I’m certain that these comments, made by former students in this video, were not written by those former students. In fact, I’m strongly suspicious that they were all written by some crook in charge of waldorf’s public image, and that the former students were enlisted to read them out in front of the camera. Not because the comments are positive towards waldorf; I would expect that. No, there’s something else. There’s something in the way they use language, in how they talk and in how they present their opinions and what words and expressions they choose for the purpose. Ok, there are a few personal details about their later careers that have been worked into the script and fitted to the message, but that’s easily achieved. It’s not only that they all seem too identical and express themselves in too identical a way, it’s also that what they say often seems to be directly derived from waldorf advertisement materials. They’re using the same words and expressions and arguments to describe their experiences as those that are found in waldorf brochures and similar sources. In other words, they don’t appear ‘natural’. Nothing seems to come from the heart (to express myself in the most banal way).
All that comes from these former students is run-of-the-mill waldorf advertisement buzz, of a familiar, but often mendacious, kind. Unsurprising, perhaps, as it is a PR video. I do not hear honesty, I do not hear anything genuine, I do not hear anything spontaneous; I do not hear anything that wasn’t read from a script, written by someone in charge of the ‘official waldorf message’. Again, perhaps not surprising, but I hardly think this was the desired effect (on the other hand, they aren’t trying to woo me). These students come off like robots, impersonal, like automatons programmed to fulfil a mission. Or, to be kinder, actors (not good one). It’s so typically waldorf, but presumably not in the way the PR department anticipated.
I know, I express myself above in a deliberately provocative way; I do impose my interpretation on the appearances of these students, and maybe I’m wrong. But what do you think? What do you hear, when you listen to these former students? Let’s assume they are all genuine and this is the way they talk and these the opinions they honestly hold — contrary to what I argued — what would that tell us (about their education)? Isn’t it still as bad? Even if it were genuine — is it not too robotic? Are they ‘free thinking’ or some kind of automatons, albeit genuine ones? And do people fall for this? Really? Would you?