follow-up questions on Hyde School

[Anonymous]

My impression is that there are a number of people who would like to share their concerns about Hyde with the NYC Fund for Public Schools.  Do you happen to have contact information?

[Anonymous]

On 2005-09-27 14:08:00, Anonymous wrote:

"My impression is that there are a number of people who would like to share their concerns about Hyde with the NYC Fund for Public Schools.  Do you happen to have contact information?"

By Mail:
The Fund for Public Schools
52 Chambers Street - Room 305
New York, NY 10007

By Phone:
212-374-2874

By Fax:
212-374-5571

By Email:
http://www.nycenet.edu/Contact/

[Anonymous]

On 2005-09-26 19:17:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Until now I've been a very casual and occasional observer of this site.  Having read your comments, however, I feel compelled to respond.  I'm basing my response on my experience as a Hyde parent during the past two and a fraction years.  It's taken our family some time to realize and truly appreciate Hyde's shortcomings and destructive practices.  We've recently discovered how many disgruntled families are out there -- word is spreading, we're learning.



First, all the available evidence suggests that the admission rate is MUCH higher than your 1-out-of-3 figure.  Published information on Hyde's admission rate suggests that it's upward of 80-some percent.  I'd encourage you to double-check your claim.



Further, your understanding of reasons for the high attrition rate seems incomplete.  You may be right that some families leave because of the kid's improvement and their wish to save money.  But, during our affiliation with Hyde during the past 2+ years I've spoken with many, many families who leave the school with feelings of deep resentment and disgust. At first I was concerned because I was worried about the school's future; now I understand much better why people leave (we're heading in that direction). You may believe  families leave because the parents haven't bought into the Hyde model or been willing to examine their own issues.  That may be true of some.  But many more, I'm convinced, are turned off by Hyde's  tendency toward patronizing, arrogrant, and controlling treatment of kids and families.



Yes, Hyde's use of many young faculty may not be unusual.  However, what's unusual -- and unconscionable, I've come to realize -- is that these remarkably young faculty (some of whom disclose lots of information about their own personal struggles) are expected to oversee family seminars during which students and parents disclose the most incredibly personal information.  I've now sat through many seminars and can't believe that no one has put a stop to this dangerous practice.  I've seen kids yell at parents, parents scream at and threaten kids, and participants talk about their wish to end their lives, incest, affairs, addictions, etc. -- and all of this is being run by someone who teaches history (or whatever)!  It's incredible.  You may not want to believe it, but quite a few families leave the school because of their sense of horror.  The ones I've met are not at all inclined to run away from their problems.  They simply want a setting that's run more skillfully and professionally by staff who have proper training and life experience, and are less doctrinaire and arrogant.



You say Joe Gauld's involvement is minimal.  That's true if one counts the minutes he's around.  But have you sat in those large group meetings where he pontificates and lectures in an incredibly doctrinaire way to parents about how they ought to run their lives?  Do you really think he's not influencing parents, staff, and Hyde's entire ethos?  His style seems to fly in the face of Hyde's claim about humility.  The hypocrisy is very troubling.



I agree that the student tour guides can be impressive.  They're also hand picked and, in my experience during the past couple of years, not at all representative of the broader student body.  I'd encourage prospective parents to approach a random cross-section of kids to get a more realistic picture of Hyde.  A major part of the problem, I think, is that Hyde's enthusiasts aren't willing to listen -- really listen -- to thoughtful critics.  They tend to surround themselves with like-minded Hyde boosters.  Criticism about Hyde tends to be viewed as sacrilege.



Did you read the Traub article about Hyde that someone posted on this site? In my opinion, that's a much more objective, candid, and honest description of this remarkably complex, controversial, and too often destructive school."

