History question

[Anonymous]

What about ties... are they part of the problem too?

Bow ties are a real problem.  I have some nice J Garcia ties.

[Anonymous]

What about ties... are they part of the problem too?

Bow ties are a real problem.  I have some nice J Garcia ties.

So back to the original subject: history

   When Joe left did staff leave with him?  I know from my kool-aid drinking friend that were still hanging aroung the school at that point ( just kidding) that the staff had taken sides like kids in a family during a divorce.
  Who stayed with Ed? And how did he manage to run the school into the ground or was that Williams that did that.


Signed

Neil Loughjizm

[Anonymous]

I don't have the answer to your question, but I am not surprised people took sides.  To me Joe Gauld always seemed like a Cult Leader.  He would turn these weak parents and students into emotional cripples who then felt desperate to stay with him.  I imagine these same followers are still with him today.

[Anonymous]

I don't have the answer to your question, but I am not surprised people took sides.  To me Joe Gauld always seemed like a Cult Leader.  He would turn these weak parents and students into emotional cripples who then felt desperate to stay with him.  I imagine these same followers are still with him today.

One of the very best ways to understand the Hyde culture is to take a close look at which staff have stayed for years and which have left the school after relatively brief stays.  I think you'll see a clear pattern.  It's well known that many Hyde staff don't stay long.  Based on my recent affiliation with Hyde (several years) I've noticed that many staff are very young and eager; the good ones seem to leave (in my estimation, often it's because they realize that Hyde is not a healthy environment for many people).  The staff who stay seem to have a lot in common.  Many seem to have their own histories of significant struggles and cling to Hyde for security and comfort.  They have nursed from Joe Gauld's breast, so to speak, and have a very hard time separating.  They have absorbed the Gauld mystique and feel compelled to impose it on everyone who walks through Hyde's doors-students, parents, staff, etc.  That's how Hyde has developed this cult reputation, which is widespread.  That's why Hyde's antiquated approach is being left in the dust by other schools that have much more enlightened approaches to this  kind of student body.  That's why many educational consultants  won't refer to Hyde; there are too many good alternatives.

[Anonymous]

What about ties... are they part of the problem too?

Bow ties are a real problem.  I have some nice J Garcia ties.

Let's get back to the ties... I found that to be a more intelligent, meaningful subject that most of the other crap being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Let's get back to a more intelligent, meaningful subject.

One of the very best ways to understand the Hyde culture is to take a close look at which staff have stayed for years and which have left the school after relatively brief stays. I think you'll see a clear pattern. It's well known that many Hyde staff don't stay long. Based on my recent affiliation with Hyde (several years) I've noticed that many staff are very young and eager; the good ones seem to leave (in my estimation, often it's because they realize that Hyde is not a healthy environment for many people). The staff who stay seem to have a lot in common. Many seem to have their own histories of significant struggles and cling to Hyde for security and comfort. They have nursed from Joe Gauld's breast, so to speak, and have a very hard time separating. They have absorbed the Gauld mystique and feel compelled to impose it on everyone who walks through Hyde's doors-students, parents, staff, etc. That's how Hyde has developed this cult reputation, which is widespread. That's why Hyde's antiquated approach is being left in the dust by other schools that have much more enlightened approaches to this kind of student body. That's why many educational consultants won't refer to Hyde; there are too many good alternatives.




That seems to be a common thread running through all of these places. The basic model for this came from Synanon (although I'm not sure that any direct link can be traced the whole model of treatment is a chapter right out of Chuck Dederich's grand plan. Cult all have the same basic characteristics. See if any of this is familiar...

http://www.ex-cult.org/bite.html

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/singer-conditions

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/lifton-criteria



Much of what the Hyde PR machine touts sounds very good in theory. And, I'll concede that during my time at Hyde I met some genuinely committed, dedicated professionals. But there's no doubt in my mind that when you look at the big picture at Hyde you find so many examples of poorly qualified staff who mistreat students, staff who don't come close to living up to the Hyde ideals. There are so many problems at Hyde that the nice sounding literature and speeches are misleading. The good stories that come out of Hyde (I know there are some) are completely overshadowed by the tidal wave of bad stories.

Hyde reminds me a lot of what happened to Karl Marx's vision. On paper the model sounds quite good. But the implementation has been so flawed (see the former Soviet Union and China) that the system can't survive or live up to the ideals. Sounds like Hyde to me.

[Anonymous]

Let's get back to a more intelligent, meaningful subject.

