Quote
skeptic
Since when is [i:f8974d32c1]education[/i:f8974d32c1] so stressful?

Well I must take issue with you skeptic, education is quite stressful. Don't you think medical or law school would be stressful? Hell, I found high school stressful at times, I'm sure everyone did. But a few questions I've been asking for a long time about Landmark but haven't gotten any answers to yet are: if Landmark is an "education" as its title suggests, for the tuitions they charge I'd like to know what kind of teaching degrees these "educators" have. Now you don't have to have such a degree to teach something minor like basketweaving, but these Landmark dudes partake in some pretty heavy-duty stuff, gettin' into your head and messing around with it. I also find it very odd that once you're in Landmark, even they don't call what they do "educating"; they call it "coaching". So why don't they call themselves "Landmark Coaching" instead of "Landmark Education"? I guess "Landmark Education" sounds better. And sounding better means more money. This is just another example of how deceitful Landmark is.

But let's get back to the agreement. Okay, this is supposed to be an "education". Let's try to make some sense out of this:

Quote

1. Have you ever been hospitalized for psychiatric care or a mental disorder, or has such
hospitalization ever been recommended to you by a physician, psychiatrist, or mental
health professional?
If yes, what was the MOST RECENT YEAR that you were hospitalized for psychiatric
care or a mental disorder or that such hospitalization was recommended to you by a
physician, psychiatrist, or mental health professional?
2. Are you currently in therapy?
(If you are currently in therapy, you must advise your therapist that you are going to be in the Program
and you must get your therapist’s assurance that he/she sees no health reason why it would be inadvisable
for you to take part in the Program. It is our intention here simply to serve your best interests by not
adding any input your therapist does not know about.)
(a) Have you advised your therapist that you are registered in the Program?
(b) I asked my therapist if he/she sees any health reason that would make it inadvisable for
me to participate in the Program. Mytherapist’ s answer was:
(c) I have not yet advised my therapist about being in the Program, and I will by:
(Please call the Landmark Forum Registration Fulfillment Manager at Landmark Education
as soon as you have your therapist’s answer.)
3. Have you ever been in psychiatric or psychological therapy and then discontinued that
therapy against the advice of your therapist before it was complete?
If yes, what was the MOST RECENT YEAR that you were in psychiatric or psychological
therapy and then discontinued that therapy against the advice of your therapist
before it was complete?
4. Within the past six months, have you taken (or has a health professional advised you to
take) any prescription medications or drugs which: a) affect your mental processes or mood;
or b) treat a “chemical imbalance”?
5. If you answered “yes” to questions 1 , 2b, 3, or 4, we recommend that you NOT participate
in the Program at this time

Can someone please tell me why, if Landmark is merely an "education", they have to ask you all these questions about your psychiatric history? Why should your history in this regard be in issue ? What difference would it make if you are currently in therapy? If you enroll in a college; i.e. a [i:f8974d32c1]legitimate[/i:f8974d32c1] educational institution, would they ask you if you are in therapy, or any of the other questions asked by Landmark in this agreement? Of course not. I went to college and was never asked these questions.

Landmark isn't an education. It resembles more like psychology without a licence. Nutrino was touching on this issue in his post on page 1.

What would be useful to know: what percentage of Landmark's staff, whether trainers, administrative, or senior management, have ANY formal training in CLINICAL pyychology???... not just a bachelor's degree with a psych minor.... but at least a master's degree in psychology ? I'd also like to know the topic of their master's theses and, if they exists, doctoral dissertations....

One principle of philosophy runs like this, and it finds its way into law as well: Extrordinary Claims Require Extrordinary Evidence.

I think that Landmark, and EST before it, could be reasonably said to make extrordinary claims.

Who, exactly, are the people who created these trainings ? What, exactly, are their qualifications (above and beyond being "successful".... let's get this "successful" AS a qualification for indoctrination business out of here right now. I have encountered, interacted with, negotiated with, bla bla bla some persons who are outwardly exceedingly "successful" and internally are some of the most emotionally screwed up people you will ever meet.... yet EST and Landmark seem to imply that because one is "successful" in one domain of life, they wil automatically be qualified to tell other people HOW to live their lives. Sure Mao Tse Tung was "successful", and ever so charismatic too!... you want him designing your next training ??? )...

so, what exactly are their qualifications ?

COULD the person or persons responsible for designing these trainings produce a coherent writing or body of writing that could be reviewed independently by philiosophers, psychologists, and behaviorists ?

WHAT records exist of the evolution and design of them ? Did anyone keep notes ? WHO is responsible for the internal archive of this material ???...