Honestly, I have read many of the posts on this site about Hyde and I find them more and more frustrating.
I think that the charter school in NYC is such an amazing idea because I've known people from the charter school in DC who have had wonderful experiences (check out the NPR story - Jesse Jean, a friend of mine, and a great kid)
I graduated last year and I am now at a very competitive liberal arts college, I did well at the school and although I disagreed with many things and it was not easy for me, I do accredit a lot of who I am today to the things I went through at that school.
As for the tour guides who are hand picked, you are wrong. Unless the person is completely off-track, they can give a tour, and in fact sometimes very off-track kids do give tours because it's a good experience.
It is not the place for everyone, but if anything it is a far more meaningful experience than the average public high school. Not everyone can handle it, but it depends on your maturity, it is nonsense to call the school a cult. And in terms of the teachers, some of the most amazing people work at that school. They are young, but consider the commitment that embody in spending 24 hours a day at a school like that. In fact, the thing that I was most grateful for at that school was the amazing faculty, who were willing to have conversations with me all the time, or invite me in to their home when I was having a  bad day, or just let me do homework in their house.
Most of the kids who are saying these EXXAGERATIONS AND MISINTERPRETATIONS are probably bitter because people were honest with them, and they could not handle it.
I would not usually imagine myself sticking up for the school, because I had a very difficult time there, but most of what people are saying is simply not true.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-09-27 21:31:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2005-09-26 19:17:00, Anonymous wrote:


"Until now I've been a very casual and occasional observer of this site.  Having read your comments, however, I feel compelled to respond.  I'm basing my response on my experience as a Hyde parent during the past two and a fraction years.  It's taken our family some time to realize and truly appreciate Hyde's shortcomings and destructive practices.  We've recently discovered how many disgruntled families are out there -- word is spreading, we're learning.





First, all the available evidence suggests that the admission rate is MUCH higher than your 1-out-of-3 figure.  Published information on Hyde's admission rate suggests that it's upward of 80-some percent.  I'd encourage you to double-check your claim.





Further, your understanding of reasons for the high attrition rate seems incomplete.  You may be right that some families leave because of the kid's improvement and their wish to save money.  But, during our affiliation with Hyde during the past 2+ years I've spoken with many, many families who leave the school with feelings of deep resentment and disgust. At first I was concerned because I was worried about the school's future; now I understand much better why people leave (we're heading in that direction). You may believe  families leave because the parents haven't bought into the Hyde model or been willing to examine their own issues.  That may be true of some.  But many more, I'm convinced, are turned off by Hyde's  tendency toward patronizing, arrogrant, and controlling treatment of kids and families.





Yes, Hyde's use of many young faculty may not be unusual.  However, what's unusual -- and unconscionable, I've come to realize -- is that these remarkably young faculty (some of whom disclose lots of information about their own personal struggles) are expected to oversee family seminars during which students and parents disclose the most incredibly personal information.  I've now sat through many seminars and can't believe that no one has put a stop to this dangerous practice.  I've seen kids yell at parents, parents scream at and threaten kids, and participants talk about their wish to end their lives, incest, affairs, addictions, etc. -- and all of this is being run by someone who teaches history (or whatever)!  It's incredible.  You may not want to believe it, but quite a few families leave the school because of their sense of horror.  The ones I've met are not at all inclined to run away from their problems.  They simply want a setting that's run more skillfully and professionally by staff who have proper training and life experience, and are less doctrinaire and arrogant.





You say Joe Gauld's involvement is minimal.  That's true if one counts the minutes he's around.  But have you sat in those large group meetings where he pontificates and lectures in an incredibly doctrinaire way to parents about how they ought to run their lives?  Do you really think he's not influencing parents, staff, and Hyde's entire ethos?  His style seems to fly in the face of Hyde's claim about humility.  The hypocrisy is very troubling.





I agree that the student tour guides can be impressive.  They're also hand picked and, in my experience during the past couple of years, not at all representative of the broader student body.  I'd encourage prospective parents to approach a random cross-section of kids to get a more realistic picture of Hyde.  A major part of the problem, I think, is that Hyde's enthusiasts aren't willing to listen -- really listen -- to thoughtful critics.  They tend to surround themselves with like-minded Hyde boosters.  Criticism about Hyde tends to be viewed as sacrilege.





Did you read the Traub article about Hyde that someone posted on this site? In my opinion, that's a much more objective, candid, and honest description of this remarkably complex, controversial, and too often destructive school."

Honestly, I have read many of the posts on this site about Hyde and I find them more and more frustrating.

