Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opini ... beral.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

THE Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum recently called President Obama a “snob” for supporting higher education for all Americans. “There are good, decent men and women,” he said, “who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them.” He also called colleges and universities “indoctrination mills” for godless liberalism.

But is this true? Does attending college actually make you more liberal and less religious? Research indicates that the answer is: not so much.



It’s certainly true that professors are a liberal lot and that religious skepticism is common in the academy. In a survey of more than 1,400 professors that the sociologist Solon Simmons and I conducted in 2006, covering academics in nearly all fields and in institutions ranging from community colleges to elite universities, we found that about half of the professors identified as liberal, as compared to just one in five Americans over all. In the social sciences, humanities and natural sciences, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents outnumbered Republicans by a wide margin; among social scientists, for example, there were 10 Democrats for every Republican. Though a majority of professors said that they believed in God, 20 percent were atheists or agnostics — compared with just 4 percent in the general population.

It’s also true that young college graduates are somewhat more likely to identify as liberal and to hold more liberal attitudes on social issues than their non-college-educated peers.

But contrary to conservative rhetoric, studies show that going to college does not make students substantially more liberal. The political scientist Mack Mariani and the higher education researcher Gordon Hewitt analyzed changes in student political attitudes between their freshman and senior years at 38 colleges and universities from 1999 to 2003. They found that on average, students shifted somewhat to the left — but that these changes were in line with shifts experienced by most Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 during the same period of time. In addition, they found that students were no more likely to move left at schools with more liberal faculties.

Studies also show that attending college does not make you less religious.

So why do conservatives persist in attacking higher education? Conservatives have been criticizing academia for many decades. Yet only once the McCarthy era passed did this criticism begin to be cast primarily in anti-elitist tones: charges of Communist subversion gave way to charges of liberal elitism in the writings of William F. Buckley Jr. and others. The idea that professors are snobs looking down their noses at ordinary Americans, trying to push the country in directions it does not wish to go, soon became an established conservative trope, taking its place alongside criticism of the liberal press and the liberal judiciary.

(You mean Conks are to blame for the "liberal" media shit??? Say it ain't SOOOOO!!)


"I am so sorry, future conservatives, I've fvcked you more than Mao fvcked Progressives."


The main reason for this development is that attacking liberal professors as elitists serves a vital purpose. It helps position the conservative movement as a populist enterprise by identifying a predatory elite to which conservatism stands opposed — an otherwise difficult task for a movement strongly backed by holders of economic power.


Amen.

Discuss.

Congratulations, Cappy on your very T-Man-like post.

AZGrizFan wrote:Congratulations, Cappy on your very T-Man-like post.

Kinda takes the wind outta your Conks sails, don't it, Snuffy?

Well, you probably believe that sitting and listening to a terrorist "reverend" for 22 years didn't affect Barry Sortero's way of thinking either.

I can speak only for myself on this issue. I entered Harvard College with slightly left-of-center political views (having cast a write-in vote for Ed Muskie in '72) and left four years later a committed conservative. I was very impressed by seeing Bill Buckley tell off some campus lefties at a personal appearance my freshman year. I witnessed the excesses of the on-campus left in the waning years of the VietNam era and learned quickly which professors were open-minded and which were not. Although the politics of most professors and students were conventionally liberal, opposing the war and supporting the impeachment of Nixon, relatively few were far left D-Soc types (and they were viewed as oddballs). Gays were invisible, for the most part. The campus newspaper, again, was conventionally liberal. I can't say I was indoctrinated either way: I adopted laissez-faire economics and anti-statism as my core political beliefs, more as a result of study and choice than pedagogy. I never felt politically oppressed for expressing my views, although on-campus conservatives were viewed as a curiosity in those days. My sense is that it may be worse now, and that's one reason I have cut virtually all my ties to the school other than support for the athletic program.

