Delphi Education: Good or Crappy?

Moderator: doubleVee

<<

Anonspring

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:57 pm

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:16 am

You misunderstand me. I do not mean ask the teacher questions. I mean question the material.

For instance, our teacher at school would lecture historical events and talk about the impact and cause. We were always expected to question and disagree. In fact, our grade depended on it. Our classes were 90 minutes, so we often spent half the time arguing back and forth, and then other kids would take sides. This wasn't just for history, but for all of our humanity classes. It is not uncommon to start the class off with one of the students disputing the contents of the textbook. Many of us were given assignments to research on the current topic at hand. This happened most often in the science classes, where recent research could be used to either further discuss or dispute our lessons.

In short, performing the lesson well wasn't the focus of the school, though of course, you needed to understand it. What was truly important was taking the lesson and forming your own thoughts (well supported, you can't just make crap up) so that they can be applicable to real life.

I will never understand the Scientology idea of "disputing wins" because that's what we did in school so often. More than once I've thought I had created the perfect argument only to have it torn to pieces in class. And of course, in the end what you learn is that there isn't necessarily a right answer. That had been a very frightening moment for me in school, but was something I truly appreciate now.

I guess what I'm saying is that while Delphi schools may be better than a lot of public schools, I would never consider them to be good schools, nevermind sending my kids to one of them. The fact that a school that inadequately prepares kids for the real world has so few graduates (this was my impression, from the fact that the stories most of you guys describe seems to be a one by one graduating basis, so correct me if I'm wrong) is something I find mind boggling. My school was strict too (I attended a public IB school), but it wasn't in our interest to kick students out. In fact, that rarely happens. Instead most kids decide that they prefer a less academic based school and return to their home high schools.

I think the Delphi schools have pressed all my buttons. I'm a teacher, so it angers me when I read about the curriculum. As far as I'm concerned, it is a teacher's responsibility to teach, not hand out materials and wait for the student to stumble over them. You might as well not call such people teachers, but supervisors.
<<

RLSteve

Site Admin

Posts: 414

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:03 am

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:36 am

Anonspring wrote:You misunderstand me. I do not mean ask the teacher questions. I mean question the material.

For instance, our teacher at school would lecture historical events and talk about the impact and cause. We were always expected to question and disagree. In fact, our grade depended on it. Our classes were 90 minutes, so we often spent half the time arguing back and forth, and then other kids would take sides. This wasn't just for history, but for all of our humanity classes. It is not uncommon to start the class off with one of the students disputing the contents of the textbook. Many of us were given assignments to research on the current topic at hand. This happened most often in the science classes, where recent research could be used to either further discuss or dispute our lessons.


Well, we never did anything like that in my non-Scientology middle school. I didn't know that was a standard thing to do in high school.

In short, performing the lesson well wasn't the focus of the school, though of course, you needed to understand it. What was truly important was taking the lesson and forming your own thoughts (well supported, you can't just make crap up) so that they can be applicable to real life.


Well, you were always expected to find areas to apply what you learned. Delphi always made a big emphasis on application of what you were learning and not just repeating a bunch of facts like a parrot. I personally found more application for things I learned through Delphi's checksheet courses than I had at my prior non-Scientology education.

But yeah, I don't recall too much much emphasis on critical thinking about what you were learning. I'll have to ask my sister, a Yale graduate, if there was much emphasis on critical thinking at Yale or in her high school.

I guess what I'm saying is that while Delphi schools may be better than a lot of public schools, I would never consider them to be good schools, nevermind sending my kids to one of them. The fact that a school that inadequately prepares kids for the real world has so few graduates (this was my impression, from the fact that the stories most of you guys describe seems to be a one by one graduating basis, so correct me if I'm wrong)


I'm guessing that Delphi Oregon has about fourteen to twenty graduates a year, and about one hundred and fifty students in the high school every year. So yeah, I'd roughly guess that only about 40% of the students actually finish the entire curriculum. From the time you start Form 6, it takes about three to four years to graduate from Delphi. And every high school student who goes to school at Delphi, no matter how old they are, starts on a program called Form 6 Entry which you have to complete before you start Form 6 (takes about six months to a year, depending on the student's prior education). However, I do know one girl who took only two years to graduate from Delphi.

Some Delphi students don't even graduate until they're 20! But I'd say most of them finish at about age 17 or 18. This is one reason a lot of students don't graduate, because they're getting older and they still have a lot left to do in the program. That's why I didn't stay to graduate.

You might as well not call such people teachers, but supervisors.


Yeah, well... they WERE called supervisors, not teachers. I think that's the reason.
<<

Anonspring

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:57 pm

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:45 am

RLSteve wrote:Well, we never did anything like that in my non-Scientology middle school. I didn't know that was a standard thing to do in high school.


I'll be honest here. I went to one of the top high schools in the US. It was listed as number one in Newsweeks for two years straight, and continues to be in the top ten. So my experience in high school isn't exactly common. We were studying from college textbooks and writing five page essays on a weekly basis. However, that is how I would define a good school. Look up IB (International Baccalaureate) sometime. It's an internationally standardized education system headquartered in Switzerland.


Yeah, well... they WERE called supervisors, not teachers. I think that's the reason.


Last I checked, schools had teachers, not supervisors. If these people weren't teachers, then why was it called a school? From the sound of it, you could have done all these lessons at home.
<<

RLSteve

Site Admin

Posts: 414

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:03 am

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:06 am

Anonspring wrote:Last I checked, schools had teachers, not supervisors. If these people weren't teachers, then why was it called a school? From the sound of it, you could have done all these lessons at home.


Well, you still had drama, choir, music, sports, school events, dances, etc. Most of the other stuff that you'd get at a regular school.

I'd say that Delphi is probably one of the few good Scientology schools.

I only went to one other Scientology school for ten months when I wasn't going to Delphi. And from what I've read about other Scientology schools, I'd say that most Scientology schools probably aren't that great. The one I went to really didn't have much in the way of resources or any particular programs for drama, music, choir, sports, or anything. Not only that, it didn't seem particularly organized in its curriculum the way Delphi was.

But... my family wasn't interested in sending me to good schools, they were only interested in sending me to small private schools where I would be sheltered and where there would be no drugs or bullies and where it would be easier to get individual attention. Before I went to Delphi, I had so wanted to go to public school really bad.
<<

AnonyMozart

Clear

Posts: 53

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:26 pm

Location: Oregon

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:40 am

Anonspring wrote:In short, performing the lesson well wasn't the focus of the school, though of course, you needed to understand it. What was truly important was taking the lesson and forming your own thoughts (well supported, you can't just make crap up) so that they can be applicable to real life.