I think that the charter school in NYC is such an amazing idea because I've known people from the charter school in DC who have had wonderful experiences (check out the NPR story - Jesse Jean, a friend of mine, and a great kid)

I graduated last year and I am now at a very competitive liberal arts college, I did well at the school and although I disagreed with many things and it was not easy for me, I do accredit a lot of who I am today to the things I went through at that school.

As for the tour guides who are hand picked, you are wrong. Unless the person is completely off-track, they can give a tour, and in fact sometimes very off-track kids do give tours because it's a good experience.

It is not the place for everyone, but if anything it is a far more meaningful experience than the average public high school. Not everyone can handle it, but it depends on your maturity, it is nonsense to call the school a cult. And in terms of the teachers, some of the most amazing people work at that school. They are young, but consider the commitment that embody in spending 24 hours a day at a school like that. In fact, the thing that I was most grateful for at that school was the amazing faculty, who were willing to have conversations with me all the time, or invite me in to their home when I was having a  bad day, or just let me do homework in their house.

Most of the kids who are saying these EXXAGERATIONS AND MISINTERPRETATIONS are probably bitter because people were honest with them, and they could not handle it.

I would not usually imagine myself sticking up for the school, because I had a very difficult time there, but most of what people are saying is simply not true."

I think you make some reasonable points.  I agree that some students benefit from Hyde's approach and emphasis on accountability.  And you may be right that the tour guides aren't exactly hand picked (although there are many students who are critical of Hyde that visitors aren't likely to encounter). Also, I agree that many of the faculty and staff are dedicated, sincere, and available to students.  

That said, I think it's critically important to distinguish between -- and honestly acknowledge -- Hyde's positive features AND its well known shortcomings and destructive features.  Now that I've been affiliated with Hyde for quite some time I've had the opportunity to observe, directly, remarkably abusive treatment (verbal, not physical) of students AND parents by a handful of staff, faculty and parent volunteers who help to facilitate seminars.  I've been horrified by some of the destructive, confrontational, insulting, and unskilled comments directed toward some students and parents.  This behavior flies in the face of the core values Hyde claims to embrace.  You might say that this discomfort occurs only when families aren't willing to struggle with their own issues (that is, it's defensive).  That may be true in some cases, but I think in many more cases people are responding to genuinely unprofessional and unskilled (though well meaning, perhaps) staff, faculty and volunteer parents.

My strong sense now is that Hyde has its toe on the line (and probably crosses the line) when it organizes seminars that are designed to uncover and reveal deeply personal information.  I fully support schools' efforts to get families and students to examine their personal issues and struggles -- that's not the problem.  However, Hyde's deliberate use of the seminar format to address these issues with relatively untrained staff and volunteers, while well meaning, has been harmful to many people I've spoken with and has led a number of people to leave the school (just last week I encountered yet another family that has had a painful experience there and now wants nothing to do with the school.  There are lots of unhappy folks out there, despite what you might think based on the enthusiasm in the auditorium on family/parent weekends).  It's fine for Hyde to promote self-examination and accountability among students and parents.  I think Hyde needs to apply these same principles to itself and not be so defensive about all the criticism that surrounds it (I recognize that some of the criticism is shooting from the hip and not terribly thoughtful or constructive.  However, a fair amount of what I'm hearing on the street, at Hyde during my visits there, and websites like this is thoughtful and well informed).  I think Hyde needs to redesign its approach, fundamentally, so that it's not destructive and harmful.  Again, some of the school's features are admirable and some are horribly destructive.

[Anonymous]

I understand what you're saying about the seminars, but from the sound of it, you have not actually sat through one of these seminars.

Faculty are participants in the group just as much as they are facilitators, and a lot of the harsh feedback comes from students, parents, AND faculty, so if someone is offended by something, it was not necessarily from a faculty.

The amount of seminars that i have sat through is indefinte, I spent 7 years sitting through seminars, since my brother attended the school before I did. People's boundaries are respected, if there something very personal about their past then they are encouraged to share it, but not required. I know this first-hand. The mandatory journaling questions and such are pretty vague: "what are your hopes and dreams?" "what resentments do you have towards your past?" people can answer however they want.