IS any outside party ever allowed access to it ? Do they ever sit down and review their presuppositions, their theories (which is all they are, theories, all though they are stated as having the weight of incontestible FACT ), their development processes with any outside professionals ?

HOW do they know if they're wrong ? WHO acts as a corrective, internally or externally, to the possibility of error ? Are they capable of recognizing the possibility of error ? Do they have the institutional courage to concede error and adjust to new and superior information ?

Are they forever locked into a dated and impoverished model of human functioning or are they capable of evolving into a more coherent, mature
philosophical structure ?

Quote

Or do they merely gloss over it, tell you its nothing to worry about and pressure you to sign?

They, the LE service reps, tell you it's nothing to worry about. In fact, I truly believe they expect people to call and ask questions about the waivers because it is a great way to apply more pressure on prospective participants. They love-bomb callers by telling them how smart they are to ask all these wonderful questions, but really, no one gets hurt by LE.

Excalibur, the waivers were brushed off as formalities both by my doctor AND by the LE service reps.

Quote
Excalibur

Quote
skeptic
Since when is [i:1fc2567690]education[/i:1fc2567690] so stressful?

Well I must take issue with you skeptic, education is quite stressful. Don't you think medical or law school would be stressful? Hell, I found high school stressful at times, I'm sure everyone did.

Good point.

To expound a bit, when someone enters medical or law (or high) school, are they "informed" that it will be really, really, really stressful? That is the message I got in LE's agreement (stress, stress, and more stress!).

Re the psychiatric questions, they are related to ALL THE STRESS, which goes back to your question (and to my question): why the psych questions (and why the stress warnings) when it's plain and simple education? "Education" sounds benign, and the stress warnings beLIE that.

Thanks everyone for your posts, especially Concerned Oz who provided Landmark’s Agreement (including the waiver clause which is the part I really wanted to see) and Hope for answering some of my questions.

So let’s see what we have here. We have an organization that calls itself “Education” but yet has an agreement contract that’s concerned more with your psychiatric history than your academia. Instead of asking questions about what degrees/diplomas you hold or what your grades are (like you‘d find in most applications for educational institutes), their questions are focused on any psychosis you may be afflicted with, whether you’ve been hospitalized for psychiatric care or a mental disorder, if you are currently in therapy, or if you are taking any psychiatric medication or drugs. Furthermore, this agreement application clearly places their own legal protection against lawsuits at a premium:

Quote

“I willingly and knowingly assume for myself, and my heirs, family members, executors, administrators, and assigns, all risk of physical injury and mental and emotional upset which may occur during or after the Program, and I hereby agree to hold Landmark Education Corporation, its officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or volunteers, harmless from any and all liability arising out of my participation in the Program.”

Physical injury? Yikes!

Quote

"BY SIGNING THIS I AM AGREEING TO HAVE ANY ISSUE OR CLAIM ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION IN THE LANDMARK FORUM DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AND I AM FREELY GIVING UP MY RIGHT TO A JURY OR COURT TRIAL."

Double Yikes!

And it’s not as if accusations against Landmark in this regard are unheard of. I found a couple of such allegations, for example the post I quoted in one of my earlier entries on this thread:

Quote

"My son has gone through the [Landmark] program, and is now sitting in a hopital [sic] under psychiatric care. Where are they when their program goes bad? They don't want anything to do with him! Afraid of the lawsuit maybe. this is not an isolated incident - it happens often -”

Another similar story can be found on this link: [www.culteducation.com] The article is entitled [i:f12f5b9639]Landmark Education destroyed my life--from the Forum to a psych ward.[/i:f12f5b9639] The first words of this article says, “I have no legal recourse. I have nothing left to do but tell my story,….”. I wonder why this writer has no legal recourse. She didn’t explain why but I wonder if its because of the waiver portion of Landmark’s agreement. I don’t know of any other reason why.

And rather than being portrayed as an educational program, internet research reveals Landmark to look more like a cult. Landmark “Education” is listed on practically every cult awareness service website in the world, including those in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland, Israel and others. Are we to believe that all of these cult awareness services are wrong? Is there a world-wide conspiracy against Landmark? They're the ones who deal with cult issues all the time. They should know.

Furthermore, the “courses” in this “education” are not tax deductible like you’d find in many accredited educational programs, there are no government-approved examinations required to "graduate"- in fact there are no examinations at all and no diplomas or certificates issued to "graduates". How someone can graduate from a program without taking and passing a test or exam makes no sense. And Landmark’s instructors are not even required to hold teaching degrees. Seems to me that the only thing about Landmark that resembles “education” are their tuition fees! Visit Landmark's website and see what they charge for their “courses” - if you take their entire program (ie all of their “courses”) you’ll be spending over $10,000!

