Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Okay @@DadScouts, name names. Some of these scouters will no doubt want the camp's brochure.

 

You might also want to consider drafting a thank you letter to that managers camp director, copy the SE, and have all the boys who earned partials sign the bottom with the by-line "Scouts proud to have good MBCs!"

 

 

I WANT THE CAMPS NAME AND WRITE THAT THANK YOU LETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (this time I'm shouting at the top of my lungs in joy!) :)

 

Seriously,  write that letter, because the camp needs to know the good it is doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I WANT THE CAMPS NAME AND WRITE THAT THANK YOU LETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (this time I'm shouting at the top of my lungs in joy!) :)

 

Seriously,  write that letter, because the camp needs to know the good it is doing. 

Rodney Scout Reservation, Maryland.  Don't worry, things went up the chain of command above the camp director, both during the week and afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2017 at 10:46 AM, CalicoPenn said:

 

I suspect that even if Troops are pushing First Class-First Year, 6 camping trips a year might be ambitious for some troops trying to provide a balanced program.

Unless weather doesn't permit, I think having only 6 camping trips a year is a disservice.  My boys' old troop did 11 a year.  They just skpped December, and that was primarily due to lack of attendance and the holidays.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started reading this thread again.  I keep twinging every time I read the rank requirements.  They are just way way too long.  Too many words.  Turns off scouts.  National really needs to focus on shortening the number of words.  It's just out of control.  The number of words in the requirements have doubled since 2005.  The words the scouts see need to be simple and straight forward.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fred johnson said:

I started reading this thread again.  I keep twinging every time I read the rank requirements.  They are just way way too long.  Too many words.  Turns off scouts.  National really needs to focus on shortening the number of words.  It's just out of control.  The number of words in the requirements have doubled since 2005.  The words the scouts see need to be simple and straight forward.  

Too legalistic. But that may be because so many folks are lawyering them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel if if National doesn’t use key words, which make it longer, there would be easy loop holes and other ways to get out of doing the requirement correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the allowance for doing requirements for future ranks out of order was eliminated as well as double dipping, then scouts would have more experience and have real opportunities for growth in those areas as they progressed through ranks. This would remove some of the need for the legalese IMO. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the way T-2-1 requirements are written is exceptionally wordy.  Honestly, I liked how those ranks were done in the 70's and 80's (skill awards, and a couple of months of tenure for each rank).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×