I will never understand the Scientology idea of "disputing wins" because that's what we did in school so often. More than once I've thought I had created the perfect argument only to have it torn to pieces in class. And of course, in the end what you learn is that there isn't necessarily a right answer. That had been a very frightening moment for me in school, but was something I truly appreciate now.

I guess what I'm saying is that while Delphi schools may be better than a lot of public schools, I would never consider them to be good schools, nevermind sending my kids to one of them. The fact that a school that inadequately prepares kids for the real world has so few graduates (this was my impression, from the fact that the stories most of you guys describe seems to be a one by one graduating basis, so correct me if I'm wrong) is something I find mind boggling. My school was strict too (I attended a public IB school), but it wasn't in our interest to kick students out. In fact, that rarely happens. Instead most kids decide that they prefer a less academic based school and return to their home high schools.

I think the Delphi schools have pressed all my buttons. I'm a teacher, so it angers me when I read about the curriculum. As far as I'm concerned, it is a teacher's responsibility to teach, not hand out materials and wait for the student to stumble over them. You might as well not call such people teachers, but supervisors.

I totally agree, Anonspring. Checking off student progress (often by another student) on a checklist is no guarantee they are learning. Delphi can say all they want that they are 'not affiliated' with scientology, but that is pure bs. Having students read and take tests without much or any discussion is busy work, with no higher level thinking involved. And that is precisely how scientology wants it - no thinking for oneself, no questioning, no broadening of horizons. I have also taught in an IB (International Baccalaureate) public school, and I would put it up against any private school, especially one like Delphi which charges outrageous tuition to be 'taught' by uncertified teachers, and require courses in auditing and Parking Lot Line Painting 101.
Scientology, how about that? You hold on the the tin cans and then this guy asks you a bunch of questions, and if you pay enough money, you get to join the master race. How's that for a 'religion'? - Frank Zappa
<<

Anonspring

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:57 pm

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:49 am

There aren't that many public IB schools...was the school you taught at IA by any chance?

I adored the IB curriculum. I still remember to this day my Theory of Knowledge class senior year. One of the students was drawing a diagram of how a 1D person would view a 2D object. Another student objected, ran up to the board, and started scribbling another diagram while telling the other student that he was an idiot. Then a third came to correct the both of them and it became a shouting match.

Through all this the teacher sat in her chair grinning like a fiend. I think she was as amused as we were that students could become so passionate over what most kids our age would consider dull and pointless. :D
<<

RLSteve

Site Admin

Posts: 414

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:03 am

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:53 am

AnonyMozart wrote:I totally agree, Anonspring. Checking off student progress (often by another student) on a checklist is no guarantee they are learning.


How is this relevant? The supervisor still spot checks the student through out the course, checks his coursework assignments, and the student always has an exam at the end of the course. Other than a teacher lecture, what is a student missing out on that he won't get at a public school? He still has to take tests and do school work assignments just like any other public school kid.

I might not like the Church of Scientology, but I've never heard any Delphi graduate, or any former Delphi student, complain that they had trouble learning the checksheet way.

Delphi can say all they want that they are 'not affiliated' with scientology, but that is pure bs. Having students read and take tests without much or any discussion is busy work, with no higher level thinking involved.


I've never heard Delphi claim that they aren't affiliated with Scientology. They say that they're a secular school. Whether they're technically secular or not is debatable, but yeah, they do teach a lot of Scientology stuff.

Give me an example of higher level thinking that's done at a regular school that's not done at Delphi?

I have also taught in an IB (International Baccalaureate) public school, and I would put it up against any private school


And do these IB schools teach students to discipline themselves to use a dictionary and to look up words they don't know when they are studying? Because I would consider that a valuable discipline that Delphi emphasizes that most schools do not.

Let me give you an example. Have you guys seen the film Dangerous Minds? That is based on an autobiography by LouAnne Johnson called My Posse Don't Do Homework. I've read the book. I think Ms. Johnson is a wonderful individual, but there was one part in the book that really irked me. You know what it was? I was so bugged by it, I wrote a paragraph about it in a myspace blog. This was three years ago. I've copied and pasted it:

"By the way, I've been reading the book MY POSSE DON'T DO HOMEWORK by LouAnne Johnson, the book that inspired the movie DANGEROUS MINDS starring Michelle Pfeiffer. It's a good book, but it's not quite as dark as the movie. And I think that the writer is such a wonderful individual and a great teacher and she really knows how to touch her students' lives. But there was one part in the book that really bothered me when I read it! One of her students knows how to read, he reads aloud to her, but he doesn't understand what he's reading about, and she tells him it's because he has a learning disability. I was so disappointed in her when I read this, especially after she had just written about how one of the other teachers told her she's not teaching her students English, she's teaching them how to use their minds to analyze and process information and solve problems. Well, the paragraph this "disabled" student read had several uncommon words in it such as "coiffure" and "aviary," words that the average person doesn't know. Maybe she should teach her students how to use dictionaries when they read? That's a way of taking in and analyzing and processing information to solve problems, and this student would then be able to solve the problem of his not being able to understand what he's reading about."

especially one like Delphi which charges outrageous tuition to be 'taught' by uncertified teachers, and require courses in auditing and Parking Lot Line Painting 101.


There are no courses in auditing at Delphi. And as for the parking stripe painting, that was a project for me to earn credit, it wasn't a course. Delphi's graduation program requires that students work on various projects, apprenticeships, etc. to earn credit. I'd think that most parents would be pleased that their kids were working on projects and doing apprenticeships.

And after doing a little research, the tuition is pretty comparable to other private boarding schools.
Last edited by RLSteve on Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
<<

RLSteve

Site Admin

Posts: 414

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:03 am

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:06 am

Anonspring wrote:I'll be honest here. I went to one of the top high schools in the US. It was listed as number one in Newsweeks for two years straight, and continues to be in the top ten. So my experience in high school isn't exactly common. We were studying from college textbooks and writing five page essays on a weekly basis. However, that is how I would define a good school. Look up IB (International Baccalaureate) sometime. It's an internationally standardized education system headquartered in Switzerland.


I just went to their website out of curiousity. Apparently, my sister's public school was an IB school.

It always looked like just an average public school to me, nothing special about it. I'll have to ask my sister what she thought of it there. Even SHE said she thought Delphi was a good school, although she didn't like it there.

EDIT: Apparently, my sister's public school only just recently became IB a year ago.
Last edited by RLSteve on Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
<<

RLSteve

Site Admin

Posts: 414

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:03 am

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:20 am

Re: Delphi Education: Good or Crappy?

Tru2form wrote:1. The science and math programs are awful. I mean, really awful. Teachers who are not experts in mathematics and have no degree in math teach math regularly. I saw maybe 10 kids in my class who were naturals at math, but were never challenged because they couldn't get any further than what was in the book. They'd ask the teacher, and the teacher couldn't answer their questions. There'd be like, one math guy at the school, and one science guy - and you'd have to go find that person and ask, and if they didn't know, well... oh well.