Ivytalk wrote:I can speak only for myself on this issue. I entered Harvard College with slightly left-of-center political views (having cast a write-in vote for Ed Muskie in '72) and left four years later a committed conservative. I was very impressed by seeing Bill Buckley tell off some campus lefties at a personal appearance my freshman year. I witnessed the excesses of the on-campus left in the waning years of the VietNam era and learned quickly which professors were open-minded and which were not. Although the politics of most professors and students were conventionally liberal, opposing the war and supporting the impeachment of Nixon, relatively few were far left D-Soc types (and they were viewed as oddballs). Gays were invisible, for the most part. The campus newspaper, again, was conventionally liberal. I can't say I was indoctrinated either way: I adopted laissez-faire economics and anti-statism as my core political beliefs, more as a result of study and choice than pedagogy. I never felt politically oppressed for expressing my views, although on-campus conservatives were viewed as a curiosity in those days. My sense is that it may be worse now, and that's one reason I have cut virtually all my ties to the school other than support for the athletic program.

Wow. You are old.

That's right, Russian, I am old. Old enough to remember Kosygin and Brezhnev.

Ivytalk wrote:I can speak only for myself on this issue. I entered Harvard College with slightly left-of-center political views (having cast a write-in vote for Ed Muskie in '72) and left four years later a committed conservative. I was very impressed by seeing Bill Buckley tell off some campus lefties at a personal appearance my freshman year. I witnessed the excesses of the on-campus left in the waning years of the VietNam era and learned quickly which professors were open-minded and which were not. Although the politics of most professors and students were conventionally liberal, opposing the war and supporting the impeachment of Nixon, relatively few were far left D-Soc types (and they were viewed as oddballs). Gays were invisible, for the most part. The campus newspaper, again, was conventionally liberal. I can't say I was indoctrinated either way: I adopted laissez-faire economics and anti-statism as my core political beliefs, more as a result of study and choice than pedagogy. I never felt politically oppressed for expressing my views, although on-campus conservatives were viewed as a curiosity in those days. My sense is that it may be worse now, and that's one reason I have cut virtually all my ties to the school other than support for the athletic program.

Thank you for the background, always love reading about the 70's.

I went to community college first (for athletics) and then to EWU. Every single teacher I encountered was apolitical in the classroom. My parents were both teachers and naturally donks, but I don't feel they had much influence on my politics as they didn't talk about it very much with me. My political formative years (mid-late 20's) were spent listening to conk radio which did a fairly decent job of pushing me to the left as virtually everything out of the mouths of Buchanon, Rush, Hannity, local conkshow hosts, et al was totally antithetical to the notions of what in my opinion makes this country great.

We're very much alike IT with just different viewpoints. I'm perfectly OK with that.

I came to UM a small town Montana boy who was forced to go to Catholic church as a child. I had never met a gay person or been friends with a black person. I had never touched a sip of booze or even knew what pot smelled like. While at UM my eyes were opened to a whole new world, I found out booze was delicious, pot stunk, black kids were just like me & gays were just trying to get along like everyone else. And even though I already knew it as a kid, I came away from college thinking that religion was even more useless than I previously though. College probably did make me more liberal & I am damn happy about that.

I'd have to pay $30 for the actual details of the study linked by the author of the piece. But it appears that the article commits a common error: It is not possible to show "no effect" with a statistical study. All you can say is that there was not sufficient evidence to show an effect given the methods you used and the significance level you chose.

Also I'm pretty sure studies like that don't include controlled experiments. In fact, you know when someone says something like, "Their research found that the tendency of college graduates to be more liberal reflects to a large extent the fact that more liberal students are more likely to go to college in the first place," means there was no control over who received "the treatment."

Anyway, anytime you see a study purporting to show something like, "students were no more likely to move left at schools with more liberal faculties" our antennae should go up. It's not possible to show that with statistics unless you were to show that they were actually "less likely." The key point is that you cannot show that two things are "the same." You can only show, with some level of confidence, that they are different. AND, failing to show that they are different is not showing that they are the same.

came to UM a small town Montana boy who was forced to go to Catholic church as a child. I had never met a gay person or been friends with a black person. I had never touched a sip of booze

Catholics in Montana must be WAY different than Catholics in Louisiana. I grew up in a Catholic family and we had wine at the dinner table at times...especially during special occasions...when we were little kids. Drinking alcoholic beverages is pretty deeply ingrained in the Catholic culture down here. You go to a Catholic wedding reception and you're going to see people getting sauced. Mardi Gras is essentially a Catholic celebration. Ok, so it's gotten a little out of hand but that's what it is.

