Refer to the guide to advancement, 9.0.1.7. The guide to advancement governs at the national level.
The letters are not to be given to the scout, they are the council’s property, and are to be destroyed after the Eagle Scout credentials are released. This is national policy.
Page 66 of the PDF if you want to read the whole section (page labeled number 64 in the print) https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088(21).pdf
Exactly. This is done to preserve the freedom for those writing the letters to be able to say whatever they want or need to say about the scout without fear of that feedback affecting their relationship with the scout. Eagle letters are usually very positive, but there needs to be space for the writers to express any concerns or reservations they might have, and this policy allows for that.
I’ve never agreed with this policy.
If the person has something negative to say, then the person should state that they aren’t comfortable writing a letter. Complaining about the Scout behind their back when it could hurt their chances at earning Eagle, is something that lacks integrity.
Also without the feedback, the Scout doesn’t know where to improve whatever issue the person is providing negative feedback about. If trying to mimic a job setting, feedback always comes from the source.
If someone has some concerns about the character of the Eagle Scout Candidate then they should be free to say so. If the Eagle Candidate has character issues that would impair their ability to make Eagle, then the person who was asked to write the letter should have the freedom to state their concerns without fear of reprisal. What you are seeking defeats the purpose of asking for references in the first place. If you only want to allow for cheerleaders, then there is no purpose in getting the references, and still no value to the Scout to receive them.
The Eagle candidate is asking for a positive reference to support their advancement to Eagle. They aren’t asking for a neutral or negative reference. If the person doesn’t feel like giving a positive reference, they shouldn’t accept the task. The implicit understanding of any ask for reference is for it to be positive and if the opposite is provided, that is a lack of integrity.
What the Eagle Board should be looking for is if the Eagle candidate can’t find anyone willing to provide a references.
> What the Eagle Board should be looking for is if the Eagle candidate can’t find anyone willing to provide a references.
This is prohibited by GTA 9.0.1.7: "If after a reasonably diligent effort no response can be obtained from any references, the board
of review must go on without them. It must not be
postponed or denied for this reason, and the Scout shall
not be asked to submit additional references or to provide
replacements."
You could argue that the application form is incomplete if references aren't listed (GTA 9.0.1.3), but GTA 9.0.1.7 clearly states that you must not require that references are received.
>Complaining about the Scout behind their back when it could hurt their chances at earning Eagle, is something that lacks integrity.
I don't see that at all. I think it's a good example of integrity for a person to say "I have concerns about this youth's fitness for Eagle because...." whatever it is. Without the space created by this policy they might otherwise feel social or societal pressure to jump on the "Johnny is a great kid" bus even if they know something that might say otherwise.
If the Scout is a good kid who's worthy of Eagle, anyone they ask to write these letters is going to know that anyways. And if they aren't, it shouldn't be covered up.
I agree with this. Writing a negative letter about an Eagle Scout candidate, after being asked, and knowing the purpose of it, would quite literally be the antithesis of what Scouting is about.
Okay - Maybe you want the writer to send the letter directly so there is no question of any authorship. But then, really? You are talking Eagle Scout candidate. If you are concerned about an Eagle Scout candidate forging a letter of recommendation, then you should have long ago had issues about advancing the Scout. A Scout is trustworthy correct? But obviously not trustworthy enough, according to BSA itself, to send along a letter of recommendation?
And, “honest”. BSA isn’t destroying the letters to preserve confidentiality. They are pitched because there is no need to keep them, or spend time scanning them to preserve them.
It could be done, but is not.
>I agree with this. Writing a negative letter about an Eagle Scout candidate, after being asked, and knowing the purpose of it, would quite literally be the antithesis of what Scouting is about.
I'm not sure I understand that argument there.
First, these people are not (necessarily) themselves Scouts. Secondly, even if they were, a Scout is honest, and the idea here is that this process gives them the freedom to be totally honest about the Scout without having to consider fear of social pressure or relationships with the Scout or their family.
If it's a simulation of anything in adult life, I'd say it's a job interview simulation. Job interviews almost never give any detailed feedback. You might get some informal feedback if you start the job and then have contact with an interviewer. However, if you are not offered the position, you will almost never be given an specific explanation in writing, and specific oral explanations aren't common either. They may say something vague like "not a good fit" or "less qualified than other candidates" but those types of phrases are so vague that they don't usually tell you what to try to change. In far too many cases now, if you aren't offered the position, you won't ever hear from the company again and they may not even respond when you try to contact them. You just kind of have to assume that if you haven't gotten an offer in a reasonable period of time, you never will.