Again: I don't think that the school is perfect, I was often a student who stood up for things that i disagreed with, and I had many conversations with the headmaster, asst. headmasters, and all my teachers about the things that were not right about the school. But you don't really have the right to talk about that before you really give it a chance...and I don't mean just sitting in a seminar, but really really participating.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-09-28 09:40:00, Anonymous wrote:

"I understand what you're saying about the seminars, but from the sound of it, you have not actually sat through one of these seminars.



Faculty are participants in the group just as much as they are facilitators, and a lot of the harsh feedback comes from students, parents, AND faculty, so if someone is offended by something, it was not necessarily from a faculty.



The amount of seminars that i have sat through is indefinte, I spent 7 years sitting through seminars, since my brother attended the school before I did. People's boundaries are respected, if there something very personal about their past then they are encouraged to share it, but not required. I know this first-hand. The mandatory journaling questions and such are pretty vague: "what are your hopes and dreams?" "what resentments do you have towards your past?" people can answer however they want.





Again: I don't think that the school is perfect, I was often a student who stood up for things that i disagreed with, and I had many conversations with the headmaster, asst. headmasters, and all my teachers about the things that were not right about the school. But you don't really have the right to talk about that before you really give it a chance...and I don't mean just sitting in a seminar, but really really participating."

Thanks for your observations.  I can assure you that my comments are based on extensive, direct participation in seminars (including several members of my family).  It sounds as if we've had rather different experiences (perhaps a function of the group composition, the experience and expertise of the facilitators and parent volunteers, etc.).  My observations are based directly on what I and other family members observed first-hand.  I agree that seminars are not always, or even consistently, toxic and managed unskillfully.  But, in my experience too many seminars include very destructive moments and events.  Also, I have heard from quite a few parents who report very similar experiences.  Not surprisingly, different people have different experiences and perceptions.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-09-28 09:40:00, Anonymous wrote:

 People's boundaries are respected, if there something very personal about their past then they are encouraged to share it, but not required. I know this first-hand. The mandatory journaling questions and such are pretty vague: "what are your hopes and dreams?" "what resentments do you have towards your past?" people can answer however they want.

We all know there are positive's and negative's about Hyde, but the above is absolutely not true.  I DID SIT THROUGH MANY SEMINARS and if you did not share something really horrible then you were called on it, and told you aren't digging deep enough.  There was a tremendous amount of pressure put on you by ALL to come up with something deeper.  It is ALWAYS assumed at Hyde that EVERYONE has something in their families that was distructive and that you must come clean with it.  I know of one Mother who made something up simply to satisfy Hyde's sadistic thirst for dirt!!

Sorry, but you are entirely wrong that Hyde does not force you to talk about uncomfortable things in your life.  No, they don't hold a gun to your head, but they put psychological pressure on you.  Once I saw a woman who was pushed so hard that she finally came out with something that was obviously traumatic.  She then couldn't handle it emotionally and practically had a breakdown.  It was heartbreaking to see this grown woman having a breakdown yet no one with a professional degree there to help her.  I am talking about someone who needed medication by the time "group" got done with her.  If you want to say that this is acceptable standard of care, then you have a big problem.

[HydeFan]

I DID SIT THROUGH MANY SEMINARS and if you did not share something really horrible then you were called on it, and told you aren't digging deep enough.  There was a tremendous amount of pressure put on you by ALL to come up with something deeper.  It is ALWAYS assumed at Hyde that EVERYONE has something in their families that was distructive and that you must come clean with it.  


Sorry, but you are entirely wrong that Hyde does not force you to talk about uncomfortable things in your life.  No, they don't hold a gun to your head, but they put psychological pressure on you.  

Here's the deal, for me.

We all have deeper truths.  What is true today, may not be true tomorrow, simply because we took a deeper look.  Jung, if I have it straight, was seminal in shining a light on the vast unconsciousness (I think something to the effect that consciousness was all we can see 10 feet deep from a rowboat when we are sitting in the middle of the ocean).

The point is, we all have deeper truths, and personal growth often comes from exploring these.  If someone felt pressure to come up with something "horrible", that was about them.  All that I saw that was asked of people was that they look inside, and speak the truth.

I concur, that can be very uncomfortable, but it was part of the package of going to Hyde, and to the extent a group will show its disapprovale to mutually agreed upon expectations, then that might also be considered "psychological pressure", but if that's as far as you got with the analysis, I would say you missed it, and I am sorry for that.

