Purpose: To teach the student what he has missed. What he is, what he does.
The Cramming Officer should be the most skilled Supervisor in the place. He should handle only causes — as basic as he can get. Then he sets the fellow back on the road.
Cramming requires individual, skilled attention by someone who is willing to 2-Way Comm and knows the subject under discussion well enough to be able to find where specific points are covered.
Cramming’s purpose is to teach the student what he’s missed.
To do that, it must handle both why he missed it and what was missed.
1. Things are caused, they do not “just happen”.
2. The cause lies earlier than the effect.
3. It is not “human to err” nor is it reasonable to forget things nor are there people who are “naturally slow”.
4. Though stupidity comes in general from charge on the case, thoroughly remarkable changes can be effected in rate and thoroughness of data assimilation, independent of general auditing, by use of study technology.
5. Basic, when blown, discharges the rest of the chain; Basic is earlier.
In practice, the “why” of a suddenly slowed rate of study or of an overt product can be found and gotten rid of by looking just before the change and fixing up what you find. (Sometimes one has to carry the matter earlier, especially in the case of improving a study rate that is generally slow.)
Another Stable Datum is: If it didn’t resolve the situation, it wasn’t the right cause of it. You don’t know what was bogging the guy until you find it — it’s easy to evaluate what you think must be wrong with the guy or sell your wins or cogs… but it’s very hard on the guy you’re cramming.
The route to 100% results on the students is persistence in finding the actual cause. Hammering the same point over and over just doesn’t find the cause of a repeating error (and there shouldn’t even be the first error, if he did the course properly). When he’s found (not you’ve found, when he’s found) what’s out, you’ll have as many VGIs as you could ask for and the error will not repeat.
Keep a log book giving the date and name of student, reason sent to Cramming. This gives a good idea of how the student is doing.
The Cramming Officer gets into 2-Way Comm with the student to estimate what needs to be done, and lines up a short program of steps to be taken in Cramming. This is done in duplicate. The original is handed to the student. The Cramming Officer retains the duplicate for his record and so he can trace the student’s progress, and bring it to a rapid completion. The students should be kept busy.
Go over the student’s daily graph of study stats and from the point of downward trend, check the checksheet for what was being studied at that time, or just before.
The standard of just taking the Bulletin he’s hung up on and asking for a missed word in the previous Bulletin (or previous Section of the Bulletin) works great and often simply this would handle the situation.
Whatever it is, it is something, and there are a finite number of things it can be.
Frequently the student will offer a word and then half withdraw it — yet usually it’s the very first one he offers when asked. So when you ask for a word, take what’s offered… all too often the word the guy hung up on is one he almost believes, or fully believes, he knows.
Your most basic tool is the full “cycle of the misunderstood”. A very large part of the time you have to use the whole thing.
Say you’re cramming an Auditor who’s just goofed. C/S has sent him to Cramming on R3R steps, as in the middle of session he started dropping commands.
Your first task is to find what exactly occurred. There can be bad admin or other varieties of false reports.
Then why that occurred, looking earlier. In many cases something else preceded gross obvious goofs. He did the course, he’s got no right ever to goof that data.
Aha! He wasn’t sure if he should have been running that item on the pc… seemed like a narrative.
Now with the initial goof to hand you find the principle that wasn’t understood. On check, yep, he doesn’t understand what it’s OK to run or not to run in Dianetics.
Aha, Aha! And what word or term? Yes, he doesn’t know what “narrative” means.
Clay Demo of “narrative” (full demo — not “can somebody guess”) after looking it up… a checkout on a couple of HCO Bs… and the guy’s in business. Then you can assess how much restudy of what is needed and groove him in to not omit commands even when flustered. Now he can learn, and will apply.
All standard study tech is at your disposal; HCOB Feb 21, 66, “Definition Processes”, HC Stress Analysis, etc., will get many a student out of the soup by themselves.
Frequently a student proves to be pushed too far along the gradient and simply needs to be put back, to the proper slot. Often all mass and doingness get left aside and only theory gets done — the guy never got an E-Meter or looked at a pc. Sometimes the guy’s programmed onto the wrong course entirely — completely without a purpose on the one he’s on.
Sometimes he can’t spot one offhand.
You can simply ask for the prior area the fellow feels “weak in” or “disagrees with” or “feels unsure of” and from that easily get the missed term. Clay of terms which the guy missed and hung up on helps a lot — whether in the present or a previous similar subject.
This approach works very well when cramming in relation to a subject involving only activity, where there was no particular study of printed matter associated with it.
Counter-Policy and Counter-Tech come into this. Frequently the guy “knows” the data but also “knows” something else that is either directly misunderstood or the result of a misunderstood. There’s no obvious earlier error, he just all the time erroneously omits the R3R step despite having been checked out… obviously if it’s simply a matter of “Gee! I never saw that before,” your job is easy and the Why is simply didn’t do the material in the first place.
But say the Exec did the course, but still won’t ever train his staff. He’s full of apparent comprehension, but doesn’t apply.
Well there’s the overt — won’t train — yet he feels he’s doing right or he wouldn’t be doing it. Fine, your approach is, “Why was what you did the right thing to do in those circumstances?” (“What made it OK to commit the overt?”) “One’s got to cope and get the product out.” “Good, what’s the policy covering that that you’re using — get me a copy, please.”
You take the policy he’s using as the reason (whether an actual Policy, Bulletin, or someone’s order, or even an “everybody knows” from Psychology) and find the principle not understood and the word missed that led to the misunderstanding and you’re back in business. Maybe, above, it turns out the guy didn’t know he should have set someone to organize behind him and finally didn’t know what “product” meant at all.
Repaired, the guy will now at last both cope and train.
