NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html?nav=rss_politics
College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.


Now, does that strike anyone as an eclectic mix of ideas and thought conducive to teaching people how to think, or does it strike you as a monochromatic world view?

personally, i believe a professor or university-level researcher should be hired based on his or her skills and qualifications, not based on his or her personal political opinions. it may just so happen that the majority of people who seek university positions--and have the appropriate qualifications--share many of the same political ideals, and if that is the case i see no reason to hire less qualified persons just to balance out the political spectrum.

EDIT: and, for the record, i am NOT a liberal by the American definition, and i tend to have as many conflicts of opinion with American liberals as with American conservatives.

I think it makes sense. Teachers and professors are supposed to have their eyes open to the world. Needless to say, it would be hard to find that many conservatives with that ability.

This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone whose actually been to college. I have one teacher that approaches conservative and that's for my bio class. He's really much closer to libertarian than anything else, however.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html?nav=rss_politics
College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.


Now, does that strike anyone as an eclectic mix of ideas and thought conducive to teaching people how to think, or does it strike you as a monochromatic world view?

Maybe there was some truth to that table of the average IQ of a state versus its vote. :)

Maybe there was some truth to that table of the average IQ of a state versus its vote. :)

Myrth!! I'm glad you said before I did. Hehe. :)

Maybe there was some truth to that table of the average IQ of a state versus its vote. :)

I think that an intelligent conservative is unlikely to teach. They are more likely to go into the private sector and make a lot of money.

I think that an intelligent conservative is unlikely to teach. They are more likely to go into the private sector and make a lot of money.
precisely. i've noticed a general trend in my field, wherein the "liberal" scientists tend to become researchers and teachers in academia and the "conservatives" tend to leave for industry positions once they get their degree. it's not a hard-and-fast rule, but it is a pretty strong trend. i see nothing wrong with that.

I think perhaps the majority of academia is liberal simply because academia is traditionally liberal - conservatives, by the very definition of the word, are not prepared to accept change as readily as academia often has to cope with.

Ahh, yes, so I guess the solution here is maybe for you conservatives to embrace hypocrisy and introduce a kind of affirmative action for conservative teachers in educational institutions?

Heh.

Well, what else do you want?

precisely. i've noticed a general trend in my field, wherein the "liberal" scientists tend to become researchers and teachers in academia and the "conservatives" tend to leave for industry positions once they get their degree. it's not a hard-and-fast rule, but it is a pretty strong trend. i see nothing wrong with that.
I agree with Bottle and Whispering Legs on this one.

I think that an intelligent conservative is unlikely to teach. They are more likely to go into the private sector and make a lot of money.

Because God forbid they should ever contribute back to society.

Much as I would like to believe in a strong correlation between intellectual ability and a distaste for right-wing policies, I think this is probably due to the USA's drastically skewed ideas of "left" and "right". I'm sure there are many US so-called "liberal" academics who, in any European country, would be small-c conservative/Christian Democrat voters.

Because God forbid they should ever contribute back to society.

One might argue that sitting on your laurels, teaching mid-level English Lit courses isn't exactly contributing to society.

I think it makes sense. Teachers and professors are supposed to have their eyes open to the world. Needless to say, it would be hard to find that many conservatives with that ability.

I would tend to disagree-the lemminglike embracing of shoddy work in the Environmental Sciences by Academics argues firmly against it-they don't apply their own theoretical 'standards' to it, including adversarial Peer-Review and required full-disclosure of methods (I'm speaking specifically of the 'Global Warming' scare, and Dr. Mann's Hockeystick graph).

"Having your Eyes open" to the world includes seeing things that don't fit into the doctrines of Dialectical Materialism and Engelsian Economics.

It also includes the ability to acknowledge past mistakes, without attempting to compound them with nonexistent 'compensations' that serve only as a means of furthering both the negative stereotypes, and unproductive sense of victimization. Admitting that bad things were done by important men 150 years ago does not include trying to turn that into financial compensation for the descendents of the victims of those bad men-the perpetrators are dead, have been dead for a long time. Will STILL be dead tomorrow. It's like trying to hunt down the descendents of Oliver Cromwell's army to try them for crimes against the Crown comitted in the 1650's... TODAY.

Finally, there are, on many campuses, groups that collect money for organizations like the Khmer Rouge, Al-Queada, Hizb-Allah (Party of God), and those lovely fellows in the Sendero Luminoso-who also supplement their war agianst Capitalism by kidnapping people (From MANY different backgrounds and nations), Selling drugs, and gathering 'recruits' at gunpoint in local villages.

What American Leftists see, is Idealism, what the rest of us see, is "He may be Idealistic, but he's killing people and comitting crimes." It's not being closed-minded to decide that maybe someone trying to turn a country back to Year Zero by butchering anyone with an education might be an evil thing, and maybe he ought to be stopped, nor is it being Closed-minded to decide that you really don't want to let someone who sells cocaine and kidnaps people achieve his 'workers Paradise'-especially with the shining examples of North Korea, Kampuchea, Iran, Taliban Afghanistan (Where they killed widows who had no sons, and forbade women to have an education), Saddam's Iraq (with RAPE ROOMS! and forty some odd thousand unidentified bodies at the last broadcast-killed, and warehoused, by the gentle Ba'athist regime), etc.

Some of these ARE our fault, which makes it more amusing to realize that these same people are objecting to the correction of the mistake-the mistake being that we let it happen and even helped it along by supplying these (Censored) with arms during the Cold War... should we not remove them? should we let it fester, to justify more self-flagellating white-guilt? Or, should the U.S., as the largest and most powerful military presence on earth, do something about it?




It is not ignoring the obvious, or keeping your eyes closed, to understand that negotiations, sanctions, and endless meetings with Bhoutros Ghali aren't going to deal with the mistakes of the past. It's not being closed to the world to realize that some people will not listen to anything but force, and that some evils require the spilling of blood to stop. Chamberlain's Lesson is that a Peace on Paper is only a Piece Of Paper if you are not willing to back it up with actions. What is disconnected in Academia, is that while they are willing to lay blame on the U.S., they are inherently unwilling to acknowledge when responsibility is engaged by the U.S.

That's a problem. That's a problem of the Echo-Chamber, where what is heard is only what the observer has already said, or already believes.
Monochromatic politics (thanks WL) is an echo chamber, not a means of percieving the truth, but only of establishing a "Personal Truth" which may, or may not, have anything to do with what is really happening.

And that, dear, is the problem with having only one side represented. It doesn't teach "HOW to think", but rather "What you MUST think if you want to pass this class."

Because God forbid they should ever contribute back to society.
what, so industry doesn't contribute to society? i hardly think it's fair to make that claim.

some people are interested in teaching; some aren't. some people are interested in messing about with the bitchiness of grants, government funding, and university politics; some aren't. some people would rather have a steady salary and a pension than an uncertain shot at tenure. i can't blame them...it's all personal preference.

You are a professional in a specific industry. That is the one thing that you know how to do, want to do, like doing, and will do. The talents involved include communication skills, interpersonal skills, and critical thinking skills.

Now you are faced with a choice, a political choice. You can choose between a set of policies that give high importance to your chosen industry or a set of policies that disregard your industry and give priorities to other lines of endevour. Who are you going to support, if everything else is equal? The politicians that support you will get your support.

Now compare the social policies of these two political groups with the skills required for the job. Which fits better with the skills. If it is the same group as the group that will support the industry, support from within that industry will be overwhelming. It is.

This does not only apply in the US. Education professionals throughout the Western world are overwhelmingly left of centre in their politics. (It is something like 90% support PT here in Brazil )

Now if the same type of survey was to be made amongst the members of the boards of dirctors of private companies, it is a fair bet that the bias will be opposite.

Verily, that sounds like truth, Alien Born.

It almost makes you wonder, though-the Left-bias hasn't always existed. Many Universities in the United States recieved their landgrants specifically to serve as training fields for Officers (who, despite the prejudice, need to be at least moderately well-educated and somewhat above-average to not-be-fragged by their own guys, or killed by the enemy) of the various State Militias, and the U.S. Army.

the Antimilitary Bias in the Academic Left here in America only started recently. Recently enough for David Drake to notice it in the foreward to the second printing of Hammer's Slammers where he does a short bit on the Historical Mercenary trade.

That was sometime in the mid 1970s, which is, taken from a certain scale, fairly recent.

You can also judge a thing by its results. A study done in the mid-'90s showed that a person graduating High School in 1960 had the equivalent Math and Science education, of a Bachelor's Degree in 1995, and that what we call "High School" today gives equivalent skills to that of a seventh grader from the same time period.

School Teachers are the product of University Educations. Currently sitting somewhere near the bottom of the heap, the worst 20% or so.
School Administrators usually come from the ranks of Teachers-also the bottom 20% of College Grads. Note that in 1950, kids put guns in their lockers in the midwest because they were going shooting after school, today, we have kids coming to school with guns to shoot other kids.

Is the Monochromatic view (and subsequent studies noted by posters) really producing a superior product, or only one that is good at taking tests written from a specific point of view?

IF, as some in Academia have insisted, 'intelligence tests' are really tests of someone's grasp of a particular cultural background, then it might be said that any test of the intelligence of a group of voters, written by people who share their views, is likely to show them to be 'more intelligent' than those whose perspectives differ in marked and visible ways.

further, if you have a monoculture in an educational institution, you may find that your 'education' is closer to 'indoctrination'-and that, depending on how objective the results MUST be in order to pass a particular stage of that institution, a smaller number of those whose views differ will be able to 'pass' to possession of a higher education certificate.

In fields like Law, where the outcome is, often as not, a matter of an Opinion, as opposed to objective fact, then... you're more likely to graduate Liberal Lawyers, than Conservative Lawyers-because point of view influences answers on standardized tests. The same with Psychology, and soft-sciences like Sociology. Further, since Academics, by definition, are not working in the private sector, they have more time to goof off with political causes than those working in private sector positions. They also have a vested interest in maintaining the flow of government monies to their departments-this will, as Alien Born pointed out, influence thier political views with the colouration of their own needs.

This makes some announcements quite...suspicious. Dow Chemical announcing that Freon 12 destroys ozone right as they release Freon 132, for instance, (incidentally, this occurred as the patent-rights on Freon 12 were expiring...)


Likewise, Academics throughout the land signing onto the 'Man made Global Warming' hypothesis (which, when presented to scientifically illiterate politicians, resulted in a lot of money being spent on Grants and funding) without accounting for measured changes, or checking to see if the Mann Model would result in a hockeystick if random numbers were the input, as opposed to actual data... and without accounting for the fact that the sun is a Class G2 Variable star, with varying output... or that the earth wobbles in its rotation... or that Mt. Pinatoubo released as much Greenhouse Gas as the entire Industrial age up to 1987 (when it went off) and more...
In other words, buying off on a hypothesis that ignored pertinent evidence, then selling it to easily frightened National Governments... is also suspicious.

Taking it as Sincerity means you have some sincerely bad science in the Universities, taking it as fraud, means you have University academics acting to protect rice-bowls at the expense of the Taxpayer.