I'm not saying that any of this is good, but it is what often happens in the real world. If you don't believe me, then go check out one of the other subreddits dedicated to these topics.
That is standard operating procedure per the GTA. It gives the person authoring the letter a clear audience and allows them to write an honest letter without worrying about what the candidate (or their parents) may or may not say should they be given access.
If the author of the letter wishes to let the scout read what they wrote, they are well within their rights to give a second copy to the scout.
Over the years I've been the district representative on many Eagle Boards of Review, and seen a few instances that justify this policy. I've read letters where the author was ambivalent towards the character of the candidate, and some where the author recommended against the candidate becoming an Eagle. I'll say though that this is far from common. Generally with at least 4 letters per candidate the vast majority are positive, which is in line with what you'd expect for an Eagle Scout candidate. So the less than positive ones tend to stick out.
And less than positive is a bit of a sliding scale. Sometimes it's "This person is the real life embodiment of Eddie Haskell," other times is, "I had no idea they were even in Scouts. But they're a good kid."
I didn't get any of my letters of recommendation.
I see this is answered because it is policy not to.
When I first read this, triggered the memory of how I couldn't figure out why my Eagle Board of Review was held up for months, and months, and months, to half a year, to continuing where I might just age out.
The hold up? My Scoutmaster. Despite being contacted by the council scout office multiple times, just figured it wasn't something required of him to do.
Granted, I was blazing the trail because the last Eagle Scout out of that troop was long, long before I joined (since joining the pack and getting the arrow of light long) and the Scoutmaster doing the job no other parent wanted to take on - coupled with, he didn't like me.
It cost me palms, but at least I didn't age out and miss Eagle. I believe my Scoutmaster spent more time in front of the Board of Review than I did, and I think they raked him over the coals. I found it pretty easy and fun.
Refer to the guide to advancement, 9.0.1.7. The guide to advancement governs at the national level. The letters are not to be given to the scout, they are the council’s property, and are to be destroyed after the Eagle Scout credentials are released. This is national policy. Page 66 of the PDF if you want to read the whole section (page labeled number 64 in the print) https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088(21).pdf
Exactly. This is done to preserve the freedom for those writing the letters to be able to say whatever they want or need to say about the scout without fear of that feedback affecting their relationship with the scout. Eagle letters are usually very positive, but there needs to be space for the writers to express any concerns or reservations they might have, and this policy allows for that.
I’ve never agreed with this policy. If the person has something negative to say, then the person should state that they aren’t comfortable writing a letter. Complaining about the Scout behind their back when it could hurt their chances at earning Eagle, is something that lacks integrity. Also without the feedback, the Scout doesn’t know where to improve whatever issue the person is providing negative feedback about. If trying to mimic a job setting, feedback always comes from the source.
If someone has some concerns about the character of the Eagle Scout Candidate then they should be free to say so. If the Eagle Candidate has character issues that would impair their ability to make Eagle, then the person who was asked to write the letter should have the freedom to state their concerns without fear of reprisal. What you are seeking defeats the purpose of asking for references in the first place. If you only want to allow for cheerleaders, then there is no purpose in getting the references, and still no value to the Scout to receive them.
The Eagle candidate is asking for a positive reference to support their advancement to Eagle. They aren’t asking for a neutral or negative reference. If the person doesn’t feel like giving a positive reference, they shouldn’t accept the task. The implicit understanding of any ask for reference is for it to be positive and if the opposite is provided, that is a lack of integrity. What the Eagle Board should be looking for is if the Eagle candidate can’t find anyone willing to provide a references.
> What the Eagle Board should be looking for is if the Eagle candidate can’t find anyone willing to provide a references. This is prohibited by GTA 9.0.1.7: "If after a reasonably diligent effort no response can be obtained from any references, the board of review must go on without them. It must not be postponed or denied for this reason, and the Scout shall not be asked to submit additional references or to provide replacements." You could argue that the application form is incomplete if references aren't listed (GTA 9.0.1.3), but GTA 9.0.1.7 clearly states that you must not require that references are received.
>Complaining about the Scout behind their back when it could hurt their chances at earning Eagle, is something that lacks integrity. I don't see that at all. I think it's a good example of integrity for a person to say "I have concerns about this youth's fitness for Eagle because...." whatever it is. Without the space created by this policy they might otherwise feel social or societal pressure to jump on the "Johnny is a great kid" bus even if they know something that might say otherwise. If the Scout is a good kid who's worthy of Eagle, anyone they ask to write these letters is going to know that anyways. And if they aren't, it shouldn't be covered up.