[Troll Control]

On 2005-10-05 04:00:00, HydeFan wrote:

"

I DID SIT THROUGH MANY SEMINARS and if you did not share something really horrible then you were called on it, and told you aren't digging deep enough.  There was a tremendous amount of pressure put on you by ALL to come up with something deeper.  It is ALWAYS assumed at Hyde that EVERYONE has something in their families that was distructive and that you must come clean with it.  



Sorry, but you are entirely wrong that Hyde does not force you to talk about uncomfortable things in your life.  No, they don't hold a gun to your head, but they put psychological pressure on you.  

Here's the deal, for me.



We all have deeper truths.  What is true today, may not be true tomorrow, simply because we took a deeper look.  Jung, if I have it straight, was seminal in shining a light on the vast unconsciousness (I think something to the effect that consciousness was all we can see 10 feet deep from a rowboat when we are sitting in the middle of the ocean).



The point is, we all have deeper truths, and personal growth often comes from exploring these.  If someone felt pressure to come up with something "horrible", that was about them.  All that I saw that was asked of people was that they look inside, and speak the truth.



I concur, that can be very uncomfortable, but it was part of the package of going to Hyde, and to the extent a group will show its disapprovale to mutually agreed upon expectations, then that might also be considered "psychological pressure", but if that's as far as you got with the analysis, I would say you missed it, and I am sorry for that."

I've been reading this thread for a few days and I noticed that whenever someone disagrees with your baseline assessment of Hyde, you tell them that they "didn't get it" and you're "sorry" for them.

Why is it that so many others just "didn't get it"?  

Your responses are rote and are very similar to the responses people get from almost every program that just doesn't work for them:  "You didn't get it," or "You didn't work the program."

I wonder, did you ever think that a one-size-fits-all approach to "therapy" is simply a failed modality?  Or do you think that if it worked for you the system must be set up properly and those for whom the program was an abject failure just "didn't get it"?   Is it plausible to you that the system doesn't work in general and you are an exception?

I have in-depth experience with these cookie-cutter programs where evryone is treated the same, even though they present with vastly different issues.  As a professional, I can assure you that this type of "treatment" results in many more failures than successes and that many of the "successes" are reducible to the natural maturation process (for which the program gladly takes credit).  However, when there is a lack of success, the program, and its supporters, are quick to point the finger at the client saying "You didn't work it right."

Folks, these programs are scams, plain and simple.  There is no research whatsoever to suggest these programs are effective (there is not one single objective scientific study that shows they work) and copiuous research to show they are detrimental.  I would urge any prospective parents to look at unbiased research (the "programs" publish many advertisements disguised as "studies" or conlusions of studies).  Don't be surprised when you find that authoritative sources, such as the NIH and many others, conclude that these programs are ineffective at best and outright harmful at worst.  Studies in juvenile delinquency incontrovertably show that grouping together "problem kids" in residential settings increases the rate of delinquency, not reduces it.

Please, do some research and don't accept one person's account as fact.  Verify and check for yourselves.

_________________
"Compassion is the basis of morality."

-Arnold Schopenhauer[ This Message was edited by: Dysfunction Junction on 2005-10-05 07:54 ]

[Anonymous]

Disfunction Junction, thank you VERY MUCH for putting into words what I feel as a former Hyde student. Just as you said, as time went on I matured and became an outstanding citizen who gives back to the community!  This had absolutely NOTHING to do with Hyde and in fact Hyde stiffled my growth.  

Yes, I was told like many other kids that "I didn't get it" and that my family "didn't look deep enough."  Truth was, we didn't "buy into the program" because the program was insane!!  Fine if other people want to believe their kids changed because of Hyde, but it just isn't so.  The short term effects Hyde has on kids is nothing like the effects of growing up and having to stand on your own two feet.

I will admit sometimes parents are helped by learning to spend more quality time with their kids talking, but this is about the only benefit I saw at Hyde and as you pointed out, many exercises at the school have harmed more than have done good.

Again I thank you for contributing your expertise to this board.