One of the very best ways to understand the Hyde culture is to take a close look at which staff have stayed for years and which have left the school after relatively brief stays. I think you'll see a clear pattern. It's well known that many Hyde staff don't stay long. Based on my recent affiliation with Hyde (several years) I've noticed that many staff are very young and eager; the good ones seem to leave (in my estimation, often it's because they realize that Hyde is not a healthy environment for many people). The staff who stay seem to have a lot in common. Many seem to have their own histories of significant struggles and cling to Hyde for security and comfort. They have nursed from Joe Gauld's breast, so to speak, and have a very hard time separating. They have absorbed the Gauld mystique and feel compelled to impose it on everyone who walks through Hyde's doors-students, parents, staff, etc. That's how Hyde has developed this cult reputation, which is widespread. That's why Hyde's antiquated approach is being left in the dust by other schools that have much more enlightened approaches to this kind of student body. That's why many educational consultants won't refer to Hyde; there are too many good alternatives.




That seems to be a common thread running through all of these places. The basic model for this came from Synanon (although I'm not sure that any direct link can be traced the whole model of treatment is a chapter right out of Chuck Dederich's grand plan. Cult all have the same basic characteristics. See if any of this is familiar...

http://www.ex-cult.org/bite.html

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/singer-conditions

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/lifton-criteria



Much of what the Hyde PR machine touts sounds very good in theory. And, I'll concede that during my time at Hyde I met some genuinely committed, dedicated professionals. But there's no doubt in my mind that when you look at the big picture at Hyde you find so many examples of poorly qualified staff who mistreat students, staff who don't come close to living up to the Hyde ideals. There are so many problems at Hyde that the nice sounding literature and speeches are misleading. The good stories that come out of Hyde (I know there are some) are completely overshadowed by the tidal wave of bad stories.

Hyde reminds me a lot of what happened to Karl Marx's vision. On paper the model sounds quite good. But the implementation has been so flawed (see the former Soviet Union and China) that the system can't survive or live up to the ideals. Sounds like Hyde to me.

I think you've stated it beautifully and accurately: Hyde sounds good in theory, but the school's attempt to implement the ideal falls terribly short.  There are so many chinks in Hyde's armour (quality of staff, inferior educational quality, simplistic interventions with troubled students, arrogance) that it's hard to know where to begin.  What's particularly disturbing to me is Hyde's unwillingness to acknowledge the flaws honestly -- there's a lot of whispering behind closed doors.  I sense that Hyde doesn't take its own advice seriously: truth over harmony.  Is it possible that the Hyde emperor has no clothes?

[Anonymous]

Let's get back to a more intelligent, meaningful subject.

One of the very best ways to understand the Hyde culture is to take a close look at which staff have stayed for years and which have left the school after relatively brief stays. I think you'll see a clear pattern. It's well known that many Hyde staff don't stay long. Based on my recent affiliation with Hyde (several years) I've noticed that many staff are very young and eager; the good ones seem to leave (in my estimation, often it's because they realize that Hyde is not a healthy environment for many people). The staff who stay seem to have a lot in common. Many seem to have their own histories of significant struggles and cling to Hyde for security and comfort. They have nursed from Joe Gauld's breast, so to speak, and have a very hard time separating. They have absorbed the Gauld mystique and feel compelled to impose it on everyone who walks through Hyde's doors-students, parents, staff, etc. That's how Hyde has developed this cult reputation, which is widespread. That's why Hyde's antiquated approach is being left in the dust by other schools that have much more enlightened approaches to this kind of student body. That's why many educational consultants won't refer to Hyde; there are too many good alternatives.




That seems to be a common thread running through all of these places. The basic model for this came from Synanon (although I'm not sure that any direct link can be traced the whole model of treatment is a chapter right out of Chuck Dederich's grand plan. Cult all have the same basic characteristics. See if any of this is familiar...

http://www.ex-cult.org/bite.html

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/singer-conditions

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/lifton-criteria



Much of what the Hyde PR machine touts sounds very good in theory. And, I'll concede that during my time at Hyde I met some genuinely committed, dedicated professionals. But there's no doubt in my mind that when you look at the big picture at Hyde you find so many examples of poorly qualified staff who mistreat students, staff who don't come close to living up to the Hyde ideals. There are so many problems at Hyde that the nice sounding literature and speeches are misleading. The good stories that come out of Hyde (I know there are some) are completely overshadowed by the tidal wave of bad stories.

Hyde reminds me a lot of what happened to Karl Marx's vision. On paper the model sounds quite good. But the implementation has been so flawed (see the former Soviet Union and China) that the system can't survive or live up to the ideals. Sounds like Hyde to me.