Didn't the students at Delphi LA get to pretest each math chapter to determine whether they had to do the chapter or not? Or was that only Form 6 Entry students?

I have a vague memory of one supervisor being a particular expert in a subject and my supervisor sent me over to him to have him check my practical (can't remember what subject it was, however).
<<

Anonspring

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:57 pm

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:43 am

I've never heard Delphi claim that they aren't affiliated with Scientology. They say that they're a secular school. Whether they're technically secular or not is debatable, but yeah, they do teach a lot of Scientology stuff.

Give me an example of higher level thinking that's done at a regular school that's not done at Delphi?


Do you know the definition of secular? This is where I highly suggest you check the dictionary that your school is reputed to be so good about. If they claim that they are a secular school, it means they are not affiliated with any religion. The fact that they do teach a lot of Scientology stuff means that that are partial to Scientology, and therefore not secular.

And do these IB schools teach students to discipline themselves to use a dictionary and to look up words they don't know when they are studying? Because I would consider that a valuable discipline that Delphi emphasizes that most schools do not.


Our teachers have never bothered teaching us such a thing because it is considered common sense. We never needed to be told to use the dictionary. The fact that you consider this a valuable skill is fascinating because I and all my fellow students had always considered it a matter of course. I do not consider it praiseworthy.

And here, I'll give you an example of what we were required to do in my high school:

We studied the Cold War in my junior year. During this time we did not use a textbook, but worked directly from Kissinger and other famous historians. Of course, none of us were told to accept Kissinger at face value, and there was much fun in the class where we continuously made fun of Kissinger's overinflated ego. But the most memorable moment I had in history class was studying directly from the source.

We would study original government documents from both the USSR and the US at the time (obviously, the Russian was translated, and we discussed the problems of that too). We were in fact, first given the Russian documents for a week. Then when we were all set to call the US evil for hurting poor Russia, we were given the US documents. At the end of those two weeks we were told to determine how we felt about the Cold War and who exactly started it. Because we learned the Russian side first, we were all able to think about the situation without the usual US bias. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best ways to learn history. Learn the enemy side first, then throw the side you're "on" and see how your views have changed.

This was done for the American Revolution as well. We studied the original document that gave British/former French subjects pardons for being involved in the war while heavily taxing the American colonists. This was completely unedited and written in the English of that time period, and it changed all of our minds on the American Revolution. Reading the actual trials of the British soldiers who caused the Boston massacre cemented the change.

To graduate, all of us had to write a 15 page thesis called the Extended Essay. For the science courses this required an experiment that is self-designed and self-executed. My brother did his research on the evolutionary pattern of single-celled organisms. I wrote my paper on Pascal's Wager and the counter-wager Smith's Wager. Other friends wrote their thesis on other subjects such as the justifications during the Cold War and literature comparisons.

Of course, on top of this we were all required to write a five-page paper for history, Theory of Knowledge, English literature and an elective of your choice. We were also required to do two projects for literature, one which was a presentation graded in school, another graded by several instructors in other countries. The year I graduated, my ToK paper was graded in China.

For language studies we were tape recorded and required to speak nonstop in the language that we're preparing to test for for about ten minutes. A similar one is done for English, in which we are given a short passage and required to analyze it for ten minutes. I also did a research project for my math class which compared the golden ratio of not just the face but for the body as well.

Apart from academic activities we were also required to complete CAS hours, which are fifty hours each for a Creative activity (such as learning an instrument), Action (sports), and Service (volunteer, research).

Of course, then there was the actual IB test, which lasts for several weeks throughout the month of May. It is held at the same time around the world. Most IB schools only required that you take one or two subjects. Our school required that we take at least six, and that four of those be high level. The other ones were standard level. I took HL for philosophy, and I remember that for first portion of my test we were given a choice of two famous works of art, and then expected to demonstrate how the piece we chose reflected the human condition. Through a gradual set of questions, from one paragraph long to the last being 3 pages long, we tried to tie in a philosopher that supposedly agrees with the human condition expressed in the work of art and argued whether or not we agreed or disagreed.

Again, I want to reiterate that this is not common in a public school. My school was one of the best, and those of us who attended wanted to because we valued education and aspired to what are culturally considered high-level careers. I cannot say that I was a good student. I was bright enough to earn A's and high scores on my tests while only putting a minimum amount of effort. All I can say is that I was lucky to be able to attend such a school.
<<

RLSteve

Site Admin

Posts: 414

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:03 am

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:08 am

Anonspring wrote:Our teachers have never bothered teaching us such a thing because it is considered common sense. We never needed to be told to use the dictionary. The fact that you consider this a valuable skill is fascinating because I and all my fellow students had always considered it a matter of course. I do not consider it praiseworthy.


I consider it praiseworthy because it was never taught at any of my schools before I went to Delphi, and when I did start using a dictionary, it made a world of difference. And that example of LouAnne Johnson from Dangerous Minds is a perfect example of what NOT using a dictionary leads to and is evidence that, even if it is common sense, it is certainly not applied in normal schools.

Wow.... IB schools sound pretty hardcore. Definitely something I'll consider when I have children someday.
<<

RLSteve

Site Admin

Posts: 414

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:03 am

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:16 am

Anonspring wrote:Do you know the definition of secular? This is where I highly suggest you check the dictionary that your school is reputed to be so good about. If they claim that they are a secular school, it means they are not affiliated with any religion. The fact that they do teach a lot of Scientology stuff means that that are partial to Scientology, and therefore not secular.


I think Delphi thinks of itself as a secular private school with "secularized Hubbard tech."

When it comes down to it... "religious" and "secular" really are just labels, like "good" and "bad," "gay" and "straight", etc. The point isn't really whether it's religious or secular... is it the same stuff in Scientology or not? Yes, it is the same stuff in Scientology.
Last edited by RLSteve on Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
<<

Anonspring

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:57 pm

Post Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:32 am

RLSteve wrote:
Anonspring wrote:Our teachers have never bothered teaching us such a thing because it is considered common sense. We never needed to be told to use the dictionary. The fact that you consider this a valuable skill is fascinating because I and all my fellow students had always considered it a matter of course. I do not consider it praiseworthy.


I consider it praiseworthy because it was never taught at any of my schools before I went to Delphi, and when I did start using a dictionary, it made a world of difference. And that example of LouAnne Johnson from Dangerous Minds is a perfect example of what NOT using a dictionary leads to and is evidence that, even if it is common sense, it is certainly not applied in normal schools.

Wow.... IB schools sound pretty hardcore. Definitely something I'll consider when I have children someday.