Education? Yeah, right. It's nothing but pure deception.

And thanks Hope for confirming my suspicions that Landmark brushes off the waiver as a mere “formality”. And as I mentioned in my previous post, waivers are NEVER formalities. If you are damaged by Landmark (and judging by their waiver as I quoted above it's almost like they're expecting it) and attempt to sue them, you’ll see how this “formality” will protect them from litigation. Pardon the pun, but if you try to sue Landmark for any personal damage, they’ll be “waiving” the agreement you signed right in your face while they laugh their heads off.

These lawyers seem to have experience with class-action lawsuits against cults like Landmark:

Ford Greene of Hub Law Offices in San Anselmo, California, and solo practitioners Charles B. O’Reilly of Marina Del Rey, California, Daniel A. Leipold of Santa Ana, California, and Craig J. Stein of Los Angeles, fought an epic 22-year battle-which included two appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and successful defenses of several countersuits against the plaintiff and his legal team-to collect a multimillion dollar jury verdict for a man who was psychologically and financially ruined by the Church of Scientology. Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology is a landmark victory for former members of Scientology, which is known for its heated and protracted legal battles.

Quote
Hope
They, the LE service reps, tell you it's nothing to worry about. In fact, I truly believe they expect people to call and ask questions about the waivers because it is a great way to apply more pressure on prospective participants. They love-bomb callers by telling them how smart they are to ask all these wonderful questions, but really, no one gets hurt by LE.

Hope, not to be overly critical, but if it was me, I wouldn't even be asking a Landmark representative that question. That's like asking a Toyota salesman if Toyotas are good cars. Of course he's gonna say yes because he has an agenda to sell. And as I mentioned earlier, in Landmark's defence the agreement does invite you to seek legal advice from an attorney. That would have been the appropriate plan of action. If more people did that, I believe less people would have enrolled in Landmark because I can't imagine any competent attorney advising a client to waive their legal rights.

Well, the whole Landmark thing was a great educational experience. Now I can spot red flags right away, like the Sahaja yoga group at my local library last week, the slightest bit of love-bombing, pseudoscientific claims, and even legal junk like Landmark's.

I did discuss the waiver, the potential stress, "adverse reactions" etc. with the doctor who so highly recommended LF. I didn't know then that he had taken just about every course LE had to offer.

Excalibur, If I'm planning on buying a product, I usually call the company's CS center for more information. I don't ask questions which require a yes or no answer, but ask questions that require salespeople to show their product knowledge. LE's CSR seemed to know her product, but I didn't know they were a manipulative organization who had stock answers for everything.

At the time, I didn't know my doctor was also a con artist. If it hadn't been my doctor recommending LF, if LF hadn't been calling it "education" which, to my knowledge, doesn't cause enough stress for someone to have to sue for pain and suffering, if I hadn't gone to the intro night which seemed rather benign, if the service reps didn't seem to be going out of their way to accommodate me, perhaps I would have consulted a lawyer if I had really known what to ask, at the time. So - yeah - if I knew then what I know now, an appropriate plan of action would have been to consult with an attorney, something I never had to do before because I had never been so duped before. I didn't know what I didn't know. But quite honestly, I still do not remember signing a waiver giving up right to a trial. Perhaps I didn't sign it. THere were parts I didn't sign and sent it in and was never asked to re-read and sign.

What is ironic is the doctor did the most damage - LF was just a waste of my time. In fact, it was The Scoop on Landmark's articles that made me realize early on that there were "plants" in the audience who had scripts. When one participant tearfully shared her racket and related drama and that "the soap opera was going off the air" - word for word off Scoop, and the man who's wife made him attend, so he was being asked to leave, but didn't and got the biggest breakthrough in the end (testimonial on LE's site), I mentally started writing my refund letter.

I got a full refund based on the CSR GUARANTEEING a "breakthrough"with a health issue, and I used their own Integrity "conversation" against them when they didn't return phone calls or answer my letter outlining issues I had, and the fact that people were not really sharing but acting. The CSR was fired, btw.

It's a cult. People who have lived and worked there have been extremely damaged by it, and for the most part don't talk about it (and sometimes go on to other cults, and/or start their own!) because they don't want to admit to themselves, their family and friends, that they were in the cult. The "programs" cost thousands of dollars. Families with autistic children are ripped off and left stranded. The "process" is all about denial. "I'm not sick because I "decide" not to be", etc
===========================
kevin


find lawyer