I think you've stated it beautifully and accurately: Hyde sounds good in theory, but the school's attempt to implement the ideal falls terribly short.  There are so many chinks in Hyde's armour (quality of staff, inferior educational quality, simplistic interventions with troubled students, arrogance) that it's hard to know where to begin.  What's particularly disturbing to me is Hyde's unwillingness to acknowledge the flaws honestly -- there's a lot of whispering behind closed doors.  I sense that Hyde doesn't take its own advice seriously: truth over harmony.  Is it possible that the Hyde emperor has no clothes?

blah blah blah  you can't answer the question either.  I don't want to read your self absorbed ramblings. it is the same shit that is posted all over this forum.  "Please don't dominate the rap Jack if you got nothing new to say"  I want an answer to my question.  

Niel Loughjizm

BTW

My favorite J Garcia tie is the view from the Ritz looking out over Central Park.  Now you want to talk cult leader Joe can't hold a candle to Jerry.  He is dead going on ten year, folk still worship him.  Did you ever see joe's hand print on a bumper sticker?
http://stores.musictoday.com/store/prod ... 707&sfid=2

 HE was a great guitarist.  I would have like to see the Lesh show with Sco and Dickey Betts at the Fox in Atlanta.  Sco is one of the greatest living jazz guitarist. Some of his chops remind me of Jerry
http://stores.musictoday.com/store/prod ... 625&sfid=2

Did you hear the new MMW cd with Sco. Very hot.
http://www.myspace.com/medeskiscofieldmartinandwood

Might as well talk about stuff cause not one on this board knows shit about hyde.

[Anonymous]

Let's get back to a more intelligent, meaningful subject.

One of the very best ways to understand the Hyde culture is to take a close look at which staff have stayed for years and which have left the school after relatively brief stays. I think you'll see a clear pattern. It's well known that many Hyde staff don't stay long. Based on my recent affiliation with Hyde (several years) I've noticed that many staff are very young and eager; the good ones seem to leave (in my estimation, often it's because they realize that Hyde is not a healthy environment for many people). The staff who stay seem to have a lot in common. Many seem to have their own histories of significant struggles and cling to Hyde for security and comfort. They have nursed from Joe Gauld's breast, so to speak, and have a very hard time separating. They have absorbed the Gauld mystique and feel compelled to impose it on everyone who walks through Hyde's doors-students, parents, staff, etc. That's how Hyde has developed this cult reputation, which is widespread. That's why Hyde's antiquated approach is being left in the dust by other schools that have much more enlightened approaches to this kind of student body. That's why many educational consultants won't refer to Hyde; there are too many good alternatives.




That seems to be a common thread running through all of these places. The basic model for this came from Synanon (although I'm not sure that any direct link can be traced the whole model of treatment is a chapter right out of Chuck Dederich's grand plan. Cult all have the same basic characteristics. See if any of this is familiar...

http://www.ex-cult.org/bite.html

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/singer-conditions

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/lifton-criteria



Much of what the Hyde PR machine touts sounds very good in theory. And, I'll concede that during my time at Hyde I met some genuinely committed, dedicated professionals. But there's no doubt in my mind that when you look at the big picture at Hyde you find so many examples of poorly qualified staff who mistreat students, staff who don't come close to living up to the Hyde ideals. There are so many problems at Hyde that the nice sounding literature and speeches are misleading. The good stories that come out of Hyde (I know there are some) are completely overshadowed by the tidal wave of bad stories.

Hyde reminds me a lot of what happened to Karl Marx's vision. On paper the model sounds quite good. But the implementation has been so flawed (see the former Soviet Union and China) that the system can't survive or live up to the ideals. Sounds like Hyde to me.

Oh and BTW Karl Marx vision has never been implemented. China? China was Maoism not Marxism. Marx had a vision about the natural evolution of industrialized societies. Hello !? China was a rural agrarian society.  Socialist dictator ship of the prolatariate is not communism it is the prelude to communism. The USSR never never came close.

So to sum up you know as little about poli sci as you know about hyde.  Dry up and blow away.  The title of this tread is "History" not sophmoric rambles about shit you don't know.

Niel

[Anonymous]

Hey,

  I was in Rumford yesterday.  I remember a couple of meets there.  Rumford still stinks.

Niel

Let's get back to a more intelligent, meaningful subject.

