Need help in exposing Study Tech Academy

DiaSciRev

New Member
Hello, all;

As I'm sure you no doubt have guessed, I migrated here from the WhyWeProtest forums. I'm not a Scientologist, which explains why I've come here looking for help.

I'm going to be staging a protest at an Applied Scholastics Academy soon; this is going to require a lot more than a mask and a sign, however. I need to have as much information at my disposal as possible about this area of expertise, mostly involving Study Tech. http://www.studytech.org has been fantastic, however, so obviously I'm not in dire need of info about mass, gradients, and misunderstoods.

One thing is missing from my arsenal, however: solid proof that this is a Scientology school. The founder of this particular Academy claims that she isn't a Scientologist, yet a cursory search of the Stop-WISE.biz directory shows that - according to Freewinds issue 55 - she took the "London Congress on Dissemination and Help Course". It seems as though the course has to do primarily with the dissemination of - you guessed it - Scientology. Thanks to a leak, I have the lectures of that course, but I'm still not satisfied.

Is there anybody here that can give me information on what the actual course (not the lectures) is about? Is there additional work to be done other than listening to the lectures? What is the main focus of the course? Dissemination? Help? London? E-meters in tomatoes?

:ship:
:guyfawkes: :sp: :guyfawkes:
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hello, all;

As I'm sure you no doubt have guessed, I migrated here from the WhyWeProtest forums. I'm not a Scientologist, which explains why I've come here looking for help.

I'm going to be staging a protest at an Applied Scholastics Academy soon; this is going to require a lot more than a mask and a sign, however. I need to have as much information at my disposal as possible about this area of expertise, mostly involving Study Tech. http://www.studytech.org has been fantastic, however, so obviously I'm not in dire need of info about mass, gradients, and misunderstoods.

One thing is missing from my arsenal, however: solid proof that this is a Scientology school. The founder of this particular Academy claims that she isn't a Scientologist, yet a cursory search of the Stop-WISE.biz directory shows that - according to Freewinds issue 55 - she took the "London Congress on Dissemination and Help Course". It seems as though the course has to do primarily with the dissemination of - you guessed it - Scientology. Thanks to a leak, I have the lectures of that course, but I'm still not satisfied.

Is there anybody here that can give me information on what the actual course (not the lectures) is about? Is there additional work to be done other than listening to the lectures? What is the main focus of the course? Dissemination? Help? London? E-meters in tomatoes?

:ship:
:guyfawkes: :sp: :guyfawkes:

So....you want to protest it because the person who runs it took a scientology course, the lectures of which you have, but have not even listened to, to find out what it is about?

But somehow scientology is connected so it must be bad.

You admit you dont know enough....perhaps you should become better educated before you decide what you are going to do. That would seem the logical progression of things.

If thats tl;dr....

lurk moar?
 

FinallyFree

Gold Meritorious Patron
DiaSciRev:

Good job and thank you for your interest in taking action against one of many scientology front groups. Your efforts are appreciated, greatly.
I have not done this course and cannot offer any help – I wanted to offer my encouragement. Glad you’re here, please keep up the good fight.

I am sure someone here can help you.
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron
So....you want to protest it because the person who runs it took a scientology course, the lectures of which you have, but have not even listened to, to find out what it is about?

But somehow scientology is connected so it must be bad.

You admit you dont know enough....perhaps you should become better educated before you decide what you are going to do. That would seem the logical progression of things.

If thats tl;dr....

lurk moar?

Lol, asking for help and doing research is lurking moar. And yes, Study Tech is detrimental according to research by actual educators. Good luck, I'd like to know how it turns out for you. Maybe media exposure will be good halp, everything connected to Scientology is poison among the public now.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Lol, asking for help and doing research is lurking moar. And yes, Study Tech is detrimental according to research by actual educators. Good luck, I'd like to know how it turns out for you. Maybe media exposure will be good halp, everything connected to Scientology is poison among the public now.

I doubt that you have clue what study tech consists of besides having a connection to "scientology".

study tech was developed by "actual educators" who happened to be scientologists at the time. It was the result of their years of teaching experience rather than their scientology participation.
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron
I doubt that you have clue what study tech consists of besides having a connection to "scientology".

And I'd say jumping to conclusions tends to land you no where. Didn't you ever read the Phantom Tollbooth?
 

13heathens

Patron with Honors
..study tech was developed by "actual educators" who happened to be scientologists at the time. It was the result of their years of teaching experience rather than their scientology participation.