You have to realize. We were pretty much a school for kids who loved learning. I used to read the thesaurus for fun. My brother for example, once saw a rabbit hopping, ran back home and immediately started looking up peer-reviewed science articles that mathematically calculated a rabbit's hop. I think we were pretty much a school of dictionary readers, so finding out from you that tons of kids don't even think of this as their first option when they run against a problem is well, a bit of a shock. It's certainly taught me how lucky I really was when I attended my school.
<<

AnonyMozart

Clear

Posts: 53

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:26 pm

Location: Oregon

Post Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:29 am

RLSteve wrote:
How is this relevant? The supervisor still spot checks the student through out the course, checks his coursework assignments, and the student always has an exam at the end of the course. Other than a teacher lecture, what is a student missing out on that he won't get at a public school? He still has to take tests and do school work assignments just like any other public school kid.
Give me an example of higher level thinking that's done at a regular school that's not done at Delphi?

Well, first of all, a qualified teacher is the most important asset in the classroom. Not necessarily to 'lecture', but to share knowledge, ask open-ended questions, and facilitate learning - a guide, if you will. A great teacher encourages students to have an open mind about topics and to explore a concept from many angles. You will not get this from a 'supervisor'. (I am not saying that all public school teachers do it right - far from it; but at the very least, they are well-trained and rigorously evaluated.)
Secondly, people have vastly different learning styles. Some are visual learners, some are auditory, tactile, etc. Reading material from a textbook and answering questions on a test or checklist is one-dimensional and boring.
Which sounds more stimulating:
a) Reading Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech and answering written questions
or
b) watch a video clip excerpt of his speech and have a class discussion on
segregation, prejudice, racism, etc.
c) have students deliver a part of this speech, once in a montone voice, once with much feeling, then have other students compare and critique the two; discuss Dr. King's passion
d) sing "Follow The Drinking Gourd" and talk about the underground railroad; sing "We Shall Overcome" and talk about peaceful protest
e) compare and contrast a speech by Dr. King and Barack Obama
f) talk about other heroes and their contributions, e.g. Rosa Parks, JFK, Abraham Lincoln, etc. and decide which character traits we may want to emulate.

In January, we did all of b - f in my classroom. The observable skills (ones that can be checked off) are: knowledge (recall of data) and, to some extent, comprehension (understanding information)
The higher level thinking comes in application (applying knowledge to a new situation), analysis (separating information into parts for better understanding), synthesis (building a pattern from diverse elements), and evaluation (judging the value of information). **google Bloom's taxonomy**

People remember only 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see, 50% of what they see and hear, 70% of what they say and write, and 90% of what they say and do. Active learning is the most effective and long-lasting way to learn.
Last of my rant: individual study cuts out a tremendously vital part of education: learning from other students. They learn just as much from interacting with each other as they do from me. I dare say that little to none of this interaction takes place at Delphi. Were you ever free to voice your honest opinion without fear of repercussion,especially a differing opinion than LRH?
Scientology, how about that? You hold on the the tin cans and then this guy asks you a bunch of questions, and if you pay enough money, you get to join the master race. How's that for a 'religion'? - Frank Zappa
<<

RLSteve

Site Admin

Posts: 414

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:03 am

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:59 am

AnonyMozart wrote:Well, first of all, a qualified teacher is the most important asset in the classroom. Not necessarily to 'lecture', but to share knowledge, ask open-ended questions, and facilitate learning - a guide, if you will. A great teacher encourages students to have an open mind about topics and to explore a concept from many angles. You will not get this from a 'supervisor'. (I am not saying that all public school teachers do it right - far from it; but at the very least, they are well-trained and rigorously evaluated.)


Well, I don't know. Most of the supervisors at Delphi Oregon seemed pretty brilliant.

Secondly, people have vastly different learning styles. Some are visual learners, some are auditory, tactile, etc. Reading material from a textbook and answering questions on a test or checklist is one-dimensional and boring.
Which sounds more stimulating:
a) Reading Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech and answering written questions
or
b) watch a video clip excerpt of his speech and have a class discussion on
segregation, prejudice, racism, etc.
c) have students deliver a part of this speech, once in a montone voice, once with much feeling, then have other students compare and critique the two; discuss Dr. King's passion
d) sing "Follow The Drinking Gourd" and talk about the underground railroad; sing "We Shall Overcome" and talk about peaceful protest
e) compare and contrast a speech by Dr. King and Barack Obama
f) talk about other heroes and their contributions, e.g. Rosa Parks, JFK, Abraham Lincoln, etc. and decide which character traits we may want to emulate.

In January, we did all of b - f in my classroom. The observable skills (ones that can be checked off) are: knowledge (recall of data) and, to some extent, comprehension (understanding information)
The higher level thinking comes in application (applying knowledge to a new situation), analysis (separating information into parts for better understanding), synthesis (building a pattern from diverse elements), and evaluation (judging the value of information). **google Bloom's taxonomy**


I didn't mean to give you the impression that checksheets didn't have stuff like this as steps.

For the record, on one of my courses at Delphi, I DID listen to a tape of MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech.

I do remember on a history course having to write an essay and discuss with another student the rightness and wrongness of the way slave owners treated their slaves, whether it was right or wrong in the context of their own morals during that time, etc.

Here's an example of a checksheet step I did at the end of a US geography course.

Create a big map of the US on butcher paper, draw all the regions, put landmarks, topography, etc. Then plan a road trip, route out all the stops you plan to make. Show your map to another student (who has done the course) and explain to him about each of the different stops, what's there, why you plan to go there, etc.

One of my favorite checksheets I did at Delphi was a course called "Professional Basics For An Artist." For the final step on that checksheet, I wrote an original song and arranged a five part choral medley of Rodgers & Hammerstein songs. I got a group of other students together and we learned the medley that I had arranged, and I organized a little mini-concert that was attended by a small number of students and faculty.

Don't worry, the checksheets are designed with steps that have projects where you have to think and apply what you learn.

Last of my rant: individual study cuts out a tremendously vital part of education: learning from other students. They learn just as much from interacting with each other as they do from me. I dare say that little to none of this interaction takes place at Delphi.


No, I'd say a fair amount of interacting with other students happens with checksheets. You have to get checkouts from other students, do drills with them, involve them in your projects, etc. Just because everybody works independently on their own program doesn't mean there's no interacting involved.

Besides, there's also literature seminars where there is no checksheet where you do read and discuss a book as a group. There's current event seminars where you'll meet and discuss current events, and occasionally have debates over issues such as abortion or whether recreational drugs should be legal, for example. The foreign language seminars you have a partner you study with. And then many students take the business seminar where they learn and talk about the business, laws of supply and demand, play a mock stock market, etc.

Trust me, there's plenty of interaction with other students. It's true with the checksheets, you're not learning and discussing things as a group. But then, a lot of students in groups don't really participate in group discussions. I've certainly never been that kind of student, even in the more group discussion oriented seminars at Delphi, I wasn't ever a very active participant.