Good Science means you NEVER 'massage' the Data to get a specific result-and it also means your methods are 'transparent', you don't hold back on critical bits, or change the experiment, or ignore pertinent factors in order to obtain parity. It also means you find someone who is likely to disagree with you to run the peer-review portion of the process... unfortunately, if your only contacts are those that agree with your views beforehand are available, you're not going to get a good test. This applies as much to social theory, as it does to hard Science.

hahahaha I just don’t get this at all. Really maybe the university structure in the U.S is radically different from over here, but I’ve just never seen education, nah individual universities been aligned to individual parties before.

Do the people writing these reports realise that of course the beliefs of the individual speaker are going to effect the way that he teaches, how could it not in reality.

I also find it strange how being 'liberal' is painted as a bad thing, is that not the whole point of education to approach things with a liberal mind, evaluate them all and then form your opinions.

Hell, I’m just an outsider looking in, but the view looks pretty confusing.
Perhaps some one could try and explain to me how if at all American universities are different from British ones.

Because God forbid they should ever contribute back to society.


Nice generalization. I for one, make many contibutions to society, as do my family and friends,the bulk of which have conservative views.
As long as we are generalizing, someone has to pay taxes, dont they?

what, so industry doesn't contribute to society? i hardly think it's fair to make that claim.

some people are interested in teaching; some aren't. some people are interested in messing about with the bitchiness of grants, government funding, and university politics; some aren't. some people would rather have a steady salary and a pension than an uncertain shot at tenure. i can't blame them...it's all personal preference.

To go even further, some people who teach can only deal in life with children. They can only speak where they wont be challenged. And after a while, start to bring opinions into the curriculum. A teacher's political ideas should not become part of whats taught, unless that is the specified course.

If the overwhelming majority of the most intelligent people are liberal, what does that say about conservative ideas?

I would tend to disagree-the lemminglike embracing of shoddy work in the Environmental Sciences by Academics argues firmly against it-they don't apply their own theoretical 'standards' to it, including adversarial Peer-Review and required full-disclosure of methods (I'm speaking specifically of the 'Global Warming' scare, and Dr. Mann's Hockeystick graph).

"Having your Eyes open" to the world includes seeing things that don't fit into the doctrines of Dialectical Materialism and Engelsian Economics.

It also includes the ability to acknowledge past mistakes, without attempting to compound them with nonexistent 'compensations' that serve only as a means of furthering both the negative stereotypes, and unproductive sense of victimization. Admitting that bad things were done by important men 150 years ago does not include trying to turn that into financial compensation for the descendents of the victims of those bad men-the perpetrators are dead, have been dead for a long time. Will STILL be dead tomorrow. It's like trying to hunt down the descendents of Oliver Cromwell's army to try them for crimes against the Crown comitted in the 1650's... TODAY.

Finally, there are, on many campuses, groups that collect money for organizations like the Khmer Rouge, Al-Queada, Hizb-Allah (Party of God), and those lovely fellows in the Sendero Luminoso-who also supplement their war agianst Capitalism by kidnapping people (From MANY different backgrounds and nations), Selling drugs, and gathering 'recruits' at gunpoint in local villages.

What American Leftists see, is Idealism, what the rest of us see, is "He may be Idealistic, but he's killing people and comitting crimes." It's not being closed-minded to decide that maybe someone trying to turn a country back to Year Zero by butchering anyone with an education might be an evil thing, and maybe he ought to be stopped, nor is it being Closed-minded to decide that you really don't want to let someone who sells cocaine and kidnaps people achieve his 'workers Paradise'-especially with the shining examples of North Korea, Kampuchea, Iran, Taliban Afghanistan (Where they killed widows who had no sons, and forbade women to have an education), Saddam's Iraq (with RAPE ROOMS! and forty some odd thousand unidentified bodies at the last broadcast-killed, and warehoused, by the gentle Ba'athist regime), etc.

Some of these ARE our fault, which makes it more amusing to realize that these same people are objecting to the correction of the mistake-the mistake being that we let it happen and even helped it along by supplying these (Censored) with arms during the Cold War... should we not remove them? should we let it fester, to justify more self-flagellating white-guilt? Or, should the U.S., as the largest and most powerful military presence on earth, do something about it?




It is not ignoring the obvious, or keeping your eyes closed, to understand that negotiations, sanctions, and endless meetings with Bhoutros Ghali aren't going to deal with the mistakes of the past. It's not being closed to the world to realize that some people will not listen to anything but force, and that some evils require the spilling of blood to stop. Chamberlain's Lesson is that a Peace on Paper is only a Piece Of Paper if you are not willing to back it up with actions. What is disconnected in Academia, is that while they are willing to lay blame on the U.S., they are inherently unwilling to acknowledge when responsibility is engaged by the U.S.

That's a problem. That's a problem of the Echo-Chamber, where what is heard is only what the observer has already said, or already believes.
Monochromatic politics (thanks WL) is an echo chamber, not a means of percieving the truth, but only of establishing a "Personal Truth" which may, or may not, have anything to do with what is really happening.

And that, dear, is the problem with having only one side represented. It doesn't teach "HOW to think", but rather "What you MUST think if you want to pass this class."
Amen, I encounter it a lot at high school too, but that may just be because i live in a very liberal area of the country

Same to you CL

If the overwhelming majority of the most intelligent people are liberal, what does that say about conservative ideas?


Who said they are the "most intelligent" ? There is certainly nothing to support that anywhere. They are just teachers. If there is anything anywhere showing that teachers are the most intelligent people, we are in serious trouble.

Maybe its just the opposite-intelligent conservatives are more confident in their intelligence and dont need to inflict themselves and their beliefs on young, impressionables? They dont need to instill their personal ideas and values on children.

Waddaya know, a liberal profession is actually full of liberal people.
What's next? Are you going to tell me that corporations are full of conservative people?

Also, show me where a liberal can't make abstraciton of his own views when correcting an assignment.

Even better, tell me how a conservative and a liberal would teach biology differently.

I think it makes sense. Teachers and professors are supposed to have their eyes open to the world. Needless to say, it would be hard to find that many conservatives with that ability.
I totally disagree. By having their eyes open to the world, they ought to accept that there are other world view-points, not just their's. The lecturers I had on my undergraduate degree were (almost without exception) liberal, and I found them extremely closed-minded. If you wanted to do well, you said what they wanted you to say, whether or not you had a superlative arguement against it. There were one or two that were liberal in their own thinking (I don't think I remember any that weren't liberal in some shape or form), but recognised other arguments, sensibly critiqued them, and accepted someone's non-liberal arguments if they were well thought out, articulate and intelligent. These were the best lecturers - the rest were mostly crap. Their beliefs may well be correct - indeed, I agreed with many, though not all, of them - but that doesn't mean that they should ignore every intelligent, well argued theory that they are presented with. Sadly, though, that's exactly what they seem to do.

One might argue that sitting on your laurels, teaching mid-level English Lit courses isn't exactly contributing to society.
And of course it's a well-known fact that EVERY liberal-minded professor at University nationwide teaches mid-level English Lit courses. Whilst sitting on their laurels, of course.
Following on from that, it's also a well-known fact that learning English lit in no ways contributes anything at all to our society.
Added to that, it's also blantantly apparent that a liberal minded mathematics professor (when s/he's not teaching mid-level English Lit obviously) for example is evidently going to be seriously affected by their political beliefs when grading exam papers.
Because liberal people can't help themselves but to cram their beliefs down everybody's throat at every possible opportunity. Unlike ultra-conservative Christians, say, who are the very model of demure and modest polictical character.


I guess the fact that 87% of faculties at elite schools are liberal, as opposed to 13% for conservatives, shows that for every intelligent conservative there's 7 intelligent liberals.
Though one does wonder how to explain the fact that these elite schools tend to be populated by the children of extremely wealthy and, statistically-speaking, usually very conservative families. They apparently don't have a problem with sending their sons and daughters to such scary liberal bastions.

Let's see. I am a conservative. I am a political science major. There are four teachers for the pol. sci. department, all with PhDs, three female, one male. Of them, the male is centrist, the three females are liberal, very liberal, and ultra liberal. Aside from the ultra-liberal, because she's a scatter-brain nitwit, I have absolutely no problems with the other professors. They do not shun conservative thought or discussion in the classrooms nor do they push their beliefs onto anyone. Personally, I find that very respectable and can't bitch, moan, or complain.

I guess the fact that 87% of faculties at elite schools are liberal, as opposed to 13% for conservatives, shows that for every intelligent conservative there's 7 intelligent liberals.

In a university environment. But if we take Alien Born's argument as also true, and the figures are reversed outside of academia, then for every intelligent liberal outside of a university, there are 7 intelligent conservatives.

Oh, and I suppose that we'll take it as true that a highly paid board certified vascular surgeon who doesn't teach English Lit never made a contribution to society - in fact, he never even saved anyone's life.

We could also take it as "fact" that no one without a degree from a liberal elite university ever did anything of consequence, or ever contributed anything to society. In "fact", people who aren't liberal and didn't graduate from a liberal elite university are completely and utterly worthless crap heads.

Let's see. I am a conservative. I am a political science major. There are four teachers for the pol. sci. department, all with PhDs, three female, one male. Of them, the male is centrist, the three females are liberal, very liberal, and ultra liberal. Aside from the ultra-liberal, because she's a scatter-brain nitwit, I have absolutely no problems with the other professors. They do not shun conservative thought or discussion in the classrooms nor do they push their beliefs onto anyone. Personally, I find that very respectable and can't bitch, moan, or complain.

I, too, am a political science major, and we have a fair balance of liberal and conservative teachers. The liberal students don't tend to complain about the conservative teachers (even though there's been some abuse of power, I've seen it happen on occasion), and when they do, it's usually to the appropriate people (I.e. the dean). But, boy do the some of the conservative students BITCH about the liberal profs! One kid that I know was moaning and complaining about how her "liberal" professor tried to tell them the liberal viewpoint on a topic (AFTER she presented the other side, the professor had been trying to spark a debate). She just didn't even want to hear it! Luckily those are in the minority, but it's very annoying, since they take it to the paper, and try to drag the professors' names in the mud BEFORE they take it to the dean. All the drama does is make the dean LESS sympathetic to their plight (most of the deans here are VERY conservative).

I personally think the whole "Liberal vs. Conservative" thing is getting old. Who cares anymore? I have conservative friends, and I don't hold it against them that they are, so why should anyone else hold political beliefs against someone?

If the overwhelming majority of the most intelligent people are liberal, what does that say about conservative ideas?

Hmm....generalizations galore......gradualy in this day and age..."intelligence" and "regurgitation" are interchanged....graduating the top of your class only means that youa re able to say exacly what the professor wants you to say. it involves no real thought. People that actually think for themselves seem not to dao as well becasue we tend to ask questions. I was once dressed down in a psyc class because i asked the professor about a research method. He didn;t have the answer so he decided to paint me as ignorant. He was ignorant in trying to squelch my free thought. People that the world sees as "intelligent" are merely mindless automotons, spewing what the world puts into them. The popel that graduated the top of my high school class were liberal. And they were seen as intelligent. But when asked to think on their own...the were severly lacking. THey do terrible on standardized tests since there is no way to study for them, and there was noone to tell them what they needed to say....what does that say about mainsteram liberalism. i know...they only do wat they are told. how's that for a generalization.