I've seen COS claims that it was developed by LRH, is that not entirely true?
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
And I'd say jumping to conclusions tends to land you no where. Didn't you ever read the Phantom Tollbooth?

No but I just googlepedia'd it and seems I must!

I vaguely remember my kids reading it. They had good teachers.

(in part because my spouse works in school administration and had inside influence on their placement)(in public schools)
 
Last edited:

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
I've seen COS claims that it was developed by LRH, is that not entirely true?

Many of the fundemental concepts were the contribution of Charles Berner, a most amazing fellow. Along with his wife who had been teachers.

Hubbard developed those concepts further into what is now study tech.

You are a person who may find interest in the "lila paradigm" of Berners...

http://www.naturalmeditation.net/Design/lineage2Y.html

http://www.charlesberner.org/Design/home.html

He moved way on after Hubbard declared him and he left the church he had contributed so much too.
 

13heathens

Patron with Honors
Many of the fundemental concepts were the contribution of Charles Berner, a most amazing fellow. Along with his wife who had been teachers.

Hubbard developed those concepts further into what is now study tech.

Thanks for that bit of trivia. I thumbed through the study tech back when will smith was investing in the scn school. I didn't flip through the material in depth, but at the same point it didn't strike me as being worth going through with an overly critical eye.

The question then comes to is it completely secular in nature, or are a fair deal of the scn concepts incorporated into it when it *is* taught by scientologists.

(oh, and thanks for the links)
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks for that bit of trivia. I thumbed through the study tech back when will smith was investing in the scn school. I didn't flip through the material in depth, but at the same point it didn't strike me as being worth going through with an overly critical eye.

The question then comes to is it completely secular in nature, or are a fair deal of the scn concepts incorporated into it when it *is* taught by scientologists.

(oh, and thanks for the links)

I believe it can be completely secular. Its mostly pretty common sense.

Of course some will see scientology in it no matter what benefit or rationale....

And in its licensed use, LRH is always acknowledged.
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron
No but I just googlepedia'd it and seems I must!

I vaguely remember my kids reading it. They had good teachers.

(in part because my spouse works in school administration and had inside influence on their placement)(in public schools)

Public schools. :thumbsup:



I think there needs to be a study into the validity of study tech. The CoS and Applied Scholastics quote imaginary numbers, but the only (and very few) studies that exist out there have been rather negative. Someone in the field needs to sit down and give this a thorough scientific once-over.
 

13heathens

Patron with Honors
I believe it can be completely secular. Its mostly pretty common sense..

I didn't find it overly objectionable.. however I still wouldn't want it in my kids school due to it's connection with LRH.

Granted in my case it has more to do with LRH's views of education in general, not the specifics of the materials.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
I didn't find it overly objectionable.. however I still wouldn't want it in my kids school due to it's connection with LRH.

Granted in my case it has more to do with LRH's views of education in general, not the specifics of the materials.

What were LRH's views on education?

I thought he was in favor of it?

Would you have dictionaries fall into disuse and conceptual understanding through the use of demonstrated examples be banished?

The prime notion embodied in "study tech" is that conceptual understanding of a subject or its principles has a foundation in the understanding of the words used. Everything else is method and explanation.
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron
One of the major problems of study tech is that it enforces a very linear model of thinking. There is a "source" and that is the correct information for a particular question. Very little thinking outside the box or devloping congative and creative skills.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
One of the major problems of study tech is that it enforces a very linear model of thinking. There is a "source" and that is the correct information for a particular question. Very little thinking outside the box or devloping congative and creative skills.

The dictionary is too linear for you? Well I suppose....all alphabetical like it is.

I find that a convenience, but I am sure you could write a macro for an online dictionary to randomize its searchs...

We humans are to a large degree linear thinkers, artists, musicians and such exccepted. Non linear thinking should also be addressed, music education, creative writing, sports?

Or is it the notion of authoratative information, source, that bothers you. Yes wikipedia is fun even with its less that accurate, opinion driven content sometimes. Or the onion, or John Stewart for news....would you have kids read science fiction books for physics or appropriate material? Source in scientology is the written materials, source in other subjects if as appropriate. Determining what is appropriate "source" is a cognitive skill.

Sure intuiting answers to questions is fun....but does it result in learning? Understanding?
 

13heathens

Patron with Honors
What were LRH's views on education?

I thought he was in favor of it?..

Well the remainder of that reply was a bit of an overreaction. I was referencing SoS and his varied mentions of education being suppressive, and auditing out a persons education.