[Anonymous]

I'd love to know your names so I can have a good laugh.  You both are so pathetic...
I've been checking in every now and then to this thread and the last two posts are perfect examples of people who just don't get it.  I'm surprised your bitterness hasn't caused physical damage!
PLEASE...and I repeat PLEASE...GET-A-LIFE!

Thanks

[HydeFan]

Amazing how ya'll have so much trouble staying on point.

The issue was seminars.  I responded about my experience of seminars that was different.

Yes, my end conclusion was the poster didn't get it.

Now you respond DF as a "professional" and go back to some larger attack on the school and how it doesn't work, and imply how NIH might even come out any minute now and tell the world how these are a scam.

Yah, I'm sure Time (or was it Newsweek), 60 Minutes, 20-20-, Oprah, Barbara Walters....no doubt they all missed it too.

Stay on point DF.  If you had a different experience in seminars then let's hear about it, but your diversionary tactics aren't lost on anyone here....

[Troll Control]

On 2005-10-05 10:23:00, HydeFan wrote:

"Amazing how ya'll have so much trouble staying on point.



The issue was seminars.  I responded about my experience of seminars that was different.



Yes, my end conclusion was the poster didn't get it.



Now you respond DF as a "professional" and go back to some larger attack on the school and how it doesn't work, and imply how NIH might even come out any minute now and tell the world how these are a scam.



Yah, I'm sure Time (or was it Newsweek), 60 Minutes, 20-20-, Oprah, Barbara Walters....no doubt they all missed it too.



Stay on point DF.  If you had a different experience in seminars then let's hear about it, but your diversionary tactics aren't lost on anyone here....



"

I'm not employing any tactics, much less diverting from the subject.

NIH is not going to "come out any minute" and declare anything a "scam," nor did I assert they would.  What I said was that there has been definitive research done by NIH (and several other unbiased research agencies) that irrefutably proves that programs like Hyde ("Emotional Growth" or "Character Building" - call it what you like) don't work.  The research has already been completed and is published for public consumption.  Perhaps you should read some of the studies before you comment out of ignorance (no offense, but you clearly aren't an expert in this field).

I do indeed have a different opinion on "seminars" which are simply LGAT's called by a different name.

More on topic of what I was saying is that you seem to tell everyone that has a different opinion about the program from yours that they "don't get it."  Well, I submit that many people "don't get it" because "it," on its face, doesn't make any sense and therefore wouldn't be "gotten" by most.

I also think it's a bit odd that you continually tell people that they are "off topic" when they ask questions about you.  This is also a typical response from "program people."  I believe I asked you some legitimate questions, but you declined to respond and shifted the focus to me and some "tactics" you imagined I am employing to divert discussion.

The topic of this thread is "Follow Up Questions on Hyde."  Well, I asked you some follow up questions on Hyde and you declined to respond.  Could you please go back to my last post and respond to the questions I posed?

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-10-05 09:55:00, Anonymous wrote:

"I'd love to know your names so I can have a good laugh.  You both are so pathetic...

I've been checking in every now and then to this thread and the last two posts are perfect examples of people who just don't get it.  I'm surprised your bitterness hasn't caused physical damage!

PLEASE...and I repeat PLEASE...GET-A-LIFE!



Thanks"

Why do you want to know anyone's names? What is your name?
Why do you say it is pathetic to speak about your experience at Hyde?.  Again you are showing the controlling and arrogant attitude of staff and owners of Hyde.  If you don't think like Hyde then you "don't get it."  I was always told this is a sign of a Cult, which is what other posters have been saying all along.  You just helped with the conclusion.

You also ask for the last two posters to "get a life."  Seems they have but experienced something painful at Hyde and feel an obligation to warn other parents so they don't have the same experiences.  I don't see bitterness here, I see Concern and isn't this one of the 5 Words of Hyde, "Concern?"

If you are so fed up with the posters, why are you coming to this board.  Either offer some other insight or MYOB!!  This board is not set up for insults, but rather information.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-10-05 11:38:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
NIH is not going to "come out any minute" and declare anything a "scam," nor did I assert they would.  

You are correct.  I misread your post.

What I said was that there has been definitive research done by NIH (and several other unbiased research agencies) that irrefutably proves that programs like Hyde ("Emotional Growth" or "Character Building" - call it what you like) don't work.  The research has already been completed and is published for public consumption.  Perhaps you should read some of the studies before you comment out of ignorance (no offense, but you clearly aren't an expert in this field).

