Eagle Project/Board of Review

[Venividi 35]

I don't interpret using a rule of thumb for evaluation purposes to be equivelant to adding a standard that, if not met, means automatic turn down. Rather, I think it is a tool or benchmark from which one can start to ask "why" questions; such as Why has 80 percent of the work been done by the scout and his Father? How did you show leadership when only 20% of the work was done by others? There are likely some scenarios where the scout may have shown sufficient leadership given these statistics; there are also likely scenarios where the scout's focus was on getting a project done, but the scout was uncomfortable with leading so did work himself, that could (and should) have been done by people he led.

 

By way of analogy is a rule of thumb for size of a project. There is no defined number of hours required, but rather, it is to be at least large enough to for the scout to show leadership. Each of us has some internal view as to how large that should be. For instance, a scout doing a project taking 1 hour, with two friends,for a total of 20 minutes each, could be considered as acceptable, since there is no minimum size required for a project. But whether the scout exhibited sufficient leadership with such a project is (and should be) open to question.

 

I see the same with this this. The poster didn't indicate that this was cause for automatic denial, only that there is concern that the scout may not have sufficiently demonstrated leadership.