desertrat77

Brent, interesting comments, thanks. I have no doubt team building skills are needed at District, but I content that WB isn't the only place to learn how to work as a team...the WB course material has been taught in many other arenas, like college and the military. In my military duties, I use these skills every day. And teach them as well. Somehow, I've managed to to do this without WB. And to stir the pot a bit more, if WB teaches superb team building skills, alot of your fellow WB alums could use a refresher. Generally speaking, the only "team" WBers seem to be interested in is the one comprised of people wearing beads. The ticket doesn't "scare" me. Hardly the right word. I think the proper word would be "bore." "Amuse" might be another word that comes to mind. A big paperwork drill. I've completed these types of things when the military was going thru its Total Quality Management mania, and it's just mind numbing. So while I may in fact be ignorant and misinformed, these are my impressions of WB. From what I read, plus my discussions with many WBers over the decades, both pro and con, I view WB today as a big lesson in committee work. No thanks.

Welcome Federalist!

Acco, you ask a very fair question-- What do I expect from WB? - From WB proponents: just a small touch of humility. And some semblance of acknowledgement for the previous experiences and education of non-WBers. - Truth in advertising. From the link that BadenP forwarded, www.woodbadge.org, it says in part that WB "... is clearly backed by the finest thought and tradition of the founder...." (last para, home page). From my vantage point, when you look at today's WB, I think that's a stretch. WB has evolved to a self-discovery, Management 101 course. The only "traditions" I see are uniforms and flag ceremonies. - Also from the advertising department: "premier training course...embodiment of scouting spirit...'mountain top experience'...." Well, I take a look at WB themes, and the objectives, and I don't see anything "premier" about it. In fact, it all bears sharp resemblance to Total Quality Management courses from the '90s, and a good many of my supervision/management classes that I took for college and military education courses. Some of these topics are interesting, but none of them came close to "a mountain top experience." And thought of tackling it all again, re-packaged with "scouting spirit" in the camp mess hall for a couple weekends? No thanks. - Action. Adventure. Yes, there are other courses for that. But for BSA's "premier" training course, one mostly sits in a metal chair all day, either in the mess hall, or under a tree, weather permitting. At what point are students introduced to BSA's best selling point--adventure? - No ticket. That's right. I think the ticket is a bug hunt, a giant administrative goat rope, courtesy of the White Stag Leadership gurus. I'll retract that statement if someone can prove that BP or Green Bar Bill had tickets in their WB courses. I guess that sums it up. When WB hits the trail again, gets its hands dirty, has its uniform smelling of campfire smoke, and builds a monkey bridge, I'll take another look. WB isn't supposed to be that? Perhaps it should. As I look back to my scouting days in the '70s, I learned far more about leadership by learning scoutcraft, and then teaching scoutcraft, in the outdoors, than I ever did in a "leadership class." Because when scouts are in the field, they are learning about leadership--they just don't know it. When you sit a scout on a log for a couple hours and talk to him about the 11 principles, etc., that's boredom. When he takes his patrol on a difficult orienteering course, overcomes problems and succeeds? He's learned more about leadership in that 45 mins than any 100 slide powerpoint brief can instill. So there's the split, as I see it. Management 101 in the camp mess hall, or the great outdoors? I'm grabbing my yucca pack and hitting the trail, every time...... But really, as others have pointed out, WB theory is simply a reflection of National's priorities. Today, adventure is optional. It's a darn shame.

1968 Chevy Impala. A pure joy to drive, I miss it.

Joe Bob, that ticket link is the topper. I'll press on without beads. I now understand why folks say they'll work their ticket if they can. And the old WB course folks are expected to jump thru these hoops again to "upgrade" their previous training? National has some incredible hubris. PS I can clearly see what Kudu has been saying about White Stag's influence--management theorists' dream!(This message has been edited by Desertrat77)

Spam or no, Alice packs are great...they can handle whatever a GI or a Scout can dish out.......

Abel, most sorry to hear of this. Sounds like the DE's priorities and manners are in need of calibration.

Concur with Lisa and 5Year. Formal pitch? Tacky. The DE is cordially uninvited. A few flyers in the back? Alright.

"It reminds me of when the military went nuts over TQM/TQL." Hico, you hit the nail on the head. I recall those dark days...it was just like Stalinism. No fractionalism! Better not say a bad word about TQM...it's never going away, the principles are revolutionary, and if you aren't 100 percent sold on it, you are a half stepper/dinosaur/not very intelligent/etc. And who were the most vocal proponents of TQM? Who taught the endless courses on Shewhart cycles, fishbone charts, nominal group technique, process action teams? The comm guy who couldn't fix radios, the overweight master sergeant awaiting retirement, the chief fired from his flight for harrassment, the lieutenant colonel no one wanted...all of them assigned to the TQM office, and then transformed by the power to dictate how many metrics each squadron had to track, training requirements, etc...because they held The Keys to Enlightenment. Management theory can turn into a beast when proponents turn Management 101 into a cure-all, and Proof of Complete Dedication to the Organization. TQM did go away. The endless classes, powerpoint briefings, paperwork, charts, graphs, surveys, and committee work (that's what it is, at the end of the day!) didn't produce better leaders. Instead, the opposite happened. It stifled initiative, and a generation of leaders were raised to doubt the validity of their better instincts. And Joe Bob, I'm with you--I consider my off duty time to be more valuable than gold coin. There's optional training worth attending, training that ain't worth attending but you must, and training that ain't mandatory and ain't worth it. The latter gets chopped off the calendar every time.(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

Rehash of my previous post(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

Concur with UCEagle...I recall the same.