If the overwhelming majority of the most intelligent people are liberal, what does that say about conservative ideas?

Since when are the "most intelligent people" only to be found working in academia?

I think you'll find that "most people" aren't in academia. And I bet that "most intelligent people" aren't in academia, either.

And just because someone works as an academic, does that really mean they are "intelligent"? I've met some really stupid people, especially in the philosophy department.

I'm willing to grant that academics in a particle physics area would be intelligent. But I'm hardly willing to grant that same "intelligence" level to every other department without question.

And just because someone works as an academic, does that really mean they are "intelligent"? I've met some really stupid people, especially in the philosophy department.
I've met some professors that were rather on the slow side as well. For instance, one English professor that has trouble spelling "slow" and "understand", and is horrendously bad at using proper grammar, which is rather funny since he is an English professor and all, and you'd think they'd only hire people who actually know how to teach English...

I also find it strange how being 'liberal' is painted as a bad thing, is that not the whole point of education to approach things with a liberal mind, evaluate them all and then form your opinions.

Yes, but those are considered very bad things by the current "conservative" bunch. Conservatives these days consider the formation of one's own opinions to be tantamount to treason. If you're not whole-heartedly embracing everything that the Bush administration tells you then you must not be a loyal American.

Being liberal means that if Bush is wrong for doing something then you might not support him in it. Since he's wrong so much then you won't be loyal to the empire if you're prone to go around believing inconvenient things just because they happen to be true.

Why do you think that Ann Coulter called her book "Treason."

Yes, but those are considered very bad things by the current "conservative" bunch. Conservatives these days consider the formation of one's own opinions to be tantamount to treason. If you're not whole-heartedly embracing everything that the Bush administration tells you then you must not be a loyal American.

Being liberal means that if Bush is wrong for doing something then you might not support him in it. Since he's wrong so much then you won't be loyal to the empire if you're prone to go around believing inconvenient things just because they happen to be true.

Why do you think that Ann Coulter called her book "Treason."

You haven't heard Al Franken's characterization of conservatives?

You would think that conservatives were bringing about the end of the world as we know it.

Since when are the "most intelligent people" only to be found working in academia?

I think you'll find that "most people" aren't in academia. And I bet that "most intelligent people" aren't in academia, either.

And just because someone works as an academic, does that really mean they are "intelligent"? I've met some really stupid people, especially in the philosophy department.

I'm willing to grant that academics in a particle physics area would be intelligent. But I'm hardly willing to grant that same "intelligence" level to every other department without question.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. It's not intelligence, it's the politics that these feilds either attract or engender.

History tends to lean left. If you look at political questions throughout the history if America and then you see that most of the damage that's been done was the result of policies that would be closest to conservative by modern standards. Things like slavery and union busting for the sake of large scale economic concerns.

Humanities tend to lean left because modern conservatives tend to be rather hostile to their interests. Anti NEA, cutting school music programs etc.

Economics tend to be against both sides because modern conservatives propose taxing too little to support the treasury, liberals propose more taxation. Although these days they tend to acknowledge that the policies of the right are making those of the left more and more correct.

Business profs tend to lean right because... Well they teach business, which means they made their living in business and know how to manipulate the policies of right leaning policies.

If you start hiring people based on their political leanings then you're going to screw these depts. up. Just imagine if half of the professors in the art department of a college thought that their department should be de-funded in favor of the business department?

You haven't heard Al Franken's characterization of conservatives?

You would think that conservatives were bringing about the end of the world as we know it.
You mean you guys really aren't immanentizing the Eschaton?

Damn.

Now I'll have to come up with something else to rail against in every spare moment.
Perhaps the Freemasons? They're an easy target. Or maybe Buddhists, there aen't many people yelling about them yet.
:D

You mean you guys really aren't immanentizing the Eschaton?


No, I'm working on an information singularity of infinite density, so that I can create a consciousness-expanding universe-destroying soliton.

Now, does that strike anyone as an eclectic mix of ideas and thought conducive to teaching people how to think, or does it strike you as a monochromatic world view?
It seems that you assume that all professors will attempt to propagandise or brainwash their students.

Besides, being a Democrat hardly makes anyone an extreme lefty.

I think that an intelligent conservative is unlikely to teach. They are more likely to go into the private sector and make a lot of money.
Probably true. So why are you complaining about the status quo?

Ahh, yes, so I guess the solution here is maybe for you conservatives to embrace hypocrisy and introduce a kind of affirmative action for conservative teachers in educational institutions?

Heh.

Well, what else do you want?
That's what I have ALWAYS BEEN SUGGESTING!

Because God forbid they should ever contribute back to society.
Plenty of good things come from the private sector, you commie!

Much as I would like to believe in a strong correlation between intellectual ability and a distaste for right-wing policies, I think this is probably due to the USA's drastically skewed ideas of "left" and "right". I'm sure there are many US so-called "liberal" academics who, in any European country, would be small-c conservative/Christian Democrat voters.
Indeed, my friends who are in university tell me that of the teachers who give away any hint of their politics are generally centrists. Which no doubt equates to extreme socialist in American terms. :rolleyes:

I think it makes sense. Teachers and professors are supposed to have their eyes open to the world. Needless to say, it would be hard to find that many conservatives with that ability.

True. They're too busy actually running it.

holy hell, are there no people who are able to rise above this petty partisan bickering?!

let's get a few things straight:

at least in America, it is pretty hard to obtain a PhD if you are total moron. anybody who has legitmately earned a PhD from a reputable institution is somebody you can reasonably assume has at least slightly above average intelligence, though you may think they are a total dipshit in personal life. as somebody working to earn my PhD, i can assure you all that it is no cakewalk, and i would really appreciate if people would show some respect for the effort and the drive it takes to attain higher degrees. i'm sure there are some stupid people who manage to get their hands on a PhD, but they are extreme exceptions to the rule.

since the majority of institutions require a PhD for faculty positions, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of these "liberal" profs are at least somewhat intelligent as compared to the average Joe. remember, smart people can have some stupid ideas, so just because a person's politics are silly or misguided doesn't mean they are necessarily stupid.

on the other hand, just because there aren't as many conservatives teaching at university does NOT mean liberals must be smarter. many extremely talented and intelligent people leave academia, or never join it to start with, because they feel more at home in industry or in other areas. saying that smart people are inherently liberal, or that liberals are inherently smarter than conservatives, is pointless and unfounded.

people need to remember that personality is as much a factor as talent. it is possible that there is no correlation at all between intelligence and political orientation, but rather that it's a matter of inclination; people who prefer jobs in industry might also be people who tend to have more conservative ideas (or vice versa), while people who find academia enjoyable may also tend to have more liberal leanings. if anybody has numbers on the political affiliations of APPLICANTS to various positions, that might be helpful in answering this question.

I, too, am a political science major, and we have a fair balance of liberal and conservative teachers. The liberal students don't tend to complain about the conservative teachers (even though there's been some abuse of power, I've seen it happen on occasion), and when they do, it's usually to the appropriate people (I.e. the dean). But, boy do the some of the conservative students BITCH about the liberal profs! One kid that I know was moaning and complaining about how her "liberal" professor tried to tell them the liberal viewpoint on a topic (AFTER she presented the other side, the professor had been trying to spark a debate). She just didn't even want to hear it! Luckily those are in the minority, but it's very annoying, since they take it to the paper, and try to drag the professors' names in the mud BEFORE they take it to the dean. All the drama does is make the dean LESS sympathetic to their plight (most of the deans here are VERY conservative).

I personally think the whole "Liberal vs. Conservative" thing is getting old. Who cares anymore? I have conservative friends, and I don't hold it against them that they are, so why should anyone else hold political beliefs against someone?

These so-called "conservatives" you speak of are just whimps. Let's just call them Republicans ;). But yes I must concur. The Republicans always bitch, whine, and moan about having liberal professors, who I have yet to see push their point of view (sans that Ultra-Liberal one but her opinion isn't worth much, to be honest. Not because of ultra-liberal but because a fact is an opinion when it contradicts her and an opinion is a fact when it goes with her). I just laugh at these people that whine though and just tell them that it's up to them to listen to what the other side presents so that you know what they'll say in a debate. However, I doubt much of these people could debate more than 30 seconds anyway so. Hell the Dean of Arts & Science for my school is an uber-liberal and I must admit that what can I say, he let us do a voter registration drive outside the office (providing we didn't register for one party but then again, what he didn't know didn't hurt him or us ;).

holy hell, are there no people who are able to rise above this petty partisan bickering?!


I'm not bickering. Here's an observation.

Kwon's Second Law
In any population, 10 percent will be assholes.

So, given a population of professors, regardless of their political leanings, 10 percent will be assholes. Since we see from the study that the majority will be liberals, then we're going to have a lot of liberal assholes (and a small, but measurable number of conservative assholes).

Rather than deal with the problem of assholism, people would rather say, "well, those people are assholes because they're <fill in the political leaning>"

People who don't want to deal with assholism rationally are usually assholes.

I THINK IT WAS JOHN STEWART MILLS THAT SAID : WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID PEOPLE... IT IS TRUE THAT ALL STUPID PEOPLE ARE CONSERVATIVES!

WHAT WOULD THE RIGHT WING HAVE US DO HIRE LESS QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSERVITIVE? Sounds a lot like one of thier favoriite whipping boys affirmitive action! LOL!!!!

I THINK IT WAS JOHN STEWART MILLS THAT SAID : WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID PEOPLE... IT IS TRUE THAT ALL STUPID PEOPLE ARE CONSERVATIVES!

WHAT WOULD THE RIGHT WING HAVE US DO HIRE LESS QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSERVITIVE? Sounds a lot like one of thier favoriite whipping boys affirmitive action! LOL!!!!
*sigh*

I THINK IT WAS JOHN STEWART MILLS THAT SAID : WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID PEOPLE... IT IS TRUE THAT ALL STUPID PEOPLE ARE CONSERVATIVES!

WHAT WOULD THE RIGHT WING HAVE US DO HIRE LESS QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSERVITIVE? Sounds a lot like one of thier favoriite whipping boys affirmitive action! LOL!!!!

CAPS off is a nice thing to do. Secondly, you are a dumbass and trying to incite a flame war.

i would love to see a poll that compares the attitudes on this subject of people who are actually in academia (as a grad student or a prof or whatever) to those who are not in academia. barring that, perhaps people on this thread would be willing to share their experience level when it comes to academia...?

I THINK IT WAS JOHN STEWART MILLS THAT SAID : WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID PEOPLE... IT IS TRUE THAT ALL STUPID PEOPLE ARE CONSERVATIVES!

WHAT WOULD THE RIGHT WING HAVE US DO HIRE LESS QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSERVITIVE? Sounds a lot like one of thier favoriite whipping boys affirmitive action! LOL!!!!

Just a classic example of what I was talking about...

True. They're too busy actually running it.

Hmm... I wouldn't be too proud of that. They're not doing that great of a job.

i would love to see a poll that compares the attitudes on this subject of people who are actually in academia (as a grad student or a prof or whatever) to those who are not in academia. barring that, perhaps people on this thread would be willing to share their experience level when it comes to academia...?

