well informed scouts and ill informed scouters

[Lisabob 13]

Reading through the other thread made me smile a little. I can just imagine some well-informed young fellow explaining (patiently, politely, but firmly) that in fact, the BSA does *not* require Eagle projects to demonstrate "lasting value." And the adults in the room, looking like they just sucked lemons, complaining that the boy is "mouthy" or "disrespectful" or "rude."

 

Know what I mean? Anybody else know "that boy?" I sure do.

 

[Stosh 3452]

Along with teaching my boys that anyone over the age of 18 is addressed as Mr. or Ms., I also taught them that when they have the need to contradict an adult, they preface the comment with, "With all due respect...."

 

And with all due respect and for the record, unless one is building an Egyptian pyramid, I don't think it's going to last very long. The purpose of an Eagle project is to show leadership, not build monuments.

 

Stosh

[JMHawkins 15]

I saw the thing about Eagle projects needing to have lasting impact and wondered if 15 years from now when the EBoR asked a Scout what his project was, he might say

 

"Well sir, it was clearing out all the old Eagle projects that had been piling up. We were running out of room in the forest to camp..."

 

It's a tricky thing for young men to learn how to disagree appropriately and productively with an adult. But it's something they do need to learn sooner or later, cause there will sure be lots of adults in their lives they'll disagree with! It's also worth learning you don't need to win every argument or point out every mistake.

[GKlose 24]

In case you didn't read the prior thread, I'm the Scouter that was observing the EBoR where the board chair said these words: "since Eagle projects are required to have 'lasting value', tell us...".

 

It hadn't been the first time I heard those words. About a year earlier, I was at a "Life To Eagle" Seminar for a different district, and I heard two things that made me stop and think -- the first was "even though there is no minimum number of hours required for an Eagle project, we like to see about a hundred hours" and the second was "we like to see projects have 'lasting value'". I don't have much of a problem with either statement. An astute Scout would estimate his project to be at least a hundred hours, and if his estimates were looking a little too fictional, then maybe he really isn't choosing a project that is challenging enough. There isn't really anything about 100 hours that shows more or less leadership, which is where the real beef is, I suppose.

 

As far as "lasting value" goes, I think that's in the mind of a beholder. I don't really like a predisposition towards construction projects, which it seems where my present district sits --I've heard a few stories about how it was suggested to Scouts having projects reviewed that they add construction components to non-construction projects.

 

But the real issue I had: afterward, I sent looking, and I saw no such requirement for "lasting value", anywhere I looked. So I'm not sure where the EBoR chair is getting the present idea that "an Eagle project is required to have 'lasting value'". It's not even a case of "we like to see 'lasting value'", but it is stated to be a requirement.

 

But the new Guide To Advancement specifically states that projects are *not* required to have lasting value. I know the district board is aware of the new document, because someone was discussing it with us prior to the board convening. We'll see how much "adapting to local procedures" goes on -- much like the way present projects are reviewed with the idea of "there is no minimum number of hours..." being changed to "...but we like to see about a hundred hours."

 

There's a strange dynamic in our district lately -- we'd gotten word that the district Eagle board, for reviewing projects and scheduling Eagle boards, only wants to communicate with Scouts through email (thus requiring electronic submission of project workbooks). No parents. When difficulties with the board came through, parents complained to Scoutmasters, Scoutmasters contacted the board, and then we got another electronic notice that said "Scouts only -- no email from parents or Unit Scouters". Wouldn't be so bad, but I've seen two email trails where I saw what I would consider un-Scoutlike feedback coming from the chair. Which I also find odd, because both trails included the statement "we expect more out of our Eagle Scouts than that." How can someone who sends un-Scoutlike email chastise someone like that? I don't get it...

 

I've talked to two people about this -- the D.E. who suggested that maybe one of our unit Scouters should volunteer for the board. The other was an SM-friend from a nearby troop. Turns out it was actually his email that caused the reiteration of "no parents, no unit Scouters" email.

 

I'm starting to go "hmmmmm...".

 

We have probably at least four more EBoRs coming up in the next six months to a year. My oldest son might be 18 months out, or so, on his present path. We'll see where that goes.

 

Guy

[Lisabob 13]

Yes, learning to disagree without being disagreeable is a life skill and no, you don't have to attend every argument to which you are invited. Knowing some of the stories that get told here, and locally, I also recognize that this advice applies not only to the boys, but to the adults who hold rank advancement (or project approval, or whatever) over their heads. And more than likely it will be some adults who cannot remember to follow it. They're just so used to being "right" all the time.