Often subjects studied earlier (and usually blown from) have to be addressed. e.g. One student couldn’t seem to get or find his misunderstood on the Ethics Section of OEC. This was traced back to a term he’d never understood while studying law, and magically he suddenly understood the Ethics Policies he was studying.
Sometimes the student has gone past 20-30 misunderstoods, and each one has to be defined. e.g. One student had never completed his HSDC because he “couldn’t read DMSMH”. He’d gone ⅓ way through and utterly bogged. After defining word after word he hadn’t understood, with the student getting brighter and brighter, he suddenly stated — “Hey, it’s easy to read now.”
The first thing to do is to go over the C/S, the session, the C/S comments and Cramming actions to be done. Trace back misunderstoods to basic and from that indicate which HCO B(s) to restudy on.
Often the Auditor will originate another area of uncertainty. Take these up too and handle each one.
Student Rescue Intensives sometimes are a life-saver.
The Learning Drill, even Op Pro by Dup (with C/S OK), TRs 0-9 and all sorts of drills as issued (e.g. 101-104) assist. TR errors are as fundamental errors as you can get on an Auditor — except perhaps, can he sit in the chair?
A large part of the Cramming Officer’s responsibility lies in correcting the courses that trained the guy being crammed. If it had been run all that standardly you’d not have expected the fellow to wind up in Cramming.
Sometimes the student himself isn’t at fault at all — common course outnesses which the Cramming Officer may have to see corrected before students can get anywhere are:
1. No Supervisor.
2. No materials.
3. No checksheet.
4. Improper checksheet.
5. No checkouts available.
6. All theory, or perhaps theory with demos or clay substituted for an actual practical section.
7. No Supervisor 2-Way Comm in use. (Nothing mystic here just no one talks to anyone.)
8. Evaluated tech, e.g. by Supervisor or fellow student.
9. Uneducated Supervisors, in general — not using or applying the Study Tech themselves.
10. Bad equipment, especially tape recorders.
11. Student has never done the Student Hat, not knowing Study Tech at all himself. Doesn’t know how to study and so never learns anything!
The Cramming Officer, in the face of Course and Supervisor outnesses, as above, must firstly unbug the student and get him winning again, then call in the Supervisor or Supervisors involved and get them corrected. In the case of a Course Admin who can’t maintain the tape recorders, he is pulled in and fully corrected in this area.
Very often the student is having difficulty because of poor supervision. He would be learning well and progressing if the Supervisor were better trained or crammed.
The same situation could exist with the C/S — he may need training and cramming.
This should not be overlooked by a Cramming Officer who sees too many students or Auditors being sent for the same difficulties.
It is the Cramming Officer’s responsibility to keep Supervisors and C/Ses trained as well.
The Cramming Officer may find that the student has never learned how to be a student. He was never hatted — never got an R-Factor on what was expected of him as a student. It is simple to get him hatted with the Student Hat.
This does not apply only to students in Tech Training and Technical Personnel but to Admin Students as well. Staff Personnel on Admin Courses, Staff Status, OEC, Hats, are also students and require Hatting and Cramming. They should not be neglected by the Cramming Officer.
Occasionally you will find a coach who can’t give himself or another a win. He coaches toward a loss. This could go so far as to not let himself progress just to keep his fellow student back. Or he may never let his fellow student pass — or pass him when he doesn’t deserve it.
This could require auditing to resolve. But a good Cramming Officer can handle this by finding the Why and getting it handled. And find the area he has losses on and get the misunderstoods off.
One barrier to study is the conviction that a right datum is wrong or not to be applied. The only resolution to this is finding and pulling off whatever or however it got invalidated and then rapid restudy of the area.
A student ordered to “restudy his Finance Pack because ‘he doesn’t know his finance policy’”will profit from the study best after the Why is located specifically and straightened up. Once he’s found, say, his misunderstood in “how to do payroll” he can then study the rest of the pack in staff study with profit and certainty. A restudy without finding what’s out tends to leave him in doubt about all his comprehension of the materials and he ends up more uncertain of the materials than before, unless he happens to spot the exact error in the course of the general review.
Persistence is probably the keynote. Since, (a) he can do it, and (b) sometimes the first thing you find and well handle does not resolve the situation, then (c) there was something else awry too.
You follow each cycle to a VGI/Cog. A VGI/Cog doesn’t necessarily resolve the whole show, but it ends an action. Sometimes you get a good change as “My God, you know I’ve never really known what an F/N was” or “You know, I’ve always avoided Finance Policy and don’t really understand it at all.” That does end that action. But then you still have to find the misunderstoods in the Policy, and drill, checkout, etc.
The most common misunderstoods of Tech Students and Students on Admin Courses alike lie in the Basics – Metering, TRs, Understanding of the Auditor’s Code, the Basic Theory of the Human Mind, Strict Honesty and Honor as an Auditor.
These are the things the student should learn early and what a good Cramming Officer always looks for, because if the student did not learn them early in his training — or if he had had an earlier than Scientology Misunderstood — his later training will hang up somewhere.
The Cramming Officer should check for things like:
Questions like this should be asked and good Demos done. Then the Cramming Officer can go earlier and earlier. He may find the misunderstood in earlier subjects algebra, science, philosophy, simple multiplication, it could be anywhere; and the Cramming Officer tracks it down.
TRs, Metering, Auditor’s Code, the Auditor’s Integrity are drilled so that they apply to the Sessions the Auditor runs. The student or Auditor will cognite that these are for use and not just for drilling.
The Cramming Officer is there to unbug the Auditor and student — wherever the bug or flaw may be. It must be tracked down to basic and cleared up.
Every Org must have a good Cramming Officer. Without a Cramming Officer, auditing and training are not kept at the high quality our Tech requires.
A good Cramming Officer is one of the Org’s most valuable personnel.