A Question

[Eagle92 110]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the BSA have a recognition already for those overachievers who earn more than the required MBs for Eagle? I thought that was what the Bronze, Gold, and Silver Eagle Palms were for?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

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.

 

Are we schizophrenic or what?

[walk in the woods 888]

Yeah, I think it would be a mistake to reward earning all the merit badges beyond giving the merit badges. I suppose there are scouts out there that will make this their goal but it does seem a bit like mutation of the intended purpose of merit badges.

 

FWIW, I took a look at the meritbadgeknot.com site. It makes the mistake of linking merit badges with the rank of Eagle. The way the rules are written today a scout could earn all 121 merit badges and never make Tenderfoot if they so desired.

 

OGE, I don't think we're too schizophrenic, ok, maybe just a little . I just like to see a little more balance in a scout's experience. There's too much stuff for older scouts to attack beyond merit badges.

[pohsuwed 19]

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.

[Eagle92 110]

Nope I read the article and stand by my words. For those who go beyond the required for eagle, ther eare Palms. And I forgot the palm combination that can be worn to represent the show you earned all the MBs, but there is one posted somewhere.

 

Questions though: throughout the history of scouting, the number of MBs has changed how will that this project? Also what about the instance this year where they added 4 historical MBs, that can only be earned this year?

[pohsuwed 19]

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.

[DancesWithSpreadsheets 10]

The Winter Issue of Eagle Scout Magazine (the NESA publication, fka Eagletter) has an article about their 2009 Scholorship recipients. Quoting one of the bios:

 

"He earned all 20 Webelos Scout activity pins and all 121 merit badges..."

 

"He finished his Bugling merit badge requirements even though he never warmed up to the instrument -- 'I never want to touch that instrument again' he said - and earned his Waterskiing merit badge despite shoulder and knee problems." (page 11)

 

Now, I have no doubt that this is an exceptional young man, and I don't want to denigrate his achievement or embarrass him, but after reading the second quoted section I was saddened by the idea that he earned the bugling merit badge for the sake of the badge, not because he was truly interested int he instrument; and that he may have risked significant health complcations in the pursuit of a MB for water-skiing.

 

Wide and shallow? Probably not, but not in the spirit of the merit badge program either.

 

Regards,

 

DWS

 

 

[pohsuwed 19]

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?

[DancesWithSpreadsheets 10]

Pohsuwed, thanks for the reply. Yours is certainly a valid way of looking at the information presented in the article, and as I said, this is undoubtedly an exceptional young man. Still, my reaction on reading that article was as I indicated one of sadness. As you said I don't know all the fact and circumstances surrounding those events, and it would be wrong of me to cast aspersions about this young man's motives in completing all 121 MB's.

 

I suppose there will always be over-acheivers and we should be glad that many of them direct that energy towards Scouting, so it should be no suprise that some small number of boys get all 121. Does that warrant special recognition? Personally I don't think so, but if BSA wants to institute one, well I think there are more important things to argue about.

 

Regards,

 

DWS