You know, my last year at Delphi, I took a course on education, or at least, Delphi's view on education. This course included a little bit of history of education in the US. It's been about nine years since I did the course, so my memory is foggy, but I remember the course talking about how originally, education in schools was more individual focused (of course, I don't know how true this is). But then sometime in the early 20th century, some influential educator (Thorndyke? I think that was his name) decided that education should be more about "socialization and comformity." It seems to me that Delphi's view is that "wog" schools are more about socializing students and teaching them conform to the society, where Delphi's view is that education should be an individual thing.

Were you ever free to voice your honest opinion without fear of repercussion,especially a differing opinion than LRH?


Looking back, my big disagreement was the way they taught, "If you are taking too long to study, or if you have trouble focusing, you have a misunderstood word. Go back in your material and look for your misunderstood word, clear it up, and then you should be studying fine." This process of going earlier to look for a word you don't understand is called Method 3 Word Clearing. And while I agree with the emphasis on the discipline of using a dictionary while you read, I don't agree that this prevents you from losing focus or slowing down.

My problem, not so much on Form 6 Entry, but more so when I got on to Form 6, when the books were more difficult, it was often difficult for me to maintain constant focus. It's not that I didn't understand what I was reading, it's just a lot of times, I'd read and then I'd have to slow down and process what I read (particularly if it was wordy and descriptive, or if the book just wasn't that interesting).

Sometimes, when my supervisor noticed that I was slow, they'd give me a pink sheet to study about Method 3 Word Clearing. (A pink sheet is sort of a checksheet a supervisor writes up for you to follow that is supposed to correct any problems, like not applying study tech, or flunking a spot check your supervisor gives you on your material). I honestly can't say that I ever found Method 3 Word Clearing to help me because it takes just as much effort to focus on looking for a misunderstood word and clearing it up in a dictionary as it does to focus on the material I'm being slow on.

I complained about this a few times. In the end, I learned that sharing my views on this, all it really did was just cost me time and I'd have pink sheets to do, and it was best just not to say anything, and do my best to focus on what I was doing without worrying about looking earlier for a misunderstood word.

Although, one time, when I was speaking to the Ethics Officer, I talked with her about this. She said, "If you don't agree with it, then why are you here? You have to keep your integrity in on this. If something isn't working for you, like Method 3 Word Clearing, then you have to be honest and say, 'Hey, this doesn't work for me.' And if you honestly feel it doesn't work for you, then you shouldn't be here, you should be some place else. Because everybody in this group believes it works, that's why we are in this group, and if you don't believe it works, you're only pretending to be part of the group. And then you're not being honest with us or yourself.
"Let's say we give you a recipe for a cake. We want you to make that cake using the exact recipe we gave you. Then you make the cake, but you change the recipe a little bit. It might still be a good cake, it might even be a better cake than the recipe we gave you. But.... is it still the same cake? No, it is not. Here at Delphi, we're making a specific cake, and we want you to stick to that specific recipe."

So, yeah, there are pros and cons to Delphi education. To me, whether or not the teachers are certified isn't really an issue because teaching at Delphi is an entirely different ballgame than teaching at a regular school. The staff are brilliant, the curriculum is good and structured, the standards for student achievement are high, the reading and literature programs are definitely superior to what you'd find in a regular school.

The school itself is kind of like a cult because most of the students are proud to be going there and want to be Delphi graduates, whether they're Scientologists or not. There's definitely lots of school spirit and pride, which I think is healthy.

The bad side is that you are in a self-contained environment with a bias view of the world, and by going to school there, you have to at least appear to agree to doing things (such as Method 3s) that might not necessarily work for you. And if you want to stay there, critical thinking of Hubbard's tech is definitely a no-no.
<<

Tru2form

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 1204

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 am

Location: Beijing, China

Post Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:56 pm

RLSteve wrote:
AnonyMozart wrote:Well, first of all, a qualified teacher is the most important asset in the classroom. Not necessarily to 'lecture', but to share knowledge, ask open-ended questions, and facilitate learning - a guide, if you will. A great teacher encourages students to have an open mind about topics and to explore a concept from many angles. You will not get this from a 'supervisor'. (I am not saying that all public school teachers do it right - far from it; but at the very least, they are well-trained and rigorously evaluated.)


Well, I don't know. Most of the supervisors at Delphi Oregon seemed pretty brilliant.


....


Last of my rant: individual study cuts out a tremendously vital part of education: learning from other students. They learn just as much from interacting with each other as they do from me. I dare say that little to none of this interaction takes place at Delphi.


I think I've said this before, but I'll repeat here:

I really think I missed out at Delphi by not being able to listen to the questions of others. When I got to college, BY FAR the best part of the experience was sitting in class and listening to the teacher call on other students and have them ask questions.

They would ask things I hadn't even *thought* to ask, things I hadn't even considered but realized when they said it that I was very interested in their perspective, or that they had come up with something I hadn't even considered.

I loved the fact that I could raise my hand and rebut the point if I disagreed, or raise my hand and contribute if I did agree and had something else to add. I just adored that! The only time I had the opportunity to do this at Delphi was during literature seminar once a week (from Form 5 upwards, if I recall), and during current events, which was held once every other week, and was sometimes just forgotten about on field trip days. And I was such a big talker, I would usually totally overwhelm the class, with only one or two other students discussing with me, and then time would be up.

But that was the most important part of the learning experience for me. If you study by yourself with a supervisor who just checks your work and guides you, you miss out on everyone else's point of view. The sup never says, "well, when so-and-so was doing this course, they brought up an excellent point, which was ______". So you are confined by the limits of your own mind and imagination, and that's what I later realized was (in my mind) the biggest flaw.

I don't consider getting checkouts from other students the same as interaction with them. "Start. What's the definition of the word 'organism'" is not interaction. Lit sem was BARELY interaction. That's not to say we never got to talk to other people in class, but I would strongly disagree that much real interaction went on in the classroom.

This is my problem with the "supervisor" method, not how smart or how unintelligent the supes were. Some were fabulous, some were awful, just like any public school.

Create a big map of the US on butcher paper, draw all the regions, put landmarks, topography, etc. Then plan a road trip, route out all the stops you plan to make. Show your map to another student (who has done the course) and explain to him about each of the different stops, what's there, why you plan to go there, etc.

One of my favorite checksheets I did at Delphi was a course called "Professional Basics For An Artist." For the final step on that checksheet, I wrote an original song and arranged a five part choral medley of Rodgers & Hammerstein songs. I got a group of other students together and we learned the medley that I had arranged, and I organized a little mini-concert that was attended by a small number of students and faculty.


