Reading all the comments out there, there is some atrocious stuff people call Scrum. I'm not even a huge Scrum fan, but it folks seem to criticize what people do in the name of Scrum instead of what is actually in the process.
The TLDR of Scrum is simple: (product) management gets to set the priority of things every 2 or 3 weeks. After that, we see what got done and check to see if the priorities are still the same.
If the priorities are wrong, don't blame Scrum, blame management. If tech debt is increasing, don't blame Scrum, blame management.
There's no magic bullet to determine what is important, and certainly Scrum Master training won't help an incompetent manager a competent one.
I don't think I have ever seen it done as badly as some of these comments. Scrum itself is a very light and quite flexible framework, half of the complaints here aren't even Scrum related. User stories aren't part of Scrum, neither are story points or burndown charts.
Of all the people complaining about Scrum it doesn't sound like any of them have read the Scrum Guide. Symptoms of Scrum are not managers pressuring people at stand ups, squeezing 4 weeks of work into 2 and having a "team" of 20 people. These are symptoms of poor leadership.
The TLDR of Scrum is simple: (product) management gets to set the priority of things every 2 or 3 weeks. After that, we see what got done and check to see if the priorities are still the same.
If the priorities are wrong, don't blame Scrum, blame management. If tech debt is increasing, don't blame Scrum, blame management.
There's no magic bullet to determine what is important, and certainly Scrum Master training won't help an incompetent manager a competent one.