That wouldn't be a bad idea. We should also do a poll to find out just how many of those non-academia people are actually in college and in political science or philosophy as majors. The number for the majors would probably be very low.

School Teachers are the product of University Educations. Currently sitting somewhere near the bottom of the heap, the worst 20% or so.
School Administrators usually come from the ranks of Teachers-also the bottom 20% of College Grads. Note that in 1950, kids put guns in their lockers in the midwest because they were going shooting after school, today, we have kids coming to school with guns to shoot other kids.Is this really true? I'm going into teaching and, although I don't like to toot my own horn, I like to think I'm on the intelligent side.

Maybe its just the opposite-intelligent conservatives are more confident in their intelligence and dont need to inflict themselves and their beliefs on young, impressionables? They dont need to instill their personal ideas and values on children.You don't get into education to "inflict your views" on "impressionable young people", to paraphrase. You get into education to better your fellow humans and help them better their position in life. I'm sorry you have such a poor opinion of educators, but you're very, very wrong about them.

As to the issue at hand, I have only personal experience to go on, and the only professor of mine that has ever expressed his political opinion to me was my "United States History, 1865-Present" professor. And that wasn't in class - that was after class, when I approached him about the election and asked him about his thoughts on certain subjects.

The only other professor to make an ideological statement was my Constitual and Civil Liberties professor, who is also a lawyer and simply teaches in his spare time; and he's a Libertarian. Nyah.

There isn't a whole helluva lotta room for an English Novel, Algebra, Natural Science, Public Speaking or Psychology professor to make their views known in relation to the class material.

That wouldn't be a bad idea. We should also do a poll to find out just how many of those non-academia people are actually in college and in political science or philosophy as majors. The number for the majors would probably be very low.
well, i'm comfortable sharing my background...

i have bachelor's degrees in biology, philosophy, and psychology, and i have begun working toward a PhD in pharmacology or neuroscience.

well, i'm comfortable sharing my background...

i have bachelor's degrees in biology, philosophy, and psychology, and i have begun working toward a PhD in pharmacology or neuroscience.

That's a helluva lot of degrees. What do you have a Masters in?

There's no doubt that Academia is liberal. Accusations of "indoctrination", however, are ridiculous. Claims that of "discrimination" also have little credibility. Because even when you propose that every college be required to have a grades review committee of students and staff (which many already do), Conservatives still say, "NO! Because most students AND teachers are liberal! It's a conspiracy! They'll ALL discriminate!"

That's a helluva lot of degrees. What do you have a Masters in?
lol, nothing yet :).

Because God forbid they should ever contribute back to society.

Don't worry, many of them will do that by PROVIDING JOBS with the businesses they'll start.

lol, nothing yet :).

How can you go from Bachelors to a PhD without a Masters?

I went to an extremely liberal school (University of Wisconsin-Madison) for my undergrad (BA-Journalism... took courses outside my major in Mathematics, American History, Medieval European History, Biology, Music, Chemistry, Poli Sci, Fairy Tales of Hans Christian Andersen, Demography, and Criminology... ended up with what I think was a very well-rounded education.)

I took the word "Liberal education" to mean that we are taught how to think, not what to think.

How can you go from Bachelors to a PhD without a Masters?Earning a Masters and earning a PhD involve two seperate, though similar, paths. I think.

How can you go from Bachelors to a PhD without a Masters?
many people do. you apply to grad school straight out of undergrad. that's what my folks did, and what i am doing right now. in some PhD programs you get your masters after 2 years and then continue for another 3 or 4 to get the full PhD, but other programs just skip the masters part because there's not really any point to having a masters if you also have a PhD in that field.

Is this really true? I'm going into teaching and, although I don't like to toot my own horn, I like to think I'm on the intelligent side.

Likewise. I'm going into education and I'm in the top 10%.

However I will admit that education does not exactly go out of its way to court the high achievers. Generally when you want the best you have to pay for it. Conservatives don't like paying for things so they just bitch about it. The result is that you end up with talented teachers who are in it because of altruism and, since the conservative definition of altruism is "100% cliche," those teachers will be overwhelmingly liberal and those who are in it because they're not talented enough to do anything else, but they're not usually talented enough to teach either.

Interesting...I ought to look into that.

The only other professor to make an ideological statement was my Constitual and Civil Liberties professor, who is also a lawyer and simply teaches in his spare time; and he's a Libertarian. Nyah.

You do realize that libertarians are the closest things to classically liberal as you get in the US right?

You do realize that libertarians are the closest things to classically liberal as you get in the US right?
hooray for CLASSIC liberalism! :)

many people do. you apply to grad school straight out of undergrad. that's what my folks did, and what i am doing right now. in some PhD programs you get your masters after 2 years and then continue for another 3 or 4 to get the full PhD, but other programs just skip the masters part because there's not really any point to having a masters if you also have a PhD in that field.

like medicine or law

"Check it out! I have a Master of Medicine degree! Woo hoo! I'm now qualified to be a veterinarian or a nurse!"

or

"Man, I worked hard to become a paralegal... had to get my JM -- Juris Master -- degree. It took a whole year!"

You do realize that libertarians are the closest things to classically liberal as you get in the US right?Indeed sir. I believe the original post had to do with university faculty being liberal in the sense of leftism, not Adam Smith-style liberalism. That's why I drew a difference. Am I missing something?

Is this really true? I'm going into teaching and, although I don't like to toot my own horn, I like to think I'm on the intelligent side.

You don't get into education to "inflict your views" on "impressionable young people", to paraphrase. You get into education to better your fellow humans and help them better their position in life. I'm sorry you have such a poor opinion of educators, but you're very, very wrong about them.

As to the issue at hand, I have only personal experience to go on, and the only professor of mine that has ever expressed his political opinion to me was my "United States History, 1865-Present" professor. And that wasn't in class - that was after class, when I approached him about the election and asked him about his thoughts on certain subjects.

The only other professor to make an ideological statement was my Constitual and Civil Liberties professor, who is also a lawyer and simply teaches in his spare time; and he's a Libertarian. Nyah.

There isn't a whole helluva lotta room for an English Novel, Algebra, Natural Science, Public Speaking or Psychology professor to make their views known in relation to the class material.

You've had a string of rare gems, then...

Yes, it's true, Trammwerk-but don't feel bad. There are intelligent people in any profession, you might be lucky and be one of the smart ones.
I took a Gen-Ed class last year, (basically it's a prep-class for people who are going specifically to become teachers), and found most of my fellow students were...not on the particularly bright side.
This experience convinced me that I didn't want to go into that field, surprisingly petty, neh? (eh...maybe not a surprise, looking at some of the posts I've done lately...) but it basically provided evidence of something I'd always assumed was bullshit-wishful thinking on the part of people who don't respect teachers.

It also showed me why I was taking classes to make up for the shoddy education I got in Public schools, and told me volumes about the background behind the 'education crisis' in America. It's a self-inflicted wound, because you've got all the worst traits of a large Beaurocracy combined with Professionals using a Labour Union.

Teaching-when you actually are Teaching is an honourable profession, certainly more honourable than being a tort-lawyer or Politician.

Sadly, it's also a profession that attracts distinctly un professional people in droves. (Kinda like the Jocks who take Geology because they heard it was an easy class... tutoring a group of people whom are allegedly adults in those classes nearly drove me back to the bottle. How can someone get into even JUNIOR college without learning how to do long-division, or understanding that Ice is less dense than liquid water... it was aggravating as hell. I don't have the patient nature to teach, I guess...)

True. They're too busy actually running it.
This calls for an "evil empire" alert.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html?nav=rss_politics
College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.


Now, does that strike anyone as an eclectic mix of ideas and thought conducive to teaching people how to think, or does it strike you as a monochromatic world view?

Unless the study had evidence that anyone was not being hired because of their views, you really have no point. All you have shown is that people of a more liberal stance are more likely to go into academia.

Unless the study had evidence that anyone was not being hired because of their views, you really have no point. All you have shown is that people of a more liberal stance are more likely to go into academia.

We'll be shipping your Conservative conversion pod tonight...

Hmm. Those at levels of higher learning are more likely to be liberal. Hmm.

But besides the obvious, that social progressive and intelligence go hand in hand, how 'bout the question of where are the compassionate conservatives that are going to teach the religious and ignorant youth of America for fractions of minimum wage... hmm? No, didn't think so. Only us softy pinko commies are actually selfless enough to care for the ignorant masses and are smart enough to boot.

We'll be shipping your Conservative conversion pod tonight...

Why, cause he hit the nail on the head? You have no point.
Only trolling and being stupid.

Wanna do something about it? Go into teaching... if you're smart enough.

Why, cause he hit the nail on the head? You have no point.
Only trolling and being stupid.

Wanna do something about it? Go into teaching... if you're smart enough.

Since when are teachers universally smarter than people of equal higher education who do NOT teach?

Since when are teachers universally smarter than people of equal higher education who do NOT teach?
i don't think he claimed they were...

Why, cause he hit the nail on the head? You have no point.
Only trolling and being stupid.

Wanna do something about it? Go into teaching... if you're smart enough.

Yes, I do have a point. It's true that most academics are liberals. But what of it? Did you see me posting somewhere that it's a HORRRRIBLE thing?

Questionable, perhaps.

And as for the pod joke, which your humorless self couldn't get, here's an explanation of the joke...
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408741

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week.

and this is contrasted with the general public, where 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal. but based on surveys about the general public's actual attitudes on everything but a few key issues, this mainly tells you about the comparative effectiveness of the right's demonization of the word 'liberal'.

The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

which is not too far off of what the entire country claimed for nearly 40 years after the new deal. a bit low on the republican party id side still, but then again nearly all the conservatives jumped ship from academia seeking higher pay decades ago. why be a chem prof when you can make three times as much helping bp greenwash itself? hell, why be a phil/ethics prof when they have started hiring ethicists outside of the university?

i don't think he claimed they were...
He was saying "if you're smart enough".

Most teachers I've known had trouble thinking their way out of a wet paper bag.

He was saying "if you're smart enough".

Most teachers I've known had trouble thinking their way out of a wet paper bag.
i see nothing in that which implies a teacher is inherently smarter than an equally-eduacted non-teacher.

i'm sorry you've had such crummy teachers, but that's really no reason to insult educators on the whole.

Unless the study had evidence that anyone was not being hired because of their views, you really have no point.
Well, we do know that the tolerant left of playgirl fired one of it's columnists because she was republican, so there is evidence it happens in lefty communities.

Well, we do know that the tolerant left of playgirl fired one of it's columnists because she was republican, so there is evidence it happens in lefty communities.

Yes, because Playgirl=Academia.

We'll be shipping your Conservative conversion pod tonight...

I think those only work on those on the far-left, so it wouldn't really work on me. Sorry.

Wait! I'm a non-conservative, non-liberal in higher education! Oh noes! =)

Well, we do know that the tolerant left of playgirl fired one of it's columnists because she was republican, so there is evidence it happens in lefty communities.
erm, Playgirl really isn't so much an academic institution...but thanks for playing...