 

Anyway, just made me smile because there are a bunch of really great young men in my son's troop who will probably have read and internalized that new Eagle workbook in far more detail than the Scouters on their eventual Eagle boards. I hope it doesn't end up tripping them up.

[The Blancmange 67]

>>>>we'd gotten word that the district Eagle board, for reviewing projects and scheduling Eagle boards, only wants to communicate with Scouts through email (thus requiring electronic submission of project workbooks). No parents.

[KC9DDI 11]

EBOR: "since Eagle projects are required to have 'lasting value', tell us..."

 

Scout: "Well, I believe that this project, while not physically constructing anything, has given 'benefiting organization' a positive experience working with Troop 123, and of Scouting in general, which I hope will be of lasting value to both organizations. I also hope that other members of the community who assisted us, or just observed us working on the project, will also have a lasting positive impression of Scouting. For me personally, I believe that this experience has helped develop my organizational and leadership skills, which will be of lasting value to me as I prepare to go to college/get a job/enter the armed forces/etc."

 

[perdidochas 658]

Well, I for one would applaud if a young fellow did that.

[qwazse 4345]

One of the advantages of NOT having adults in uniform at EBOR's may be suppression of the "I'm a super scouter" attitude. A boy might have a perfectly solid understanding of the rules. The same reply might come off as courteous and helpful if he was explaining it to a bunch of suit-and-ties, but might come off as challenging (e.g. requiring a "with all due respect, sir/madame") if said in front of six unis with four rows of knots each!

[Eagledad 2779]

>Along with teaching my boys that anyone over the age of 18 is addressed as Mr. or Ms., I also taught them that when they have the need to contradict an adult, they preface the comment with, "With all due respect...."

[Eagle92 110]

I have mixed emotions on the topic of No parents and unit scouters."

 

On one hand I see parents getting so involved in things that they really should be involved in, that it winds up with the parent doing the work, and the kid not doing a thing. Or as in one situation, the parent filled out all the forms and did the communications with me for their child that A) the shadowing expereince that was set up did not conform to what the child wanted because the parent did not know exactly what the child wanted, B) child did not read any of the information that was sent, thus was not dressed appropriately and C)Child threw a public "temper tantrum," when the child was brought to the area that they were scheduled to shadow in, but was not the are she wanted.

 

And I see this more and more. Another child waited to the last minute to complete a school project, and wanted to have the shadow experience the next day. When informed of the days and times that it is done, and the fact that it can take up to two weeks to schedule, she was shocked. When she called and I informed her on the next business day that I had not heard back from the dept. director to approve he shadowing, she gets her father involved. She didn't want to deal with the situation, she wanted her parents to deal with it. part of the reason for the projects is for the students to develop responsibility, but with parental involvement, it doesn always happen.

 

So I can see where folks are coming from. But parents do need to be involved and know what's up. BUT they also must realize that teh SCOUT need to own up to the responsibility.

[acco40 95]

Barry, I was not aware that Scoutmasters had any "power" to pick and choose members for an Eagle Board of Review.

[shortridge 184]

I believe he referred to an Eagle project approval board, not an EBoR.

[Eagledad 2779]

SMs have the power to bring these things to the District committe. Actually the Key 3 handled these things.

 

In this situation, the board member was a very respected SM (200 scouts), District Committee member and a very big district fund raiser. But he caused problems in the council by throwing his weight around. I think he saw the writing on the walls with my letter because I was told he didn't resist when the committee asked him to quit the project review board, which was unusual for him. I don't think he liked the reputation he was making in the council.

 

For my part, I didn't know who the board member was when I sent the letter. We were both friends on the district committee but if he had not quit, I would have pressed much harder for some kind of change. I was not the only SM writing letters.

 

Barry

[WAKWIB 107]

I think the whole "lasting value" thing will take a good long while to shake from the heads of Scouters in my part of the woods. The DAC seems pretty hung-up on building materials, tools, and hardware. I know of only one exception of a project that didn't require a blueprint and construction crew. The Scout did an amazing job of research and preparation and sold his project like a pro. I saw his write-up, but was still amazed that it was approved simply because of the "built" mentality. I'm glad he broke the mold, but I'm still not convinced that the DAC is very open-minded overall.