One of the very best ways to understand the Hyde culture is to take a close look at which staff have stayed for years and which have left the school after relatively brief stays. I think you'll see a clear pattern. It's well known that many Hyde staff don't stay long. Based on my recent affiliation with Hyde (several years) I've noticed that many staff are very young and eager; the good ones seem to leave (in my estimation, often it's because they realize that Hyde is not a healthy environment for many people). The staff who stay seem to have a lot in common. Many seem to have their own histories of significant struggles and cling to Hyde for security and comfort. They have nursed from Joe Gauld's breast, so to speak, and have a very hard time separating. They have absorbed the Gauld mystique and feel compelled to impose it on everyone who walks through Hyde's doors-students, parents, staff, etc. That's how Hyde has developed this cult reputation, which is widespread. That's why Hyde's antiquated approach is being left in the dust by other schools that have much more enlightened approaches to this kind of student body. That's why many educational consultants won't refer to Hyde; there are too many good alternatives.




That seems to be a common thread running through all of these places. The basic model for this came from Synanon (although I'm not sure that any direct link can be traced the whole model of treatment is a chapter right out of Chuck Dederich's grand plan. Cult all have the same basic characteristics. See if any of this is familiar...

http://www.ex-cult.org/bite.html

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/singer-conditions

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/lifton-criteria



Much of what the Hyde PR machine touts sounds very good in theory. And, I'll concede that during my time at Hyde I met some genuinely committed, dedicated professionals. But there's no doubt in my mind that when you look at the big picture at Hyde you find so many examples of poorly qualified staff who mistreat students, staff who don't come close to living up to the Hyde ideals. There are so many problems at Hyde that the nice sounding literature and speeches are misleading. The good stories that come out of Hyde (I know there are some) are completely overshadowed by the tidal wave of bad stories.

Hyde reminds me a lot of what happened to Karl Marx's vision. On paper the model sounds quite good. But the implementation has been so flawed (see the former Soviet Union and China) that the system can't survive or live up to the ideals. Sounds like Hyde to me.

Oh and BTW Karl Marx vision has never been implemented. China? China was Maoism not Marxism. Marx had a vision about the natural evolution of industrialized societies. Hello !? China was a rural agrarian society.  Socialist dictator ship of the prolatariate is not communism it is the prelude to communism. The USSR never never came close.

So to sum up you know as little about poli sci as you know about hyde.  Dry up and blow away.  The title of this tread is "History" not sophmoric rambles about shit you don't know.

Niel

[Anonymous]

Thread starter here. Thanks to all who posted whether pro, anti or ambivalent about Hyde.

I have some vague recollection of Malcolm and Joe both saying that the son sided against the father at some point during the upheaval. I admit this is a fuzzy memory, but Legg's impact on Hyde's history always fascinated me.

Anyone want to venture any insights into why Joe's selling of Hyde in the early years came across as so high profile, but after he came back he took a more to-the-ground approach?

[Anonymous]

Thread starter here. Thanks to all who posted whether pro, anti or ambivalent about Hyde.

I have some vague recollection of Malcolm and Joe both saying that the son sided against the father at some point during the upheaval. I admit this is a fuzzy memory, but Legg's impact on Hyde's history always fascinated me.

Anyone want to venture any insights into why Joe's selling of Hyde in the early years came across as so high profile, but after he came back he took a more to-the-ground approach?

It's hard to know whether they (Malcolm, Laura, et al.) negotiated the nature of Joe's involvement.  I wasn't associated with Hyde until I enrolled my child recently.  At the time I knew nothing about Joe Gauld.  Now that I've seen him in action (about 8 presentations) I'm quite appalled.  He strikes me as a classic example of a megalomaniac, someone who is enthralled with himself and has a need to offer the grand performance.  I hear him repeat the same stories over and over and I'm fascinated with the way Joe alternates between the avuncular grandpa and the raging maniac.  Now that I've gotten a strong sense of his modus operandi, I think he's got some serious internal demons and unresolved issues.  I don't think anyone could behave in such a self-centered, cocky, arrogant, angry and dismissive way unless there's an awful lot of pathology bubbling inside.  It takes my breath away to think that he was at Hyde's helm for so long.  Then again, it helps me to better understand why so many people are disgusted with Hyde (of course, the groupies love Joe because they seem desperate for the dictator to run their lives).  Seeing Joe in action makes my family feel all that much better about our decision to leave Hyde and look for greener pastures.

[Anonymous]

Thread starter here. Thanks to all who posted whether pro, anti or ambivalent about Hyde.

I have some vague recollection of Malcolm and Joe both saying that the son sided against the father at some point during the upheaval. I admit this is a fuzzy memory, but Legg's impact on Hyde's history always fascinated me.

Anyone want to venture any insights into why Joe's selling of Hyde in the early years came across as so high profile, but after he came back he took a more to-the-ground approach?