Wait! I'm a non-conservative, non-liberal in higher education! Oh noes! =)
me too! yee gods, the infection is spreading!!!

i see nothing in that which implies a teacher is inherently smarter than an equally-eduacted non-teacher.

i'm sorry you've had such crummy teachers, but that's really no reason to insult educators on the whole.

I just don't equate "education" with "intelligence". I have not found the number of "intelligent" people in academia (non-science) to be any higher than in the general population.

I just don't equate "education" with "intelligence". I have not found the number of "intelligent" people in academia (non-science) to be any higher than in the general population.
well, as long as you specify the "non-science" portion of academia, i suppose i can't argue the point because i've never worked in non-science academia. alls i know is that we science types are goddam insufferable smarty-pantses. :)

well, as long as you specify the "non-science" portion of academia, i suppose i can't argue the point because i've never worked in non-science academia. alls i know is that we science types are goddam insufferable smarty-pantses. :)
What I don't get is why science is not a part of Academia?
What possible reason is there to exclude it?

I mean, by that same logic the US (except the poor) is the richest nation per capita!

With exceptions like these, you can prove anything.

well, as long as you specify the "non-science" portion of academia, i suppose i can't argue the point because i've never worked in non-science academia. alls i know is that we science types are goddam insufferable smarty-pantses. :)

At the very least, you can count on a scientist or mathematician to be able to resort to reason. And there's a reason that Mel Brooks called philosophers "bullshit artists".

What I don't get is why science is not a part of Academia?
What possible reason is there to exclude it?

I mean, by that same logic the US (except the poor) is the richest nation per capita!

With exceptions like these, you can prove anything.

True... but separating the science-ghetto from the rest of the Academic world is old hat. there are scads of profs for things like the Literature, Philosophy, History, and Ethics courses, (along with Art, special-interest-lib, and Sensitivity Courses), but Hard-science and Technical courses are comparatively understaffed outside of specialist schools. The criteria are different, too. Science types have to actually produce measurable and confirmable results (Unless they're hawking the latest chicken-little fads to boost funding). That Alone separates the Science and (to a degree) Mathematics fields from the rest of Academia. Check it out: Ward Churchill is a Tenured Professor of History at CSU. His work is... uniquely his. Self-Referential material wouldn't be acceptable in most of the Science departments, and making claims that aren't capable of surviving close scrutiny is bad for a Science Career.
Churchill claimed to be on the governing council of a Native American Tribal band-it turns out he's an "Honorary Member", and has about 1/8 the amount of Native blood necessary to claim full membership. It also turns out that he's got Kerryitis, also known as bar-room Rambo disease, he's one of those pricks who claims he was Special Forces when he was nowhere near a combat zone, much less there as an SF.


Yet, he's "credible" in Academia, but he would not be credible in a Science Department. (Braggadocio, as Pons and Fleischmann found out, doesn't get you very far with other Scientists...)

Yes, it's true, Trammwerk-but don't feel bad. There are intelligent people in any profession, you might be lucky and be one of the smart ones.Thanks? I guess?

He was saying "if you're smart enough".

Most teachers I've known had trouble thinking their way out of a wet paper bag.I daresay you've had a sub-par education, WL.

Thanks? I guess?



I'm sorry I came off as offensive. I didn't think before I wrote that bit about how it would read later.
(Yes, I know, tact... I still don't have any, and I'm already 32 years old...)

I daresay you've had a sub-par education, WL.

I doubt it. I don't confuse actual intelligence with large amounts of education.

Hmm... I wouldn't be too proud of that. They're not doing that great of a job.

Didn't say I was proud, or even approved of it.
I just pointing out a truism, as you did.

This calls for an "evil empire" alert.

I hope that it wasn't news to you?? :eek:

(Please see post above this one.)

personally, i believe a professor or university-level researcher should be hired based on his or her skills and qualifications, not based on his or her personal political opinions. it may just so happen that the majority of people who seek university positions--and have the appropriate qualifications--share many of the same political ideals, and if that is the case i see no reason to hire less qualified persons just to balance out the political spectrum.

EDIT: and, for the record, i am NOT a liberal by the American definition, and i tend to have as many conflicts of opinion with American liberals as with American conservatives.
What she said!

It's amazing how often I agree with Bottle considering our different political persuasions. :p

Most teachers I've known had trouble thinking their way out of a wet paper bag.Presumably "Most Teachers" includes a number of your teachers - who are responsible, in part, for your education, WL. And presumably if they're very stupid then they weren't able to educate you very well.

Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Liberalism is largely a function of education, everywhere in the world.

me too! yee gods, the infection is spreading!!!

Well, shouldn't that make the thread starter happy? We non-partisans are taking over academia! =)

Presumably "Most Teachers" includes a number of your teachers - who are responsible, in part, for your education, WL. And presumably if they're very stupid then they weren't able to educate you very well.

Perhaps I'm mistaken.

I'm of the opinion that people educate themselves. The teachers are incidental.

I'm of the opinion that people educate themselves. The teachers are incidental.
lol, come join my grad program and see how well you can educate yourself :). i don't care how brilliant you are, you're gonna need a teacher if you want to keep up.


What she said!

It's amazing how often I agree with Bottle considering our different political persuasions.
i do try to be an agreeable person...

I'm of the opinion that people educate themselves. The teachers are incidental.

Teach yourself to read, did you? All by yourself in a little room with nothing but a bunch of books and no one to explain them to you?

Teach yourself to read, did you? All by yourself in a little room with nothing but a bunch of books and no one to explain them to you?

Yes, I was reading at age 3. My grandparents discovered this when I and my cousin were wanting to read the comics. There was only one section, and my cousin was older and was known to read. So, to assuage me, my grandfather handed me the classifieds.

I read the first one aloud. "Antique Liquidation Sale"

My grandfather nearly had a heart attack - but my parents already knew that I had taught myself to read.

Yes, I was reading at age 3. My grandparents discovered this when I and my cousin were wanting to read the comics. There was only one section, and my cousin was older and was known to read. So, to assuage me, my grandfather handed me the classifieds.

I read the first one aloud. "Antique Liquidation Sale"

My grandfather nearly had a heart attack - but my parents already knew that I had taught myself to read.That's pretty cool! But most people have to be taught to read and write and all the other basic things.

To go even further, some people who teach can only deal in life with children. They can only speak where they wont be challenged. And after a while, start to bring opinions into the curriculum. A teacher's political ideas should not become part of whats taught, unless that is the specified course.


My students are prone to questioning me on a regular basis (granted, I am a socialist). Few professors at my university (Portland State) would ever fail a student for a disagreement, and they are indeed liberal. Perhaps you have been too long from a University to realize that we don't want to create cookie-cutter PC hippies. We want to foster knowledge, to allow students to form their own opinions through logic. The problem with our conservative students is that they more often than not do not form their opinions logically. That is not biased. It is legitimately a problem, when evidence is presented to them, many ignore it, and when asked to justify their opinions with factual evidence, they cannot.

I am a Political Scientist, teaching comparative politics. I sometimes have to fail conservative students as well as radical students, because they do not use evidence when drawing their conclusions. Pity.

One might argue that sitting on your laurels, teaching mid-level English Lit courses isn't exactly contributing to society.
You used the example of scientists though...

All of my profs still conduct research. One of my profs was working on either the WIMPS or MACHO project... I can't recall which. I know he spent some time at the Gemini observatory in chile for a while. My quantum prof has this whole deal of freezing atoms and such... I don't think my relativity prof has much research yet, he got his phd rather recently so I don't think he'd be getting much funding. My astro prof last semester works on building computer simulations to figure out star formation and all that... They contribute very much to soceity and the scientific community.

Furthermore, my philosophy profs even do things, such as write and produce their own commentaries on various texts.

blah blah blah
You are aware that the discussion is regarding univerity level profs, correct?

You can't be in the bottom 20% of college graduates to get a phd.

i would love to see a poll that compares the attitudes on this subject of people who are actually in academia (as a grad student or a prof or whatever) to those who are not in academia. barring that, perhaps people on this thread would be willing to share their experience level when it comes to academia...?
Well, I took this one interest test for career counselling.

I scored high in the section on preference to remain in academia for a very, very long time, and I scored very, very low in the section on conventional jobs. I'm rather liberal...

Perhaps if you round up a bunch of people and get them to take that test and then compare their political leanings...

Oh, and people who are univeristy profs would score high in the academic one more often than not (they love school so much, they don't want to leave afterall) while those with phds who work outside academics tend to score lower in that area.

well, i'm comfortable sharing my background...

i have bachelor's degrees in biology, philosophy, and psychology, and i have begun working toward a PhD in pharmacology or neuroscience.
Hey, I think I may end up doing that... or something similar.

I'm in physics right now, I don't think I want a job in the field or really want to pursue it any further than undergrad, however, I'm considering getting a second bachelor's in psych or philosophy. I'm not sure... I'm going to try a psych class in summer school to see how I like it.

It is good to know that someone else has had problems deceiding/loves learning...

You used the example of scientists though...

All of my profs still conduct research. One of my profs was working on either the WIMPS or MACHO project... I can't recall which. I know he spent some time at the Gemini observatory in chile for a while. My quantum prof has this whole deal of freezing atoms and such... I don't think my relativity prof has much research yet, he got his phd rather recently so I don't think he'd be getting much funding. My astro prof last semester works on building computer simulations to figure out star formation and all that... They contribute very much to soceity and the scientific community.

Useful of course. Very useful many times. But pretty close to what Scientists do in Industry. R&D.

Furthermore, my philosophy profs even do things, such as write and produce their own commentaries on various texts.

Yes, because one more philosophy professor writing one more treatise on one more obscure ethical text helps mankind.

Yes, because one more philosophy professor writing one more treatise on one more obscure ethical text helps mankind.


very true, the overwhelming majority of humanity is oblivious, but this does allow him to keep his skills sharp and feel important.

Yes, I was reading at age 3. My grandparents discovered this when I and my cousin were wanting to read the comics. There was only one section, and my cousin was older and was known to read. So, to assuage me, my grandfather handed me the classifieds.

I read the first one aloud. "Antique Liquidation Sale"

My grandfather nearly had a heart attack - but my parents already knew that I had taught myself to read.

How exactly did you figure out that an A was an A?

Or, by "taught yourself to read," do you mean "Someone read to you and you figured it out."

If you truly picked up a book without anyone giving you any indication whatsoever of what the symbols meant and figured out how to read, you are a miracle and we should study you.

How exactly did you figure out that an A was an A?

Or, by "taught yourself to read," do you mean "Someone read to you and you figured it out."

If you truly picked up a book without anyone giving you any indication whatsoever of what the symbols meant and figured out how to read, you are a miracle and we should study you.

My parents didn't read to me. My sister was 14 months old at the time. I wasn't in any day care or preschool. This was before Sesame Street. You tell me.

I'm curious Whispering, is this recollection by your own personal memory or by stories told to you by others? Because the basic "problem" with it is that no one really can simply ascribe "ah" to the letter A via teaching themselves. You have to be told or instructed in the proper sound per letter. Indeed the idea that your parents, or no one else read to you is very strange :shrug:

In the end I don't suppose it really matters much.