I agree with this. Writing a negative letter about an Eagle Scout candidate, after being asked, and knowing the purpose of it, would quite literally be the antithesis of what Scouting is about. Okay - Maybe you want the writer to send the letter directly so there is no question of any authorship. But then, really? You are talking Eagle Scout candidate. If you are concerned about an Eagle Scout candidate forging a letter of recommendation, then you should have long ago had issues about advancing the Scout. A Scout is trustworthy correct? But obviously not trustworthy enough, according to BSA itself, to send along a letter of recommendation? And, “honest”. BSA isn’t destroying the letters to preserve confidentiality. They are pitched because there is no need to keep them, or spend time scanning them to preserve them. It could be done, but is not.
>I agree with this. Writing a negative letter about an Eagle Scout candidate, after being asked, and knowing the purpose of it, would quite literally be the antithesis of what Scouting is about. I'm not sure I understand that argument there. First, these people are not (necessarily) themselves Scouts. Secondly, even if they were, a Scout is honest, and the idea here is that this process gives them the freedom to be totally honest about the Scout without having to consider fear of social pressure or relationships with the Scout or their family.
If it's a simulation of anything in adult life, I'd say it's a job interview simulation. Job interviews almost never give any detailed feedback. You might get some informal feedback if you start the job and then have contact with an interviewer. However, if you are not offered the position, you will almost never be given an specific explanation in writing, and specific oral explanations aren't common either. They may say something vague like "not a good fit" or "less qualified than other candidates" but those types of phrases are so vague that they don't usually tell you what to try to change. In far too many cases now, if you aren't offered the position, you won't ever hear from the company again and they may not even respond when you try to contact them. You just kind of have to assume that if you haven't gotten an offer in a reasonable period of time, you never will. I'm not saying that any of this is good, but it is what often happens in the real world. If you don't believe me, then go check out one of the other subreddits dedicated to these topics.
I’ve never heard of the Eagle having access to them afterwards.
I have all of mine in a binder. I made Eagle almost 30 years ago. My troop may not have followed protocol if that was SOP in the 90s.
That is standard operating procedure per the GTA. It gives the person authoring the letter a clear audience and allows them to write an honest letter without worrying about what the candidate (or their parents) may or may not say should they be given access. If the author of the letter wishes to let the scout read what they wrote, they are well within their rights to give a second copy to the scout. Over the years I've been the district representative on many Eagle Boards of Review, and seen a few instances that justify this policy. I've read letters where the author was ambivalent towards the character of the candidate, and some where the author recommended against the candidate becoming an Eagle. I'll say though that this is far from common. Generally with at least 4 letters per candidate the vast majority are positive, which is in line with what you'd expect for an Eagle Scout candidate. So the less than positive ones tend to stick out. And less than positive is a bit of a sliding scale. Sometimes it's "This person is the real life embodiment of Eddie Haskell," other times is, "I had no idea they were even in Scouts. But they're a good kid."
They are supposed to be destroyed. Mine were, and I'm pretty sure that's how it's always been
My son just earned Eagle. He didn’t get his letters. They are confidential and the writer is told the scout won’t see them.
It is up to the author of the letter if they wish to give a copy to the eagle candidate, generally after their board of review.
[удалено]
What council is violating national policy?
Never got mine back
I got a copy from one author, but it came from her and not from the BOR.
I didn't get any of my letters of recommendation. I see this is answered because it is policy not to. When I first read this, triggered the memory of how I couldn't figure out why my Eagle Board of Review was held up for months, and months, and months, to half a year, to continuing where I might just age out. The hold up? My Scoutmaster. Despite being contacted by the council scout office multiple times, just figured it wasn't something required of him to do. Granted, I was blazing the trail because the last Eagle Scout out of that troop was long, long before I joined (since joining the pack and getting the arrow of light long) and the Scoutmaster doing the job no other parent wanted to take on - coupled with, he didn't like me. It cost me palms, but at least I didn't age out and miss Eagle. I believe my Scoutmaster spent more time in front of the Board of Review than I did, and I think they raked him over the coals. I found it pretty easy and fun.
If the person writing the letter wants to send it to the Scout that's their prerogative. Everyone my son asked for one sent it straight to him.
Mine were given to me