As I said - I didn't find it overly objectionable .. the specifics of the materials.

PS: Don't expect me to disagree with you on everything :p
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron
The dictionary is too linear for you? Well I suppose....all alphabetical like it is.

I find that a convenience, but I am sure you could write a macro for an online dictionary to randomize its searchs...

We humans are to a large degree linear thinkers, artists, musicians and such exccepted. Non linear thinking should also be addressed, music education, creative writing, sports?

Or is it the notion of authoratative information, source, that bothers you. Yes wikipedia is fun even with its less that accurate, opinion driven content sometimes. Or the onion, or John Stewart for news....would you have kids read science fiction books for physics or appropriate material? Source in scientology is the written materials, source in other subjects if as appropriate. Determining what is appropriate "source" is a cognitive skill.

Sure intuiting answers to questions is fun....but does it result in learning? Understanding?

My problem comes from the emphasis on acceptance of "source" as absolute truth without encouraging a questioning of convention or challenging ideas with new ones. It seems to close to a shut down of cognative thinking for me, like a way to train children to accept authority without question. Some analyses I've read go so far as to brand it indoctrination techniques based on how it stifles the ability to question.

I think a great deal of my criticism of study tech stems from the deeper problem within Scientology and its front organizations to spew stats and success stories without any actual science or evidence at all to back up their claims. I've read my fair share of educators and researches who have panned the claimed abilities of study tech, and I've seen the data on the failure of the Delphi Academic system. :< Not to mention the experiences of many Ex Scientology Kids who talk about the meager "education" they received that was along the lines of study tech but without any actual academic merit to their future education. It's this kind of blatant dishonesty that concerns me as the sales pitch promises so much and they have no evidence they can deliver (with a lot of evidence that they can't).
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
My problem comes from the emphasis on acceptance of "source" as absolute truth without encouraging a questioning of convention or challenging ideas with new ones. It seems to close to a shut down of cognative thinking for me, like a way to train children to accept authority without question. Some analyses I've read go so far as to brand it indoctrination techniques based on how it stifles the ability to question.

I think a great deal of my criticism of study tech stems from the deeper problem within Scientology and its front organizations to spew stats and success stories without any actual science or evidence at all to back up their claims. I've read my fair share of educators and researches who have panned the claimed abilities of study tech, and I've seen the data on the failure of the Delphi Academic system. :< Not to mention the experiences of many Ex Scientology Kids who talk about the meager "education" they received that was along the lines of study tech but without any actual academic merit to their future education. It's this kind of blatant dishonesty that concerns me as the sales pitch promises so much and they have no evidence they can deliver (with a lot of evidence that they can't).

Study tech is not education. It is a tool. Education is what it is used for. Learning study tech is not "an education". I to think it is criminal to discourage people from becoming educated so that they can be induced to join the Sea Org. That is one of the biggest problems with the sea org, young uneducated, inexperienced people, poorly trained trying to save the world. They are not equipped.

I was a delphi student for a time. Also briefly staff. It may have "failed" as a business model, schools all over the country, but the people who have completed the program seem to do well. The school in Oregon seems quite successful from all I know. I am in contact with people there regularly.

Ask Mac, "Megalomanic" Stevens, on this board who is now using his Delphi instilled skills to question the church.

Its system of education is based on having students study the materials of whatever subject until they have mastered them, not until a certain time has passed and a certain low level of proficiencly is achieved.

You do a course until you pass it. Thus students have a very high workable knowledge. It is fairly independent as far as study goes, people in the same room may be on very different courses, and most if not all of the study is from materials rather than lecture. Much of the curriculum was developed by the people supervising the courses so they are very familiar with it and can easily assist in directing the student.

I find it a much better way to study than to be stuck in a group of people at different "speeds" being rotely told what to know. It is study versus indoctrination.

I dont have a link to info on where its students have gone on to and their successes, its a member only site, but it would seem that there is a high percentage going on to decent colleges and universities, and successful lives.

http://www.delphian.org/index.cfm

I have fond memories of the place and respect for the education it delivers.

I dont know where you get the notion of it being a failure.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I would consider any school administrator who could seriously suggest using Scientology Tech in public schools to be unqualified to train a hamster or wax the gym floor.

Naturally, thanks to Scientology's 'Front Organization' system, some particularly stupid School administrators might not *realize* that they were promoting HubbTech and his 'Church', but, hey, that's stupid enough to boot out too.

Zinj
 
Top