I'm curious Whispering, is this recollection by your own personal memory or by stories told to you by others? Because the basic "problem" with it is that no one really can simply ascribe "ah" to the letter A via teaching themselves. You have to be told or instructed in the proper sound per letter. Indeed the idea that your parents, or no one else read to you is very strange :shrug:

In the end I don't suppose it really matters much.

My parents. I was examined by educational specialists AFTER they found out I could read. They told my parents that this happens.

When I was 5, I was tested using the WAIS IQ test. Part of the test involves solving a puzzle - a set of blocks that form a picture. You're supposed to tell the subject that you should arrange the blocks to form the picture on the card they show to you.

Well, this psychologist didn't tell me anything at all. He threw the blocks on the table, put the card on the table, and started his stopwatch.

I arranged the blocks and formed the picture without any instructions. He got mad, and made me do it again.

Want to know why I don't believe in teachers? Because I haven't had any trouble learning ANYTHING on my own.

Yes, because one more philosophy professor writing one more treatise on one more obscure ethical text helps mankind.
One of my philosophy profs actually worked in conjunction with the hospital on campus and the health science programme as an ethical advisor...

My parents. I was examined by educational specialists AFTER they found out I could read. They told my parents that this happens.

When I was 5, I was tested using the WAIS IQ test. Part of the test involves solving a puzzle - a set of blocks that form a picture. You're supposed to tell the subject that you should arrange the blocks to form the picture on the card they show to you.

Well, this psychologist didn't tell me anything at all. He threw the blocks on the table, put the card on the table, and started his stopwatch.

I arranged the blocks and formed the picture without any instructions. He got mad, and made me do it again.

Want to know why I don't believe in teachers? Because I haven't had any trouble learning ANYTHING on my own.
Uh huh...

Why do I doubt the veracity of this tale?

Uh huh...

Why do I doubt the veracity of this tale?
Thats actually pretty easy to believe, and furthermore he described the test pretty accurately.

One of my philosophy profs actually worked in conjunction with the hospital on campus and the health science programme as an ethical advisor...

Hey thats great.. so what? My reply was in response to 'Furthermore, my philosophy profs even do things, such as write and produce their own commentaries on various texts.'

Perhaps you should have said "furthermore, one of my philosophy professors works as a 'ethical advisor' at the 'hospital' on campus." What exactly is the job description of a 'ethical advisor' and why does it sound like nothing more than a crackpot going "mmhmm, should the doctor operate on the Police Officer or the Murder first?"

Hey thats great.. so what? My reply was in response to 'Furthermore, my philosophy profs even do things, such as write and produce their own commentaries on various texts.'

Perhaps you should have said "furthermore, one of my philosophy professors works as a 'ethical advisor' at the 'hospital' on campus." What exactly is the job description of a 'ethical advisor' and why does it sound like nothing more than a crackpot going "mmhmm, should the doctor operate on the Police Officer or the Murder first?"
No, I know she did some things like evaluate whether it's ethical to preform studies and the like. I'm not sure, I only had her for one class and I'm not in health sci nor do I plan on becoming a doctor...

Yes, because one more philosophy professor writing one more treatise on one more obscure ethical text helps mankind.

With insight like that you should get to work cracking the problem of why they don't make airplanes out of the "black box."

I'll bet you've already got a market proposal for research into the number of licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a Tootsie pop.

Academic progress is not all pursued as a function of throwing money at a problem. A lot of advances come from people just trying to expand the frontiers of knowledge.

Not to mention that a lot of the individual accomplishments are those of people who got their educations by reading "one more treatise." To trivialize knowledge so much exemplifies the modern faux conservative.

That's right. I went there. I called you something French :p

My parents. I was examined by educational specialists AFTER they found out I could read. They told my parents that this happens.

When I was 5, I was tested using the WAIS IQ test. Part of the test involves solving a puzzle - a set of blocks that form a picture. You're supposed to tell the subject that you should arrange the blocks to form the picture on the card they show to you.

Well, this psychologist didn't tell me anything at all. He threw the blocks on the table, put the card on the table, and started his stopwatch.

I arranged the blocks and formed the picture without any instructions. He got mad, and made me do it again.

Want to know why I don't believe in teachers? Because I haven't had any trouble learning ANYTHING on my own.

You formed puzzle pieces into a picture. Doing something that they make toys for that say "Ages 0+" is special? I mean honestly it just doesn't sound very impressive. But like I said, doesn't really matter much to me.

I agree that "teaching" is over-rated as profession for many things. And that many things can be learnt on your own. But some things must be explained to you. 99% of people can not go from basic math skills and create calculus. You can't learn that the world around you is made up of atoms that are made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons, which are made up of even smaller particles. Whether it is explained by a flesh and blood Teacher or by a paper textbook doesn’t mean you didn’t have a teacher.

Uh huh...

Why do I doubt the veracity of this tale?

Because you probably believe (very deeply) that there's not a thing that you know that wasn't put there by a teacher. Even though it's probably very true that most of what you know was put there by you, all by yourself.

I've found that most parents sell their kids short - and it shows. Most children are far smarter than their parents realize.

I first got that idea when I was young. And when my daughter was 2, I confirmed it. There's a kid's game called The Memory Game. It's a matching game and there's a definite strategy you have to employ if you want to win.

She was using the strategy the second time we played the game. It's not like I explained the strategy, either. Now you're going to tell me that's impossible.

My son and daughter both learned to read initially with no help from me, and no preschool help, and no teacher. Just the raw material. Both learned by age 3. My daughter is 11 now, and has been a Walt Whitman fan since age 6.

She read the three books that comprise The Lord of the Rings when she was 5.

You formed puzzle pieces into a picture. Doing something that they make toys for that say "Ages 0+" is special? I mean honestly it just doesn't sound very impressive. But like I said, doesn't really matter much to me.


The people here think I need a flesh and blood teacher. I find that I do not.

BTW, I was not told I was being tested. I realized it was a test, and that it was for time only when he threw the blocks on the table.

Others seem to believe that reading must be "taught". I do not.

You formed puzzle pieces into a picture. Doing something that they make toys for that say "Ages 0+" is special? I mean honestly it just doesn't sound very impressive. But like I said, doesn't really matter much to me.
The actual test gives you cubes with different color configurations. Two sides are white, two are red, and two are diagonally split between red and white. You are then shown cards with increasingly complex geometric figures which you must then recreate exactly as quickly as possible. The test starts with a 3x3 square and progresses eventually to a 4x4. It is only one part of a very long test, and its purpose is to evaluate spacial and problem solving skills. Also note that this intelligence test is only given to grade school aged children, its not supposed to sound hard to adults.

Academic progress is not all pursued as a function of throwing money at a problem. A lot of advances come from people just trying to expand the frontiers of knowledge.

Writing commentaries on other people’s works is hardly "expanding the frontiers of knowledge."

Not to mention that a lot of the individual accomplishments are those of people who got their educations by reading "one more treatise." To trivialize knowledge so much exemplifies the modern faux conservative.

Such as? People's individual accomplishments come from creating something new. Not from writing commentaries on the work done by others. Plato can only be rehashed so many times.

That's right. I went there. I called you something French :p

Saugen Sie mein dick, franzosen

Thats right, I told you to do it, in German. Now be a good Frenchman and surrender.

The actual test gives you cubes with different color configurations. Two sides are white, two are red, and two are diagonally split between red and white. You are then shown cards with increasingly complex geometric figures which you must then recreate exactly as quickly as possible. The test starts with a 3x3 square and progresses eventually to a 4x4. It is only one part of a very long test, and its purpose is to evaluate spacial and problem solving skills. Also note that this intelligence test is only given to grade school aged children, its not supposed to sound hard to adults.

Doesn't sound hard to do as a 5 year old either. I was building fairly complex models at age 5. Didn't bother painting them and my use of glue wasn't exactly the best but constructing a F-14 sounds considerably harder than replicating a geometric pattern.

With insight like that you should get to work cracking the problem of why they don't make airplanes out of the "black box."

Because the airplane wouldn't be able to fly-it would be too damn heavy.



I'll bet you've already got a market proposal for research into the number of licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a Tootsie pop.

Academic progress is not all pursued as a function of throwing money at a problem. A lot of advances come from people just trying to expand the frontiers of knowledge.


True, but most treatises are little more than rehashing what someone else wrote-especially in non-sciences like Philosophy, where "Progress" is a matter of how deeply fixated the navel-gazing gets. Discovering new and exciting ways to rant about the human condition really doesn't qualify as advancing knowledge, so much as it describes man's ability to turn his or her egotistical fulminations into dead trees marked with petroleum products that some other navel-gazer can then use to add a cite to his next version of the same basic concept (only using longer words and more obscure terminology.)




Not to mention that a lot of the individual accomplishments are those of people who got their educations by reading "one more treatise." To trivialize knowledge so much exemplifies the modern faux conservative.

That's right. I went there. I called you something French :p

No, you called him something in english using a borrowed French word-the sign of yet another snobbish Pseudo intellectual.
(For bonus points, what language did the word get borrowed from...)

Doesn't sound hard to do as a 5 year old either. I was building fairly complex models at age 5. Didn't bother painting them and my use of glue wasn't exactly the best but constructing a F-14 sounds considerably harder than replicating a geometric pattern.
AGAIN its only one part of the test. Since you never took the test, nor have you travelled back in time to remember what being five years old was really like, maybe you should do some research.
WISC III (http://www.nswagtc.org.au/info/identification/WISC3.html)

Doesn't sound hard to do as a 5 year old either. I was building fairly complex models at age 5. Didn't bother painting them and my use of glue wasn't exactly the best but constructing a F-14 sounds considerably harder than replicating a geometric pattern.

The building of a model is a voluntary, and indeed a planned act.

How many tests were you given as a child - and you were not told that you were being tested, nor did anyone ask or tell you to do anything - just put the test in front of you and started a stopwatch?

personally, i believe a professor or university-level researcher should be hired based on his or her skills and qualifications, not based on his or her personal political opinions. it may just so happen that the majority of people who seek university positions--and have the appropriate qualifications--share many of the same political ideals, and if that is the case i see no reason to hire less qualified persons just to balance out the political spectrum.

EDIT: and, for the record, i am NOT a liberal by the American definition, and i tend to have as many conflicts of opinion with American liberals as with American conservatives.

im just wondering if you belive in Affirmative action..and if your so optomistic that people are actually hired on the basis of their merit not skin color and that this is why only white males are CEO's >.>

things are rarely this rosey.. and there have been many studies and many accusations to the notion that it is in fact these liberal acedemics are keeping conservatives out of the general faculty in large numbers... THIS would also account for the discrepency in the political breakdown

Writing commentaries on other people’s works is hardly "expanding the frontiers of knowledge."



Such as? People's individual accomplishments come from creating something new. Not from writing commentaries on the work done by others. Plato can only be rehashed so many times.



Saugen Sie mein dick, franzosen

Thats right, I told you to do it, in German. Now be a good Frenchman and surrender.