Oh, there are some great practical drills on those courses, and no mistake. Many were intended to get you to think. But to be honest, I think a lot of the practical assignments fell very short of achieving that result.

For example, in our geography class, since everyone was working on their checksheets at a different time, you'd always see someone else's US topographic map (made from flour-water paste) lying out in the sun. And you know what happened? Everyone's looked the same. No one had to think about it, because they saw the one that had just been done (and passed) in the lab or in the classroom. And they'd do the same one.

That's not to say that there's much room for variation when you're re-creating a map, but no one really had to THINK about it. They just copied.

The best assignments at Delphi, I found, were the ones where you had to pick your topic. I LOVED the "how to research" course or whatever it was called, because the final step was to do a research paper on anything that interested you. I went *all out*, special ordered a botanical book called "Chinese Herbs: Their botany, chemistry and pharmacodynamics" which was waaaay too advanced for me, and had a total blast looking up every single word in the text about Ginseng.

But when I'd already seen someone else's assignment, it was hard to wipe the picture from my head, and it was too easy to just copy it. This goes for major clay demos as well - you'd see someone's difficult clay demo sitting on the clay table, like the structure of an atom, and when it was your turn to do it, you couldn't get theirs out of your head. It's like how you can ruin a song by watching the music video... when you haven't seen the music video, the song has its own pictures it invokes. After you've seen the video, though, it's hard to wipe the image from your head.

Were you ever free to voice your honest opinion without fear of repercussion,especially a differing opinion than LRH?


I would say that this entirely depended on your teacher. I think I had the only sup in the school that was OK with questioning Hubbard. I did witness several other supes yell at others who disagreed with Hubbard's writings, though.

The examiner at the time was particularly bad with this.

Mostly, with any other opinion on anything else, there wasn't much of a problem.

Looking back, my big disagreement was the way they taught, "If you are taking too long to study, or if you have trouble focusing, you have a misunderstood word. Go back in your material and look for your misunderstood word, clear it up, and then you should be studying fine." This process of going earlier to look for a word you don't understand is called Method 3 Word Clearing. And while I agree with the emphasis on the discipline of using a dictionary while you read, I don't agree that this prevents you from losing focus or slowing down.

My problem, not so much on Form 6 Entry, but more so when I got on to Form 6, when the books were more difficult, it was often difficult for me to maintain constant focus. It's not that I didn't understand what I was reading, it's just a lot of times, I'd read and then I'd have to slow down and process what I read (particularly if it was wordy and descriptive, or if the book just wasn't that interesting).


Oh, I completely agree with you here. I never had much trouble focusing, though, my main issue was with teacher's seeing what Hubbard stated as the physical symptoms of a misunderstood (yawning while reading, fidgeting, looking bored) and assumed this was always always always always always caused by an MU. Ridiculous.

I can't tell you how many times I showed up at school tired from not sleeping enough, trying to suppress my yawns because I knew I'd have to go look for MUs. Or if I was unconsciously wiggling my feet while I was reading because I had to pee, but was so into the book I hadn't really noticed yet, and having a forced word clearing session. Or being bored because I just wasn't that into science, and having to go look up an MU.

I'm sorry, but no amount of word clearing is going to make a kid interested in a subject they're really just not interested in. A good teacher, on the otherhand, might.

Although, one time, when I was speaking to the Ethics Officer, I talked with her about this. She said, "If you don't agree with it, then why are you here? You have to keep your integrity in on this. If something isn't working for you, like Method 3 Word Clearing, then you have to be honest and say, 'Hey, this doesn't work for me.' And if you honestly feel it doesn't work for you, then you shouldn't be here, you should be some place else. Because everybody in this group believes it works, that's why we are in this group, and if you don't believe it works, you're only pretending to be part of the group. And then you're not being honest with us or yourself.


Well, I understand that that explanation looks good on paper. But really, what kid is going to say, "you know what? I don't agree with this principle so I think I'll just tell my mom that I want to leave this school." Never gonna happen. An adult might agree that in an "our house our rules" type religious study method environment, if you don't agree, maybe you ought to just leave. But I would have had a hard time upturning my entire education and life based on a single disagreement like that, and in the end I would have decided to give in and just go along.

There has to be some "give" in the system. Otherwise you either alienate or force people to conform.


The school itself is kind of like a cult because most of the students are proud to be going there and want to be Delphi graduates, whether they're Scientologists or not. There's definitely lots of school spirit and pride, which I think is healthy.

The bad side is that you are in a self-contained environment with a bias view of the world, and by going to school there, you have to at least appear to agree to doing things (such as Method 3s) that might not necessarily work for you. And if you want to stay there, critical thinking of Hubbard's tech is definitely a no-no.


Agreed, mostly. I do have to say that it's a distinct possibility that my negative experience there is coloring my statements. A fact, actually. But still...

The thing is, you do get that "agree with our methods or you shouldn't be here" speech from the staff occasionally. It's not delivered in a negative or mean way, most of the time. They are very earnest and well-meaning.

But the result you get is a whole school of people proud to be at Delphi, because they're the ones that chose to go along, either because they already agreed, their parents would kill them if they didn't, they didn't have a questioning nature in the first place, or because they easily just fade into the background.

You never see the ones who aren't "culty" about being there, because they've left.
Us rabbits? DO something? - Wind in the Willows
<<

RLSteve

Site Admin

Posts: 414

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:03 am

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:47 pm

Tru2form wrote:I think I've said this before, but I'll repeat here:

I really think I missed out at Delphi by not being able to listen to the questions of others. When I got to college, BY FAR the best part of the experience was sitting in class and listening to the teacher call on other students and have them ask questions.

They would ask things I hadn't even *thought* to ask, things I hadn't even considered but realized when they said it that I was very interested in their perspective, or that they had come up with something I hadn't even considered.

I loved the fact that I could raise my hand and rebut the point if I disagreed, or raise my hand and contribute if I did agree and had something else to add. I just adored that! The only time I had the opportunity to do this at Delphi was during literature seminar once a week (from Form 5 upwards, if I recall), and during current events, which was held once every other week, and was sometimes just forgotten about on field trip days. And I was such a big talker, I would usually totally overwhelm the class, with only one or two other students discussing with me, and then time would be up.

But that was the most important part of the learning experience for me. If you study by yourself with a supervisor who just checks your work and guides you, you miss out on everyone else's point of view. The sup never says, "well, when so-and-so was doing this course, they brought up an excellent point, which was ______". So you are confined by the limits of your own mind and imagination, and that's what I later realized was (in my mind) the biggest flaw.


You make a very valid point. I guess for me, I'm just the kind of peron that never cared what other people had to say in class. Even after Delphi when I went to college classes, I never cared for the group discussions and questions, and I'd often get annoyed by other people's stupid questions. But I guess for me, it was often hard to stay focused during a group lecture class, that's why I always preferred the individual checksheet way.

