Re: [Philmont]: New Reservation System

Dr. Bob,
Your post is clearly one of the most insightful and knowledgable posts I've
read on this list server. Thank you for stating what you did.

As for needing another Philmont, I couldn't agree more. But what about the
three Northern Tier bases? (I know.... I know..... that's opening the can
of worms again.) Just seems to me that NT would be a logical choice for any
Troop.

But, to get another "base" for the BSA to call it's own, it would probably
take generosity that would put Mr. Phillips to shame. Obviously, the
long-closed Northern Wisconsin National Canoe Base and Maine National High
Adventure weren't what national had in mind. What is?

Pete Swiggum
Troop 1173
Green Bay, WI

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Bob Klein" <drbob@troop111.org>
To: "Multiple recipients of list Philmont" <Philmont@troop47.com>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Philmont]: New Reservation System

> A couple of (hopefully) pertinent comments.
>
> As recently as the mid-90's, it was pretty easy to get into Philmont.
> It got rapidly tougher in the late 90's. Why? In my opinion, three
> reasons: First, the ever-increasing number of Scouts nationwide;
> second, the broader realization that a major key to Senior Scout
> retention is challenging high adventure activities; and third, the
> InterNet, which really put Philmont on the map as never before, with
> numerous diaries and other information opening peoples' eyes wide to
> what was previously almost an insider's secret.
>
> Again in my opinion, the reason why there has been very little discourse
> on the new reservation system is because we know almost nothing about
> the selection criteria. Philmont has played this one very close to the
> vest, having well learned the lessons from the previous selection
> protocols, that any and every flaw in whatever system would be endlessly
> criticized and second-guessed by the ever-increasing legions of the
> unsuccessful. Other than some general grousing, it's hard to bitch when
> you have no idea of what they're doing and/or not doing. Darts at 10
> feet, perhaps? Your guess is as good as anyone's.
>
> If I had to pick two issues that were (and remain) the keys to the
> various critiques that were offered over the past 5 years, they would be
> A) Giving some weighted preference to applicants who lost out, with
> increasing preference for each continuous year in a row they lost out;
> and B) Taking into account the size of a Unit, with applications also
> being weighted based on the number of registered, age-eligible Scouts in
> the applying Unit. There were about a half-dozen or so lottery schemes
> proposed on this and the previous Philmont list-server (including one
> from myself), all basically being variations on the above themes. I
> personally feel this is still the way to go - perhaps because I have a
> nagging sense that Philmont is using a straight up, unweighted, and
> purely random selection that treats every applicant identically,
> regardless of how long they've been trying to win a slot, or how large
> they are. But I have no proof, so doubtless it's just paranoia or sour
> grapes on my part, take your pick.
>
> Councils are not given priority per se. Philmont sets aside a certain
> percentage of the availble slots for Council Contingents. The number of
> slots per Council is based on many years of negotiations and actual
> attendance figures. Here in National Cap, for example, we have been
> sending Council Contingents to Philmont for over 50 years, and have
> settled (I believe) on 12 Crews per year, down from 16. If the Council
> had to keep returning unused Crew slots, Philmont would eventually ask
> us to cut back to 8 Crews. If we were instead constantly sitting on a
> large waiting list, the Council would try to get back up to 16 Crews.
> That might take years to do, especially nowadays.
>
> Many Councils (a surprisingly large percentage, actually) never ask for
> a Council Contingent. Others request only small numbers of slots,
> commensurate with the level of interest. Off the top of my head, maybe
> two dozen Councils have either one mega-Contingent (12 - 20 Crews all on
> one date), or multiple small Contingents (8 - 16 Crews spread over
> several dates). Other Councils combine to form Contingents (for
> example, when I came as a Scout, both times it was one Contingent made
> up from three neighboring Councils).
>
> Anyway, it is important to realize that Councils are not competing
> directly against Units, except in general terms. Rather, they are more
> competing against each other, and changes are slow coming.
>
> Finally, the every other year restriction. This pertains ONLY to
> individual Units going on their own. It does not pertain to Units going
> with their Council Contingents. HOWEVER (and I believe with Philmont's
> encouragement), *most* Councils have instituted the same restrictions
> within their own Contingents. But not all. In addition, there are no
> restrictions on Scouts or adults going provisionally, either with their
> own Council or with whoever else they can find, literally nationwide.
> So it is indeed possible for people to go to Philmont year after year in
> "apparent" violation of the every other year restriction. They are
> within the letter of the law, if not the spirit. That is yet another
> issue for Philmont to address some day, if they so choose.
>
> The final answer, of course, hasn't changed in the ten years since
> getting into Philmont became an issue - as has been discussed at some
> point almost every year, we need another Philmont. Another night's
> (repeat) topic, perhaps....
>
> - Dr. Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Scouting E-mail Discussion Lists @ usscouts.org
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe at http://usscouts.org/lists/
> Listserv Commands at http://usscouts.org/lists/lc.asp
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Send listserv commands to: listserv@troop47.com
> Send postings to: philmont@troop47.com
> List FAQ found at: http://usscouts.org/lists/faq.asp
> List Administrator: philmont_owner@troop47.com
> -------------------------------------------------------
> As you gather around this virtual campfire with fellow
> Scouts and Scouters, do your best to be trustworthy,
> loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient,
> cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------
Scouting E-mail Discussion Lists @ usscouts.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe at http://usscouts.org/lists/
Listserv Commands at http://usscouts.org/lists/lc.asp
-------------------------------------------------------
Send listserv commands to: listserv@troop47.com
Send postings to: philmont@troop47.com
List FAQ found at: http://usscouts.org/lists/faq.asp
List Administrator: philmont_owner@troop47.com
-------------------------------------------------------
As you gather around this virtual campfire with fellow
Scouts and Scouters, do your best to be trustworthy,
loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient,
cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.
-------------------------------------------------------

 
Received on Mon Nov 1 22:37:23 2004