True, but most treatises are little more than rehashing what someone else wrote-especially in non-sciences like Philosophy, where "Progress" is a matter of how deeply fixated the navel-gazing gets. Discovering new and exciting ways to rant about the human condition really doesn't qualify as advancing knowledge, so much as it describes man's ability to turn his or her egotistical fulminations into dead trees marked with petroleum products that some other navel-gazer can then use to add a cite to his next version of the same basic concept (only using longer words and more obscure terminology.)

Gee, good thing John Locke and his grubby ilk didn't share your disdain for incremental advancement of ideas.

...There's no doubt that Academia is liberal. Accusations of "indoctrination", however, are ridiculous...

No indoctrination, huh?????

Explain this, then: I graduated from highschool as a proud Republican. By my senior year in college, I discovered that I had somehow become a LIBERAL!!!

It must have been all that "analysis of issues", "critical thinking" and pinko shit like that.

Gee, good thing John Locke and his grubby ilk didn't share your disdain for incremental advancement of ideas.Indeed. I admire and envy WL's natural talent for learning, but the open disdain of intellectual and academic pursuits on this thread is disturbing, to say the least.

Interesting how something is useless, even damaging, once it's overwhelmingly liberal.

im just wondering if you belive in Affirmative action..and if your so optomistic that people are actually hired on the basis of their merit not skin color and that this is why only white males are CEO's >.>

well, i don't believe all CEOs are white males, for one thing, and i do believe that there are many factors besides merit which are often considered in hiring practices. i know that prejudice still exists (as a female in the biomedical sciences, i see it firsthand), and i know it is an additional hurdle for anybody who's not a straight white male.

however, i absolutely oppose affirmitive action. i don't believe we can combat prejudice by forcing people to adopt different standards for individuals based on race, gender, or creed. i don't believe "diversity" is well served when the color of a person's skin is considered more heavily than the merit of their abilities and skills...diversity comes from people, from unique minds, not from the melanin content of their cells or the genitalia they have.

things are rarely this rosey.. and there have been many studies and many accusations to the notion that it is in fact these liberal acedemics are keeping conservatives out of the general faculty in large numbers... THIS would also account for the discrepency in the political breakdown
yes, there are certainly still problems, and anybody denying that is burying their head in the sand. but i don't believe that government-sponsored sexism and racism are the way to combat these problems.

Uh huh...

Why do I doubt the veracity of this tale?
hey now. it's entirely possible we are all in the presence of true genius :).

You are aware that the discussion is regarding univerity level profs, correct?

You can't be in the bottom 20% of college graduates to get a phd.
yeah, i'm a little annoyed by people trying to make it sound like any chump with an essay can be given a PhD. if any of them would care to help me with my homework, maybe they would get a sense of what it really takes to EARN such a degree :).

True, but most treatises are little more than rehashing what someone else wrote-especially in non-sciences like Philosophy, where "Progress" is a matter of how deeply fixated the navel-gazing gets. Discovering new and exciting ways to rant about the human condition really doesn't qualify as advancing knowledge, so much as it describes man's ability to turn his or her egotistical fulminations into dead trees marked with petroleum products that some other navel-gazer can then use to add a cite to his next version of the same basic concept (only using longer words and more obscure terminology.)


If you just rehash what someone else wrote, you fail. Unless most treatises are failed then your statement is patently false. (Treatise, of course, applies to PhD work.)
Look at the world around you. What do you see? (No this is not a philosophical "waffle", but a genuine question) Cars, houses, electricity, society, schools, sports teams etc. Where did these come from? From intellectual activity. What stimulates intellectual activity? The human condition.
The industrial revolution did not just happen. It derived from certain thoughts about approaches to life. Did Adam Smith contribute anything to our current lifestyles? Yes. Adam Smith was a professor of what? Economics? No, it did not even exist as a subject. He was professor of Moral PHILOSOPHY. Shocked? What about Newton? He too was a professor of natural philosophy.
You are using a computer. Who invented the computer, who invented the logic that computing is based on.

Free fair open elections are good. Why? How do we know this? Capitalism is a system that helps motivate activity. On what basis is this claimed?
Physics is the study of what is real. Who wrote the book physics? Do you have any idea?

Go learn something about a subject before youy criticise it.

Indeed. I admire and envy WL's natural talent for learning, but the open disdain of intellectual and academic pursuits on this thread is disturbing, to say the least.

Interesting how something is useless, even damaging, once it's overwhelmingly liberal.

I posted the original link to the article, not to say that "liberal professors are bad" - the study merely points out that it is true that most professors are liberal.

Richard Feynman said that you should never take what a professor says at face value - that you should discover and verify for yourself. People who believe that everything a professor says is the gospel truth are not receiving an education - they're becoming more ignorant than if they had never gone to school at all.

Regardless of the worldview of your professor, demand proof. Find that proof for yourself - don't take their word for it.

Because you probably believe (very deeply) that there's not a thing that you know that wasn't put there by a teacher. Even though it's probably very true that most of what you know was put there by you, all by yourself.
No, I think it's because usually when people tell stories like that, they're full of shit. People who tend to go on "Oh, I'm so smart" usually aren't.

Hell, I was reading "Toys R' Us" when I was 2, do I get a medal? I associated the words with my parents saying it. Whenever they would say "We're going to Toys R' Us" we would go to this place with the same words and the bags would have the same words, so when I would see a flyer, I would point and say "Toys 'R Us"

Of course I also wrote backwards for a while until I started school...

I first got that idea when I was young. And when my daughter was 2, I confirmed it. There's a kid's game called The Memory Game. It's a matching game and there's a definite strategy you have to employ if you want to win.

She was using the strategy the second time we played the game. It's not like I explained the strategy, either. Now you're going to tell me that's impossible.
No, I'm not. I've taught kids to play more complicated games than that, granted they were a bit older than that (I never baby sat kids younger than that and by the time I would have been old enough to do something like that with any of my sisters, it was when the youngest was born and by then I had my hands full with my two other sisters...) I'm aware that kids aren't stupid and do pick things up, hell it's the 0-5 range when they're best at picking up new things, start speaking french around them enough and they'll eventually pick it up.

My son and daughter both learned to read initially with no help from me, and no preschool help, and no teacher. Just the raw material. Both learned by age 3. My daughter is 11 now, and has been a Walt Whitman fan since age 6.
Did you ever read to your children while showing them the book as you read? Perhaps even following along the words with your finger as you went along?
I've got news for you, I learned to read before I went to school too. I don't actually recall being taught to read at school. I remember we went through the alphabet in kindergarden and had to draw an animal for each letter... I remember being taught addition and subtraction and how to make birds out of toilet paper rolls...

I also somehow doubt the truth of your description of your children's reading habits. Parents like to exaggerate the truth when it comes to selling their kids as being the best.

Edit: Oh, and I should add, not everyone is the same, not everyone learns the same and some people have natural disadvantages that would impair say, the ability to "teach oneself to read" My youngest sister, for instance, is partially deaf in one ear. Thus, when my parents would read to her, she wouldn't be able to hear what was being said properly and thus associate those words with those sounds. I don't think she ended up properly reading until 7 or so after my mom got her hooked on phonics and the like. It also took her a while to learn to make "r" sounds.

Richard Feynman said that you should never take what a professor says at face value - that you should discover and verify for yourself. People who believe that everything a professor says is the gospel truth are not receiving an education - they're becoming more ignorant than if they had never gone to school at all.

Regardless of the worldview of your professor, demand proof. Find that proof for yourself - don't take their word for it.
Richard Feynman is a physicist, not a poli sci-guy. While what he says holds true (questioning) there are some things for which proof comes in later years, especially in math and physics, and you just have to accept it in the meantime until you have enough knowledge to understand the basis of the previously presented theory.

hey now. it's entirely possible we are all in the presence of true genius :).
If he's so smart, why the hell is he wasting his time here? Preforming a sociological experiment on how people act when in an online environment?

yeah, i'm a little annoyed by people trying to make it sound like any chump with an essay can be given a PhD. if any of them would care to help me with my homework, maybe they would get a sense of what it really takes to EARN such a degree :).
Ugh, I can hardly take my homework and I'm in undergrad.

What are you working on your PhD in? I want to say physics... as I know there's a physicist on here somewhere... I just can't remember if that's you or if you're less insane and doing something else.

Ugh, I can hardly take my homework and I'm in undergrad.

What are you working on your PhD in? I want to say physics... as I know there's a physicist on here somewhere... I just can't remember if that's you or if you're less insane and doing something else.
no, i'm less crazy...i'm biomed, probably going to be neuroscience (though immunology is looking pretty cool too).

If he's so smart, why the hell is he wasting his time here? Preforming a sociological experiment on how people act when in an online environment?
maybe he was a child prodigy who plateaued early? i dunno. like you, i am inclined to doubt the self-aggrandizing claims of people over the internet, particularly when regarding their intelligence or their childrens'. it's possible he's really that brilliant...but it's also possible that i am Stephen Hawking, and i'm having a bit of a romp with all of you :).

Maybe there was some truth to that table of the average IQ of a state versus its vote. :)
Myrth wins
:gives Myrth a cookie:

maybe he was a child prodigy who plateaued early? i dunno. like you, i am inclined to doubt the self-aggrandizing claims of people over the internet, particularly when regarding their intelligence or their childrens'. it's possible he's really that brilliant...but it's also possible that i am Stephen Hawking, and i'm having a bit of a romp with all of you :).
Yep, and I'm actually god.

I can make him poof out of existance with the blink of an eye... but what would the fun be in that?

*snip*
You yourself seem to suffer from of what you accuse liberals.(why does proper english sound so awkward?) Not all liberals are America-Haters, just like not all conservatives are Over-Patriotic Fundies. I suggest you step out of your own Echo-Chamber and look around at all the pretty gray.

If he's so smart, why the hell is he wasting his time here? Preforming a sociological experiment on how people act when in an online environment?

I'm here because no matter what I do for a living (with the exception of my time in the Army), I get bored quickly.

*snip*
What you blame on closemindedness can really be explained by the pressure by the government for students to "test well". The latest example of this is conservative-pet-project no child left behind. The result of this is a dumbing down of the curriculum to the point where the intelligent students are told that they're to smart and that they have to be bored until the 'average' student can catch up. No I agree to a degree with you on global warming, it has been blown out of proportion. Of course, what none of the conservatives group will tell you is that, while fluctuation is a natural part of...well, nature, we are currently on a peak in all the contributors to high global temperature that hasn't been matched for millions of years. I suggest that all the college students here take geology, learning to look at the world in terms of millions of years is actually a rather healthy viewpoint.