Always roll.

Seattle, well said, and I couldn't agree more.

emb021--must respectfully disagree regarding what BP knew or didn't know..... The only edge that today's leadership training brings is finer distinction. We've had more time over the years to quantify, label, categorize, etc., the leadership experience. Truth is, anything dealing with leadership has "been done" before, in practice, good and bad. It's all packaging and refinement at the end of the day. Just because we've tried to make leadership more scientific doesn't mean that the old timers were lesser leaders. In fact, to borrow from your example, I think BP's life serves as an excellent example of servant leadership. Just because servant based leadership wasn't codified then doesn't mean such leaders were nonexistent. Instead, I think the old timers knew the principles from military schools, religious studies, etc., to varying degrees, and lived their lives according. So to stray a bit further, I think this is one of the reasons why some folks--myself included--are a bit dubious of the claims that WB will impart knowledge heretofore unknown. I am still blown away by the requirement for past WBers to lay aside their earned beads until they've accomplished new WB...as a non-WBer, from the outside looking in, I see this as serious disrespect to the old school folks There were great leaders in the past. Their lack of a certificate or diploma in today's leadership theory does not diminish their accomplishments.(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

The differences between the past and today? Past: Give it your best...but at the end of the day, character, sportsmanship, citizenship, etc., matter most Today: Win state championship/make Eagle/graduate at top of class...otherwise, you failed to live up to your potential Past: Eagle is a good thing. Here's what YOU need to do to achieve it. Today: Eagle is the only thing. Here's how WE--parents, leaders--will sweep your path, or spoon feed you MBs at troops meetings or weekend MB mills, or just drag you across the finish line.... Past: Hey Johnny made Eagle...we are going to have a special moment to present the medal at the end of our next troop court of honor...and we'll have some cake afterwards Today: Johnny made Eagle, here is the engraved invitation to the ceremony...we are going to have the gala affair just for him at the civic center, complete with oaths, creeds, pledges, and other solemn Eagle ceremonial stuff, plus speeches, special slide shows, and we'll have several presentations...and on the back table, we'll have a leather bound book with all 377 congrats letters written to him by such luminaries as the King of Norway, Steven Segal and a host of others..... A broad brush? Perhaps. All kidding aside, gotta be careful of what we hope for. Years ago, "we" thought more kids should make Eagle...and here we are.

UCEagle, your mentor's 50 years of experience must have been incredible on so many levels--I'm imagining how cool it would be to have some coffee with him....... And I second the handing out of old patches--people really respond to that. And old handbook, an old position patch...amazing how folks deeply appreciate these things...usually a nominal cost or extras from a collection just sitting in a footlocker...someone else will value it and perhaps pass it along. Seattle, you touched on something that I see to varying degrees in my travels--poor/no communication and foot dragging at district and council level. Your new UC's experience you mentioned is exhibit A. Ask a question on behalf of the unit you serve, and in my last council, it would literally take weeks to get an answer. For example, again from last council: a great SM wanted to turn the troop over to the ASM and try something new, like serving on the training cadre. Bonus: not only a superb scout leader...he was active duty military, qualified instructor in orienteering, mountaineering, survival, etc. Dynamic, yet humble and with a great sense of humor. And this council needed trainers.... So, sounds like a great hire, right? Nope. First it took three (3) months for someone at council to even respond to my repeated introduction of the SM. Then they said "don't call us, we'll call you" ala that song from the '70s. Glad to say the council I'm in now is much more on the ball. But red tape and sluggish responses from UCs, district and council folks, can really tarnish reputations and cause a gulf between units and the commissioners.

Seattle, good question, but a tough one to answer. Two councils ago, I was a unit commissioner. This council was very small, in a poor part of the country, but had a good grass-roots unit level tradition. Council staff was lean. No unit commissioners for a long time in my district till another guy and myself were recruited. As I started to work for my units, there were equal measures of suspicion (who the heck is this guy, some silver loop dandy?) and amazement (you actually want to help us? Go to summer camp with us?). Long term scouters, and they hand't any experience with UCs, or poor perceptions from the past. If a council has a tradition of no UCs, or weak UCs, recruitment is tough. Why? I think a dedicated scouter would be more inclined to sign up at unit level for service. Two prime pools of potential UCs: unit level leaders who are ready for a new challenge--no surprise here. The other pool, and untapped (it seems to me): NESA. Many past Eagles may not have the time to dedicate at unit level, or may want to have the flexibility of a UC's schedule, or whathaveyou. Then it's a matter of "rebuilding the brand." If the UC roster is full of place holders that don't support their units, or would rather hang out at district or council events more than help the troop, might be time to ask these folks to step up, or move to another spot in the district, or quietly depart.