But I can definitely see how a lot of people would prefer the traditional group lecture style of teaching.

I remember in my non-Scientology middle school, math was my favorite subject. Why? Because in that class, everybody was in a different math book, and everybody could go at their own level, at their own pace. I used to hate math in my elementary school, but once I got to my middle school, when I was able to do my own thing, go as fast or slow as I wanted, I just LOVED that. So, when I got to Delphi, I just adored the checksheet method. I just loved it so much better than sitting in a boring class, watching the clock go by, waiting for school to end.

Personally for me, things were always easier to comprehend when I was studying on my own than in a classroom lecture. Not to say that sitting in a classroom and discussing the subject never had its stimulating moments.

But when I'd already seen someone else's assignment, it was hard to wipe the picture from my head, and it was too easy to just copy it. This goes for major clay demos as well - you'd see someone's difficult clay demo sitting on the clay table, like the structure of an atom, and when it was your turn to do it, you couldn't get theirs out of your head.


Now HERE, I found looking at other people's clay demos educational, especially when I was first learning how to do clay demos. A lot of times, it doesn't occur to you how to demonstrate something with clay until you see an example from someone else.


Oh, I completely agree with you here. I never had much trouble focusing, though, my main issue was with teacher's seeing what Hubbard stated as the physical symptoms of a misunderstood (yawning while reading, fidgeting, looking bored) and assumed this was always always always always always caused by an MU. Ridiculous.


From my understanding, their view was that that was only true if you were "studentable," like you were well fed, had had enough sleep, etc.

I can't tell you how many times I showed up at school tired from not sleeping enough, trying to suppress my yawns because I knew I'd have to go look for MUs. Or if I was unconsciously wiggling my feet while I was reading because I had to pee, but was so into the book I hadn't really noticed yet, and having a forced word clearing session.


Oh yeah, I was constantly suppressing yawns and sitting up straight. I think everybody did that. I mean, you had to do that to keep the supervisors off your back.

I'm surprised though, with all the sitting up straight I did on course all those years, why do I have crooked posture today?

Or being bored because I just wasn't that into science, and having to go look up an MU.


Boredom is a symptom of lack of mass, not an MU! So, whoever made you look for an MU here needs to be pink sheeted!

I'm sorry, but no amount of word clearing is going to make a kid interested in a subject they're really just not interested in. A good teacher, on the otherhand, might.


Well, remember, you have to be interested in something, have a purpose for studying it to begin with. It's only after you've lost interest in it, you supposedly have gone by an MU.

You know, I remember during my last year at Delphi, I was doing my Algebra 2 checksheet. And I was having such an annoying time on it. At this point, I had opted to drop out of Delphi's graduation program and move onto a "special program." So, I told them I didn't want to study my algebra checksheet because I didn't have a purpose for it, and they let me do that.

Although, one time, when I was speaking to the Ethics Officer, I talked with her about this. She said, "If you don't agree with it, then why are you here? You have to keep your integrity in on this. If something isn't working for you, like Method 3 Word Clearing, then you have to be honest and say, 'Hey, this doesn't work for me.' And if you honestly feel it doesn't work for you, then you shouldn't be here, you should be some place else. Because everybody in this group believes it works, that's why we are in this group, and if you don't believe it works, you're only pretending to be part of the group. And then you're not being honest with us or yourself.


Well, I understand that that explanation looks good on paper. But really, what kid is going to say, "you know what? I don't agree with this principle so I think I'll just tell my mom that I want to leave this school." Never gonna happen. An adult might agree that in an "our house our rules" type religious study method environment, if you don't agree, maybe you ought to just leave. But I would have had a hard time upturning my entire education and life based on a single disagreement like that, and in the end I would have decided to give in and just go along.

There has to be some "give" in the system. Otherwise you either alienate or force people to conform.


I agree, and to this day, I think that that cake recipe analogy is stupid. Who cares how the cake is made as long as you bake a cake? Who cares if the recipe is modified here or there?
<<

LronIsgonE_Snap

User avatar

Suppressive Person

Posts: 1282

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:36 pm

Location: West Coast USA

Post Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:49 pm

Wog vs. Delphi teaching methods

There are certainly pros and cons of the Group Lecture and Discussion vs. Individual Checksheet methods of education. (I have about 20 years of the former and just 4 months of the latter). For example, I loved the lectures and terrific audio-visual presentations I got in College Astronomy. I found group discussions in European Lit to be very stimulating, just the kind of class that Tru2form would have loved, I believe. And I also had some excellent Lecture and Discussion classes at lower levels, particularly in middle school and high school. However, in some classes keeping the group all going at the same pace didn't work out too well. As just one example of this, in elementary mathematics I found the drills repetitive and boring. I agree with RLSteve that the checksheet method can work better in selected subjects. The trick would be finding the optimum blend of the two methods. And, unfortunately IMO, the overall bad rep that Co$ has in the world at large makes it extremely unlikely that public schools will touch LRH's Study Tech with a ten-foot pole. Of course public schools do use various methods of individualized instruction, and the internet makes the options for this virtually limitless. Maybe it's silly, but I actually did like the checksheet approach with frequent feedback and getting individual checkouts from people who had already passed the step I was trying to climb. I guess that metaphor of making the Great Climb on an easy gradient in small steps still holds some appeal for me, in spite of everything I know about Co$.
Enjoy your life today,
For time is fleeting.
<<

AnonyMozart

Clear

Posts: 53

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:26 pm

Location: Oregon

Post Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:53 pm

RL Steve wrote:However, it is true that many Delphi graduates don't go to college afterwards because they decide to work for Scientology.


Herein is the main crux of the Delphi curriculum - molding their students into good little scientologists. The TRs are training you to be auditors. The MUs are word clearing; get used to doing that, because you will have to do that all the way up the [fake] bridge. And if you dare disagree with Hubbard, the only possible explanation is that you have misunderstood a word, so go back and redo several levels and we collect more $$$...
And college? Nah, come and work for CO$. You'll love the long hours, and the pay is pittance...
Besides, if you leave here and try to go into the real world of wogs, you will only be lost and struggle to reintegrate into society after your closeted cult life.
CO$ cake recipe is the ONLY one, no variations tolerated. You will learn to make our cake, buy thousands of dollars of our cake, and shove our cake down others' throats.
Scientology, how about that? You hold on the the tin cans and then this guy asks you a bunch of questions, and if you pay enough money, you get to join the master race. How's that for a 'religion'? - Frank Zappa
<<

Tru2form

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 1204

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 am

Location: Beijing, China

Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:47 am

RLSteve wrote:You make a very valid point. I guess for me, I'm just the kind of peron that never cared what other people had to say in class. Even after Delphi when I went to college classes, I never cared for the group discussions and questions, and I'd often get annoyed by other people's stupid questions. But I guess for me, it was often hard to stay focused during a group lecture class, that's why I always preferred the individual checksheet way.