I totally disagree. By having their eyes open to the world, they ought to accept that there are other world view-points, not just their's. The lecturers I had on my undergraduate degree were (almost without exception) liberal, and I found them extremely closed-minded. If you wanted to do well, you said what they wanted you to say, whether or not you had a superlative arguement against it. There were one or two that were liberal in their own thinking (I don't think I remember any that weren't liberal in some shape or form), but recognised other arguments, sensibly critiqued them, and accepted someone's non-liberal arguments if they were well thought out, articulate and intelligent. These were the best lecturers - the rest were mostly crap. Their beliefs may well be correct - indeed, I agreed with many, though not all, of them - but that doesn't mean that they should ignore every intelligent, well argued theory that they are presented with. Sadly, though, that's exactly what they seem to do.
Well, admittedly, good teachers will except any argument as long as it is well founded. But you didn't give any example of what you considered to be this 'well founded' argument that they 'wrongly tossed aside'. For instance, I somehow doubt that ANY professor will give you an A on a paper about how slavery was an awesome idea and africans are descended from Satan. If you find one that does, report him, NOW. Now, I'm not saying you believe this, but I'm just saying, everyone likes to view themselves at the axis on which the political compass turns, which makes someone acknowledging their own liberal/conservative bias an achievement in itself. This also results in someone on the extreme right considering just about everyone as a liberal, in the same sense that Jack Chick sees everyone that isn't identical to him as pagans/blasphemers/heretics/etc.

Since when are the "most intelligent people" only to be found working in academia?

I think you'll find that "most people" aren't in academia. And I bet that "most intelligent people" aren't in academia, either.

And just because someone works as an academic, does that really mean they are "intelligent"? I've met some really stupid people, especially in the philosophy department.

I'm willing to grant that academics in a particle physics area would be intelligent. But I'm hardly willing to grant that same "intelligence" level to every other department without question.
I liked this one philosophy teacher. She's a complete ditz, but the result of her nitwitness was hilarious. The first day of class, she let all the students pick their own name, and was astonished that most of them picked the one that their parent's gave them. Then, one kid, said that, for the purposes of the class, his name was "God." I'm just pissed he beat me too it. :p

Waddaya know, a liberal profession is actually full of liberal people.
What's next? Are you going to tell me that corporations are full of conservative people?

Also, show me where a liberal can't make abstraciton of his own views when correcting an assignment.

Even better, tell me how a conservative and a liberal would teach biology differently.


Ahhh...OK! The conservative teacher would teach biology. The liberal teacher, on the other hand, would teach biology with an injection of how bad we treat the environment and other liberal viewpoints and, of course, what an evil man George Bush and his Conservative friends are!

Ahhh...OK! The conservative teacher would teach biology. The liberal teacher, on the other hand, would teach biology with an injection of how bad we treat the environment and other liberal viewpoints and, of course, what an evil man George Bush and his Conservative friends are!
But the actual teaching of biology would be the same. This bone would be the femur, that organ would be a heart in both instances, etc..

And if a teacher preaches like you describe, then, by all means yell vociferously for him to keep his/her opinion to him/herself.

However, it is a fact that we treat the environment badly...

Ahhh...OK! The conservative teacher would teach biology. The liberal teacher, on the other hand, would teach biology with an injection of how bad we treat the environment and other liberal viewpoints and, of course, what an evil man George Bush and his Conservative friends are!

And the conservative, if we are going for the stupid stereotyping response, would teach biology starting with the book of Genesis, deny any possibility of us affecting the environment, and the interjection of other neocon positions about how brilliant GWB and friends are.

No. Teaching is not like that, is it? (Oh, I am a teacher, I work in political and moral philosophy, but this means that I have to teach all positions, not just mine.)

(Oh, I am a teacher, I work in political and moral philosophy, but this means that I have to teach all positions, not just mine.)
I had thought that like Starship Troopers, there should be mandatory education in History & Moral Philosophy.

Of course, in that book, the class was merely indoctrination. An official "bias". Hopefully, your typical moral philosophy professor will show a wide range of philosophical viewpoints (lest they be castigated by their students and proclaimed to be an inveterate buffoon).

I had thought that like Starship Troopers, there should be mandatory education in History & Moral Philosophy.

Of course, in that book, the class was merely indoctrination. An official "bias". Hopefully, your typical moral philosophy professor will show a wide range of philosophical viewpoints (lest they be castigated by their students and proclaimed to be an inveterate buffoon).

It is required that this is done, more by the colleagues, than by the students. No good department of philosophy is homogeneous in its political or moral beliefs, and any bias would show up in other classes, leading to one teacher being destroyed by the rest of the faculty.

There should, in my self interested opinion, be compulsory classes in all philosophy, but it is never going to happen.

There should, in my self interested opinion, be compulsory classes in all philosophy, but it is never going to happen.

I think that at the very least, philosophy should be taught together with history. But I don't think that anyone in power (left or right) would want an open discourse on the matter - someone might get ideas.

My parents didn't read to me. My sister was 14 months old at the time. I wasn't in any day care or preschool. This was before Sesame Street. You tell me.

Honestly, I think you are lying. There is absolutely no way anyone can look at a bunch of symbols and just figure out that they are letters and words without some indication ahead of time. If you really did this, then you obviously can read every single language in the world, since you can just look at something and suddenly know what it means. Please, translate all the hieroglyphics for the guys that have been studying them for years.

Did you ever read to your children while showing them the book as you read? Perhaps even following along the words with your finger as you went along?
I've got news for you, I learned to read before I went to school too. I don't actually recall being taught to read at school. I remember we went through the alphabet in kindergarden and had to draw an animal for each letter... I remember being taught addition and subtraction and how to make birds out of toilet paper rolls...

Exactly, I learned how to associate words with actual meanings without specific instruction as well, but it was because other people would use a word in reference to that word written down. I figured out how to associate the letters. I did not, however, learn how to read in a vaccuum, with nothing but a book and no one giving me any indication that it represented language.

We needed a study to figure this out?

Honestly, I think you are lying. There is absolutely no way anyone can look at a bunch of symbols and just figure out that they are letters and words without some indication ahead of time. If you really did this, then you obviously can read every single language in the world, since you can just look at something and suddenly know what it means. Please, translate all the hieroglyphics for the guys that have been studying them for years.

I scored near the maximum (within 2 points) on the Defense Language Aptitude Battery, which measures your ability to naturally pick up languages.

I haven't any trouble in picking up spoken language very rapidly, and written language hasn't been any trouble, either. In the language classes I took in college, I usually skipped class and I still managed to get an A every time.

I scored near the maximum (within 2 points) on the Defense Language Aptitude Battery, which measures your ability to naturally pick up languages.

I haven't any trouble in picking up spoken language very rapidly, and written language hasn't been any trouble, either. In the language classes I took in college, I usually skipped class and I still managed to get an A every time.
I still doubt that your parents never read to you, or even spoke around you in refrence to stores with words in their signs or fed you cereal from a box with the name of the cereal clearly spelled out on the side while mentioning the name of the cereal... If you had been placed in a room with a book at infancy, I somehow doubt you would have figured it all out on your own.

I still doubt that your parents never read to you, or even spoke around you in refrence to stores with words in their signs or fed you cereal from a box with the name of the cereal clearly spelled out on the side while mentioning the name of the cereal... If you had been placed in a room with a book at infancy, I somehow doubt you would have figured it all out on your own.

Nothing with the words, "Antique Liquidation Sale" on them. I don't recall eating a cereal like that.

More to the point, there were posts that indicated that no one could learn without a teacher. While I might have observed someone reading incidentally, apparently my parents never sat down and read to me. By the time it occurred to them to do so, I was already well along.

I really wonder about the methods that are used to teach and grade today, especially in college. I used to write papers for people - 10 dollars a page, any subject, and I guaranteed an A. I wrote papers for classes I never took, for professors I never met, and I always succeeded - this was in the days before you could download a paper from the Internet (indeed, from a time when I had to type the papers on a typewriter).

All I needed was 24 hours notice for up to 20 pages.

Go get one of those legal document boxes (sort of a long book box). Now fill it to the brim with printed depositions. I can read the entire box of paper, and write a summary of relevant highlights in about 2 hours total. Without taking notes.

Raw material - raw data, books, articles, publications - and direct observation - have been far better at teaching than any human teacher I ever had.

Anyone remember what this thread was about? Before people started calling someone they had never truly met nor truly spent time with a liar regarding personal matters?

Anyone remember what this thread was about? Before people started calling someone they had never truly met nor truly spent time with a liar regarding personal matters?
Yes, I had originally posted a link to an article that said that according to a study, academia is largely "liberal".

I didn't say the usual "so it's unfair to conservative students".

But a few people fell into thinking that's what the thread was about, so we ran with it until I said I didn't think teachers were that important to the learning process.

So, back to the topic.

Nothing with the words, "Antique Liquidation Sale" on them. I don't recall eating a cereal like that.
Your parents ever go to antique stores? Or take you shopping with them? Those words show up on their own or with each other fairly often, you could probably catch them in t.v. commercials even.

More to the point, there were posts that indicated that no one could learn without a teacher. While I might have observed someone reading incidentally, apparently my parents never sat down and read to me. By the time it occurred to them to do so, I was already well along.
Yes, it is quite possible to teach oneself something. Hell, I read plenty (I did more before univeristy, really) when I was 12 I read a first year university psychology textbook (I understood it too... they had quizzes at the end of every section and a big quiz at the end of every chapter, if only my quantum text was like that...) I read philosophy on my own, though I do still enjoy taking a class and reading something I normally wouldn't have read, or getting an outside perspective on what's being said. It is interesting to hear different opinions on the same piece and *gasp* means that I learn something new.

I really wonder about the methods that are used to teach and grade today, especially in college. I used to write papers for people - 10 dollars a page, any subject, and I guaranteed an A. I wrote papers for classes I never took, for professors I never met, and I always succeeded - this was in the days before you could download a paper from the Internet (indeed, from a time when I had to type the papers on a typewriter).
My bf did that too throughout college.
If I had the time to do that, then that would be sweet. In highschool me and a group of my friends got volunteered to help write one of our other friend's history papers for uni. It was pretty stupid because they deceided to break up the work in such a way that it was stupid and woudln't have flowed at all. If I was in an easy programme, then that would be no problem though.

Hmm... I think I know how I'm paying for my second bachelor's now. :)

My bf did that too throughout college.
If I had the time to do that, then that would be sweet. In highschool me and a group of my friends got volunteered to help write one of our other friend's history papers for uni. It was pretty stupid because they deceided to break up the work in such a way that it was stupid and woudln't have flowed at all. If I was in an easy programme, then that would be no problem though.

Hmm... I think I know how I'm paying for my second bachelor's now. :)
Worked for me.

BTW, I don't work as a programmer. But I've written Java programs for people who are trying to get their master's in CS, but don't have the time to work a job and do the homework. Did that for free, as I was curious about the class content.

I am beginning to think that some degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

I scored near the maximum (within 2 points) on the Defense Language Aptitude Battery, which measures your ability to naturally pick up languages.

I haven't any trouble in picking up spoken language very rapidly, and written language hasn't been any trouble, either. In the language classes I took in college, I usually skipped class and I still managed to get an A every time.

But you don't just figure it out - you pick it up from hearing it and seeing it used. You didn't just pick up a book in Chinese in a room by yourself, never having been introduced to anyone who could read it and say "I know exactly what this says!"

I really wonder about the methods that are used to teach and grade today, especially in college. I used to write papers for people - 10 dollars a page, any subject, and I guaranteed an A. I wrote papers for classes I never took, for professors I never met, and I always succeeded - this was in the days before you could download a paper from the Internet (indeed, from a time when I had to type the papers on a typewriter).

I see, so you are a cheater. How very wonderful for you.