Re: Can't Eagle candidates fail, Bruce?
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@NYC.PIPELINE.COM)
Sun, 15 Sep 1996 20:47:05 GMT
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 16:06:16 -0500 "J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull@MINDSPRING.COM>
>Our difference may be in defining "fail" and "deferred", Bruce.
I believe that is primarily the case, Hugh. My differentiation between the
two words, as I use them in this context, has to do with the ability to
correct whatever deficiency there is that led to the candidate's not
Thus, if he is over 18 he has failed, because his age precludes him from
doing anything about it. If he is under 18 he has been deferred, because
he still has until his 18th birthday to remedy whatever deficiency led to
Yes, I can probably envision a situation where (ignoring the case where the
Scout might be turning 18 in a few days, which I would consider the same as
his being 18 already) the deficiencies were such that a failure to pass
would be a failure, rather than a deferral, even if the Scout is
significantly under 18. However, that would certainly be the exception,
rather than the rule.
My distinction, to be clear, was solely dealing with time to make
In the examples you gave, not having done the mb work himself, or failure
to have a belief in God or Country, a 16 year old, for example, would still
have time to see the error in his ways and make Eagle before his 18th
>If the board can't fail such candidates, don't we become a mere rubber
>and therefore superfluous? To me, the board is a candidates final exam and
>failure is a possibility.
I don't disagree with this, except possibly the use of the term "exam", but
I know the way in which you are using it. However, I still feel that ANY
deferral or failure should be the exception, rather than the rule, because
if the system has been functioning anywhere near properly, the Scout would
never have gotten close to the Eagle BOR if there were those kinds of major
I think is one of my biggest disappointments in my years as an advancement
chairman. For about the first ten years or so, things worked much like
they should. In virtually ALL cases, the Scout, family, SM, Committee,
etc. were all on the same page, working together for the good of the Scout
and the program. Controversial Eagle candidates were rare.
Unfortunately, over the last ten years or so that has become the case MUCH
less often. I now, all too often, have to deal with situations where there
are differences in opinion amongst members of those groups listed above.
Instead of sitting down and talking things out to make things work, people
are at each others' throats with parents threatening to sue, committees
having problems with the SM's decisions and vice versa. It takes too much
of the fun out of it.
Anyway, Hugh, once again we really are NOT very far apart, if at all.
Bruce E. Cobern
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City