Gosh, would love to take your word on this, especially since you are the expert, but do you mind providing a site?  I am certainly happy to read any irrefutable proof!  Funny thing to me is, psychology is a soft science, and anyone who was really in the industry would pretty much never use a term like "irrefutable proof" on a topic like this.  

I do indeed have a different opinion on "seminars" which are simply LGAT's called by a different name.

Sorry, I don't know what LGATs are or what them means to you.  Please say more about this.

Well, I submit that many people "don't get it" because "it," on its face, doesn't make any sense and therefore wouldn't be "gotten" by most.

I'm sure I won't come close to capturing this, but "it" in this context somewhere along the lines of the notion that people with a common purpose of shedding light on their lives and making them better can accomplish this in a group context by disclosing personal/family "secrets", and getting help and support in healing whatever wounds or disfunction they now manifest.

I also think it's a bit odd that you continually tell people that they are "off topic" when they ask questions about you.  This is also a typical response from "program people."  I believe I asked you some legitimate questions, but you declined to respond and shifted the focus to me and some "tactics" you imagined I am employing to divert discussion.

Um, you responded to my post about the value of seminars by asking much broader questions that weren't about seminars.  And yes, I consider that diversionary, and had no intention of responding to what seemed to be fairly rhetorical questions. My comment was in essence, we can't have a discussion here if the topic keeps changing.

The topic of this thread is "Follow Up Questions on Hyde."  Well, I asked you some follow up questions on Hyde and you declined to respond.  Could you please go back to my last post and respond to the questions I posed?

Ok, better for a separate stream, but here goes.

Why is it that so many others just "didn't get it"?

You question presumes information we don't really have which is the number of people who get it vs. the number of people who don't (as well as the more complicated agreement on which "it" it is that we are talking about. But assuming your question was focused and true, I can think of a lot of reasons this might be, including lack of emotional intelligence, defense of the perceived threat to existing family systems, more profound psychological issues that initially believed in the interview.

I wonder, did you ever think that a one-size-fits-all approach to "therapy" is simply a failed modality?

Actually, I doubt anyone ever thought a character eduction program would be universally applicable--that is why many families aren't accepted into Hyde (and why many leave).  My experience is that Hyde was very hands on, intensive and creative in handling many situations differently.  I watched Hyde leadership....students and faculty....search their souls for the most appropriate response to whatever circumstances arose, and follow through on that.  For sure, there were many standard responses to various situations, but without more detail of which aspects of what you term one-size-fits-all you are talking about, the level of abstraction is too broad to give a more detailed response.

Or do you think that if it worked for you the system must be set up properly and those for whom the program was an abject failure just "didn't get it"? Is it plausible to you that the system doesn't work in general and you are an exception?

I don't claim to have numbers.  I do have a long term level of interaction with the school and have seen innumerable success stories so I know for a fact it worked for more than a few.  But I don't think we can really have this discussion without first agreeing on what it was that was supposed to work.  If a family felt too threatened by changes it needed to make and closed ranks by leaving, is that not working?  I don't think so.  From my perspective, the system worked.

Indeed, the parallels to your claimed field of expertise should be obvious.  Why does psychotherapy not work for so many people?  At least a partial answer is that fundamentally, change threatens many people on such a core level that their limbic system goes into fight or flight.  And then they either work through that or stay stuck.  That's why I am suspect of people who say they are angry 30 years later because Hyde screwed up their lives.  Its possible their were grievously wronged, but no one, parents included, should accept such a statment without more information on that persons facts, because if they didn't "get it" then, there is a good chance they still don't "get it" now, and that their failure to "get it" has resulted in limiting their potential, and so they just want someone to blame.

You can call this a rote answer or anything you want, but it comes from my personal experience both at Hyde and working intimately with the psychotheraputic field.  

I also have to say, if you really are a professional, I am surprised this isn't more obvious to you.

Anyway, DF, can we start with you presenting your irrefutably proof that the NIH has stated that the Hydes of the world don't work.  If so, I think that should be fairly compelling for everyone, including me.