You just didn't grow up among the right Cathoics. I'm not Catholic anymore but it's just because I can't abide the beliefs and rituals. It ain't because I couldn't have alcohol.

JohnStOnge wrote:I'd have to pay $30 for the actual details of the study linked by the author of the piece. But it appears that the article commits a common error: It is not possible to show "no effect" with a statistical study. All you can say is that there was not sufficient evidence to show an effect given the methods you used and the significance level you chose.

Also I'm pretty sure studies like that don't include controlled experiments. In fact, you know when someone says something like, "Their research found that the tendency of college graduates to be more liberal reflects to a large extent the fact that more liberal students are more likely to go to college in the first place," means there was no control over who received "the treatment."

Anyway, anytime you see a study purporting to show something like, "students were no more likely to move left at schools with more liberal faculties." It's not possible to show that with statistics unless you were to show that they were actually "less likely." The key point is that you cannot show that two things are "the same." You can only show, with some level of conficence, that they are different. AND, failing to show that they are different is not showing that they are the same.

Oh for christ's sake. No one gives a frogs fat ass what you think about the mechanics of the study. This is friends sharing their personal experiences and opinions. Lighten up and tell us what shaped you.

Oh for christ's sake. No one gives a frogs fat ass what you think about the mechanics of the study. This is friends sharing their personal experiences and opinions. Lighten up and tell us what shaped you.

The whole point of the post at the head of the thread is the idea that there are studies purporting to show that there is no liberal indoctorination effect of going to college and it's not possible to show that.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Oh for christ's sake. No one gives a frogs fat ass what you think about the mechanics of the study. This is friends sharing their personal experiences and opinions. Lighten up and tell us what shaped you.

The whole point of the post at the head of the thread is the idea that there are studies purporting to show that there is no liberal indoctorination effect of going to college and it's not possible to show that.

Open your mind.

Ivytalk wrote:That's right, Russian, I am old. Old enough to remember Kosygin and Brezhnev.

Shit, if I would have known you were that old, I wouldn't have given you such a hard time. Sorry, Sir.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I'd have to pay $30 for the actual details of the study linked by the author of the piece. But it appears that the article commits a common error: It is not possible to show "no effect" with a statistical study. All you can say is that there was not sufficient evidence to show an effect given the methods you used and the significance level you chose.

Also I'm pretty sure studies like that don't include controlled experiments. In fact, you know when someone says something like, "Their research found that the tendency of college graduates to be more liberal reflects to a large extent the fact that more liberal students are more likely to go to college in the first place," means there was no control over who received "the treatment."

Anyway, anytime you see a study purporting to show something like, "students were no more likely to move left at schools with more liberal faculties." It's not possible to show that with statistics unless you were to show that they were actually "less likely." The key point is that you cannot show that two things are "the same." You can only show, with some level of conficence, that they are different. AND, failing to show that they are different is not showing that they are the same.

Oh for christ's sake. No one gives a frogs fat ass what you think about the mechanics of the study. This is friends sharing their personal experiences and opinions. Lighten up and tell us what shaped you.

Like Ivytalk, I was a staunch liberal when I entered college. After half a dozen years watching immature, agenda driven uber-lib professors enforce grade-by-lock-step-indoctrination, I played the game, got my "President's Honor" graduation, then walked away and never looked back.

Cappies full of shit and simply not courageous to admit the agenda which has undermined our colleges.

Quite frankly, I'm ashamed of the status of many universities. While a large percentage enforce high integrity, an equally large percentage allow their curricula to wander off course allowing professors to personalize the message. Having visited 132 universities and interviewed students/faculty at most of those I've visited, the complaints of professors attempting to co-mingle their political agendas are abundant and unequivocal.

Notably, this is a liberal indoctrination.

Conservatives don't need to indoctrinate as the truth of their message withstands the test of rationality.

