only Set activity we would not change was the BORs. We had 4 or 5 BORs scheduled for the last nite, and had the committee driving in to do them. Could not be rude to the committee. Everyone had a blast at it,  but many do not want to do it again because they want MBs.

This is the ideal!!

This makes me happy 😜  Except for the final clause of the last sentence...that one makes me a bit sad...😞