It's hard to know whether they (Malcolm, Laura, et al.) negotiated the nature of Joe's involvement.  I wasn't associated with Hyde until I enrolled my child recently.  At the time I knew nothing about Joe Gauld.  Now that I've seen him in action (about 8 presentations) I'm quite appalled.  He strikes me as a classic example of a megalomaniac, someone who is enthralled with himself and has a need to offer the grand performance.  I hear him repeat the same stories over and over and I'm fascinated with the way Joe alternates between the avuncular grandpa and the raging maniac.  Now that I've gotten a strong sense of his modus operandi, I think he's got some serious internal demons and unresolved issues.  I don't think anyone could behave in such a self-centered, cocky, arrogant, angry and dismissive way unless there's an awful lot of pathology bubbling inside.  It takes my breath away to think that he was at Hyde's helm for so long.  Then again, it helps me to better understand why so many people are disgusted with Hyde (of course, the groupies love Joe because they seem desperate for the dictator to run their lives).  Seeing Joe in action makes my family feel all that much better about our decision to leave Hyde and look for greener pastures.

What about the Rice report?

[Anonymous]

Joe left first.

I'm a former student from the early 1970s. I obviously wasn't there at the time, but from what I heard from students who were, Ed engineered Joe's departure in a sort of coup d'état. This quickly backfired and the whole place imploded with a professional headmaster brought in and the Hyde philosophy jettisoned.

My personal view was always that Joe was absolutely crackers with an enormous ego, but sincere. Ed Legg was highly intelligent, but power hungry, arrogant and insincere.

Subsequently, I worked in Hong Kong in early 1985 with a recent college graduate from Bowdoin, small world, who's mother was brought in by the Board in the early 1980s to help evaluate Hyde School. Her surname was Ring and I believe she was a professor of education at Bowdoin. In any event, as I recall from several conversations with her daughter this individual spent a great deal of time interviewing Joe and Ed. She and the board concluded that Hyde was enormously destructive and if it wasn't shut down then Joe had to to go.  She viewed him as unstable and thought the Hyde environment was extremely unhealthy for children of any description.

I would have to agree with that accessment.  Joe and Ed were like reverse image harliquins of each other.   I personally like Joe, but I knew how to tip toe around him.  Some of the people that did not got slammed pretty hard and hate him.. I can not blame them for that.  Ed was/(is) an asshole in my book.  I had a very bad experiance with his duplicity.  He was a user par excelance.

 Please flame me for my spelling.  It is 7:00am CST( c as in china) and i just ran 6 miles. too lazy to spell check.

sorry I mean Ring

[Anonymous]

Joe left first.

I'm a former student from the early 1970s. I obviously wasn't there at the time, but from what I heard from students who were, Ed engineered Joe's departure in a sort of coup d'état. This quickly backfired and the whole place imploded with a professional headmaster brought in and the Hyde philosophy jettisoned.

My personal view was always that Joe was absolutely crackers with an enormous ego, but sincere. Ed Legg was highly intelligent, but power hungry, arrogant and insincere.

Subsequently, I worked in Hong Kong in early 1985 with a recent college graduate from Bowdoin, small world, who's mother was brought in by the Board in the early 1980s to help evaluate Hyde School. Her surname was Ring and I believe she was a professor of education at Bowdoin. In any event, as I recall from several conversations with her daughter this individual spent a great deal of time interviewing Joe and Ed. She and the board concluded that Hyde was enormously destructive and if it wasn't shut down then Joe had to to go.  She viewed him as unstable and thought the Hyde environment was extremely unhealthy for children of any description.

I would have to agree with that accessment.  Joe and Ed were like reverse image harliquins of each other.   I personally like Joe, but I knew how to tip toe around him.  Some of the people that did not got slammed pretty hard and hate him.. I can not blame them for that.  Ed was/(is) an asshole in my book.  I had a very bad experiance with his duplicity.  He was a user par excelance.

 Please flame me for my spelling.  It is 7:00am CST( c as in china) and i just ran 6 miles. too lazy to spell check.

sorry I mean Ring

This assessment sounds like it's right on the money, that is that the consultant "and the board concluded that Hyde was enormously destructive and if it wasn't shut down then Joe had to to go.  She viewed him as unstable and thought the Hyde environment was extremely unhealthy for children of any description."  I don't know the date of this report, but it seems remarkably relevant to the Hyde of today.  It sounds like people recognized years ago that Joe is unstable and destructive.  That's not news to me at all, nor to many other people associated with Hyde.  I'm amazed that the implosion hasn't yet happened.  Maybe Hyde is sinking under its own weight.