But I can definitely see how a lot of people would prefer the traditional group lecture style of teaching.

I remember in my non-Scientology middle school, math was my favorite subject. Why? Because in that class, everybody was in a different math book, and everybody could go at their own level, at their own pace. I used to hate math in my elementary school, but once I got to my middle school, when I was able to do my own thing, go as fast or slow as I wanted, I just LOVED that. So, when I got to Delphi, I just adored the checksheet method. I just loved it so much better than sitting in a boring class, watching the clock go by, waiting for school to end.

Personally for me, things were always easier to comprehend when I was studying on my own than in a classroom lecture. Not to say that sitting in a classroom and discussing the subject never had its stimulating moments.


That's cool. I think self-study suits some people, as some previous posters have pointed out, everyone has their own "learner" type. I liked self-study sometimes myself.

But I found I do much better in a group-class environment. Maybe because I just have a huge mouth.

The other thing I really liked about group classes was the leniency. I would be a good student most days, but if one day I was tired or something, or if I already knew the material, I really enjoyed being able to decide for myself to just space out.

I know that sounds stupid, students shouldn't space out, but it was really great for me. The teacher would see that I wasn't into the class that day, and since I'd been a good student most of the time, they'd just let me be. I could just be tired for a day without falling behind.

I think this might be a small part of what you meant by Delphi's standards being very "sink or swim" - if you weren't into paying attention for ONE DAY, you fell so far behind your target that you had to struggle to catch up. One day under your target meant one day more you wouldn't graduate from that grade. Which set you one day behind on every single grade after that. You never just get to wipe clean and start over.

I didn't like that, though I did pretty well on my targets.

The thing is, Delphi makes a big deal about focusing on kids who "want to be there". But you can not "want to be there" for a couple of days, and still want to freakin' graduate from there.

Now HERE, I found looking at other people's clay demos educational, especially when I was first learning how to do clay demos. A lot of times, it doesn't occur to you how to demonstrate something with clay until you see an example from someone else.


Ah, that makes sense to me. See, I'd been in the Scn courseroom doing clay table since I was 6 or so, so I already knew how to do a clay demo, and it really annoyed me to see other people's. I used to shield my face when I walked by the clay table, or consciously not look at it.


From my understanding, their view was that that was only true if you were "studentable," like you were well fed, had had enough sleep, etc.


True! But no one at Delphi gave a crap about this. They say you have to show up at school studentable or else you need to go home... but you get in trouble if this happens. I tried it a few times, I just told the medical officer that I was exhausted and couldn't study and wasn't studentable, or that I hadn't had time to bring lunch. She said I could either go to ethics or take a nap on my lunch break. So that was out.

Delphi started going bad for me when I was 14 and my parents left me in LA to get their six-month checks at FLAG. They were gone for 6 months, and I was living with a few other families. I was having a hard time having a social life, doing all my homework, and getting up super early for school (I had to walk to my ride's house, so I had to get up at 6 but no one else in the house was up then). Sometimes I'd be 2 minutes late, and my ride would leave me. She would even see me sprinting down the street behind the car, look at me in the rearview mirror, and punch the gas. Then I'd get in trouble for missing school. I would tell people what had happened, and they would say, "then get up earlier".

A couple times I even walked to school even though it was a 3-hour walk. I got there and was sent to ethics. So finally if I missed my ride (sometimes she'd leave early and not wait for me), I'd just sneak back home to the place I was staying and feel shitty all day. Then get in trouble for skipping school.

So my ride would bring me home around 6:30pm, I'd have dinner, mess about on the computer for a while (I was teaching myself HTML), then do 4-5 hours of homework, then call my crush. By then it was 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning. My parents weren't home and the people I was staying with didn't notice or care, and when they did I just got yelled at. Then I'd get to school with 3-5 hours of sleep. Every day. I was a complete mess after 3 months of this, with little supervision.

This went on for MONTHS. Eventually I got sick of being yelled at and just got really rebellious. I snuck out to meet my boyfriend one night and got busted sneaking out.

Well, the people I was staying with told my parents they didn't want me there anymore and wanted me to do conditions. My parents were furious, called me from FLAG really angry. I was sent to stay with someone else who had a daughter that was going to the school next door to Delphi, so at least I'd be sure to have a ride.

But my lifestyle and the lifestyle of that family was COMPLETELY different. They watched TV ALL the time - I hated TV and preferred to read. In their home, the TV went on at 6:00AM and didn't go off until 1AM. every day, including school days. When I said I preferred to stay in my room on the computer/phone/reading/doing homework, they told my parents I was "individuating" and not spending any time with the family.

The fridge was full of junk food. My parents finally gave me a grocery allowance to by my own healthy food.

Also, my parents had a policy of never invading my privacy. Whereas these guys warned me that the internet was full of evil things, and that they wanted to know what I did online all the time (mostly just use AOL messenger, frankly). I caught the dad going through my private messages on the computer. I never said anything to him about it, but he jumped 3 feet in the air when he realized I was standing behind him and just walked out. They went through my stuff. They said I couldn't hang out with my non-Sci friends anymore unless I introduced the friends to them, and they approved. My mom had promised me I could do certain things, and when I did them in that house, i got in trouble.

It's not like these people were abusive or anything, it was just that their daughter was a wonderful, sweet, childlike girl who was 2 years older than me but had never rebelled, was a singer in Scientology theatre groups, and hung out with her mom and dad on the weekends. They couldn't figure me out, though they tried very hard. And the environment just made me madder and madder and angrier and more rebellious. I hated it.

No one at Delphi had any idea this stuff was going on, but at school I just kept getting into trouble for not being studentable, being out study tech, and downstat. I tried to explain, but I was told by Delphi staff that my behavior was ruining my parents' time at FLAG, and that that was a suppressive act, and that I needed to knock it off so that my parents could get through their auditing.

So... excuse the language, but fuck "studentable".


Boredom is a symptom of lack of mass, not an MU! So, whoever made you look for an MU here needs to be pink sheeted!


lol! I think that was probably my mistake, not theirs. Heh.

Well, remember, you have to be interested in something, have a purpose for studying it to begin with. It's only after you've lost interest in it, you supposedly have gone by an MU.


Again, I saw a ton of lip service paid to this and no application of it. I was in exactly the same position as you - doing algebra. I told the supes that I really had no purpose for doing this. The examiner tried for a long time to get me to see how it was useful in my life. We couldn't find any way, since I wanted to be a writer mostly.

Finally I was just ordered to do it.
Us rabbits? DO something? - Wind in the Willows
PreviousNext

Return to Scientology Education

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software