Clemlaw, your experiences are similar to my own.... Earned in Eagle in 1977. Though the Improved Scouting Program definitely downplayed the scout/fieldcraft, Troops I belonged to were very strong in the outdoors. My camping MB has the non-required border, but I earned it fair/square nonetheless. Two 50 milers--Grand Canyon and Philmont. Went the Lifesaving MB route instead of Emergency Prep...and I consider it the toughest MB I earned--more effort than all the others combined. The mental and physical demands were quite high, and the the whole experience is still quite vivid in my mind. Very proud of it. My Eagle project and write up? Accomplished both but I think today's administrative requirements are far clearer as far as expectations and requirements. Some projects I see today are impressive, others are very easy....but I think the same was true in the '70s. The citizenship MBs were quite annoying...not hard, just bothersome. Always thought they should be one mega-MB. The other homework-style MBs were just speed bumps (safety, personal management, etc.) but powered thru them. If you were a scout and wanted to earn a MB? Go find a counselor yourself! I don't think there was an approved list...you just found someone who knew what they were talking about, and sought their approval, vision, and requirements. Some counselors added a bunch of requirements, and while it took longer, you learned more. This was not viewed with the same horror as today. Nobody--parent or SM--was going to follow up on my advancement...if I stopped progress, I stopped. The prevailing attitude seemed to be "it's your trail to Eagle--get cracking, or get left behind." Talking with scouts from previous years, and serving as a leader later, I think each era has it's strengths and weaknesses. I respectfully salute all scouts, past and present, Tenderfoot or Eagle...each has or had their own experiences, and brings a unique perspective to scouting..... The guys whose moms pushed to Eagle? Or the Eagle factory alums? They are Eagles too. They'll grow into the rank. However, if perhaps one may look back in doubt or regret, no need to stew. Never too late to go back and fill in the gaps. Go on a hike in the rain, get the old handbook and really learn the bowline, etc. Just as importantly, read the oath and law and take time to reflect. (This message has been edited by desertrat77)

Shortridge, from what I've seen, those who amass exhaustive collections of scout items (or specialize in Eagle medals, etc.) do it for the same reason folks collect super bowl rings, football jerseys of famous players, etc. Even though they didn't play in the super bowl, or wear the jersey personally, they love the history and significance of the items. And the thrill of pursuit.

Skeptic, thanks for the clarification, I see what you are saying.

Way too much hand wringing. I am a firm believer that if someone wants to buy a BSA medal, a patch, a doo dad, a gee gaw, a whatever, from ebay or the local pawnshop, or from an estate sale, or a garage sale, more power to them. The inconsistent national/local scout shops? Gotta follow the rules, but the rules should make sense. If someone needs an extra first class patch, it shouldn't be a huge ordeal to get it. If someone wants to collect all 57 variations of the Eagle medal, have at it. Whether the person is an Eagle scout is immaterial--at least to me. Why? These medals and patches represent the accomplishments and future potential of the recipient--the items aren't the accomplishment themselves. Nor are they holy objects. They are bits of cloth and metal. The most important things in scouting are not the badges, but rather the Spirit of Scouting.(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

Posuhwed, thanks for the positive thoughts. Ideally, it would indeed work that way. But my experience with training in four different councils (military moves) shows that training cadres aren't very receptive to new ideas, or to new members joining their club. After all, they know best and everyone who wishes to be A Member In Good Standing should just get with the program--right? Seattle, I'm pro-training. But I'm also against wasting people's time. If people are staying away from training in droves, we've got to have the courage to look at the whole process--methods, subject matter, cadre attitude, the whole deal. For die-hard scouters we can say "Hey you might get a nugget or two out of that day-long course" or "If you are truly a dedicated scouter, you'll sit through this power point death march" and we'll just do it for the sake of the program. New folks? Their impressions, as conveyed to me, are that BSA training tends to be drawn out, bureaucratic, boring, and often times condescending. This matches my experience too. Again, the die-hards may grin and bear it, but the spark of scouting can be snuffed out quickly in these circumstances.

Seattle, good points, but here's the rub: if the training is respectful of the attendees' time and life experience, and the content is meaningful, we wouldn't have to beg/drag leaders to it. All too often, BSA training is the opposite.

Please wear it! Phooey to the uniform police and their desire to restrict freedom and happiness! And congratulations to you and your son!

Excellent news, Lisabob. It's amazing how resilient our young folks are, and how big a difference a properly run BSA unit can make!