Conks hate science, so naturally they hate the evolution-believing-intellectuals of the higher education system treating it as fact. Just look at Ben Stein and his movie expelled. What an asshat, he has no clue what he's talking about

Now, I'm not getting on that ID/evolution subject again, but I think it's kind of retarded that the likes of Newt et all use the term "elite" as if it's a bad thing.

youngterrier wrote:Conks hate science, so naturally they hate the evolution-believing-intellectuals of the higher education system treating it as fact. Just look at Ben Stein and his movie expelled. What an asshat, he has no clue what he's talking about

Now, I'm not getting on that ID/evolution subject again, but I think it's kind of retarded that the likes of Newt et all use the term "elite" as if it's a bad thing.

Good one man. You are learning the art of Cap'nism.

As for me, I grew up in northcentral Montana where I had 9 kids in my senior class. Was one of the few to go to that "hippy" college known as The U of Montana. Didn't know the difference from a conk or donk, but sure knew I didn't really agree with all the ones that proclaimed to hate America and it's capitalism and Hacking the Yaak, but yet couldn't say no the the 5K per month check "corporate scum" dad was cutting for them. Always thought it was odd they always drove a Saab or better and wore Patagonia.

Had to work full time through college and join the Army Reserve to pay my way, but did it without loans. Only started to pay attention to politics after 9/11. Often feel I am somewhat of a hardass because I was never given anything in my life. Had to earn it all. Fucking hate freeloaders.

griz37 wrote:I came to UM a small town Montana boy who was forced to go to Catholic church as a child. I had never met a gay person or been friends with a black person. I had never touched a sip of booze or even knew what pot smelled like. While at UM my eyes were opened to a whole new world, I found out booze was delicious, pot stunk, black kids were just like me & gays were just trying to get along like everyone else. And even though I already knew it as a kid, I came away from college thinking that religion was even more useless than I previously though. College probably did make me more liberal & I am damn happy about that.

So let me get this straight: because black kids are just like you, booze is delicious, pot stinks and gays are just trying to get along and you're ok with all that you're a liberal and happy about it? I guess I'm a liberal too....

youngterrier wrote:Conks hate science, so naturally they hate the evolution-believing-intellectuals of the higher education system treating it as fact. Just look at Ben Stein and his movie expelled. What an asshat, he has no clue what he's talking about

Now, I'm not getting on that ID/evolution subject again, but I think it's kind of retarded that the likes of Newt et all use the term "elite" as if it's a bad thing.

I'll tell my scientist wife and all her scientist friends who are almost all exclusively Conks, what you just said.

They'll get a good laugh out of it.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oh for christ's sake. No one gives a frogs fat ass what you think about the mechanics of the study. This is friends sharing their personal experiences and opinions. Lighten up and tell us what shaped you.

Like Ivytalk, I was a staunch liberal when I entered college. After half a dozen years watching immature, agenda driven uber-lib professors enforce grade-by-lock-step-indoctrination, I played the game, got my "President's Honor" graduation, then walked away and never looked back.

Cappies full of shit and simply not courageous to admit the agenda which has undermined our colleges.

Quite frankly, I'm ashamed of the status of many universities. While a large percentage enforce high integrity, an equally large percentage allow their curricula to wander off course allowing professors to personalize the message. Having visited 132 universities and interviewed students/faculty at most of those I've visited, the complaints of professors attempting to co-mingle their political agendas are abundant and unequivocal.

Notably, this is a liberal indoctrination.

Conservatives don't need to indoctrinate as the truth of their message withstands the test of rationality.

Funny, because I've visited 2 colleges and interviewed no one. But my dad was a professor and most of his friends who I spent quite a bit of time around throughout my life were also professors and not a single one of them wore there politics on their sleeve. Hell, they didn't even contemplatively stroke their beards or twirl their long-staches. Must have been saving it all up for the classroom.

Or perhaps the Harvard of the Palouse is exceptionally non-biased.

No myth here, Cappy and D1B are fully indoctrinated.

Entered college with no particular political philosophy other than enjoying freedom and independence. Left an ardent conservative. Why? I guess it was the contrarian streak in me. Was fed a steady diet of liberalism in many different classrooms which forced me to research alternatives. The funny thing is as I think of it now, those liberals were childlike amateurs compared to today. My kids experiences 30+ years later were much scarier as they experienced a much more agressive liberal cadre. We regressed a long way from the early 60's to the late 90's.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:Entered college with no particular political philosophy other than enjoying freedom and independence. Left an ardent conservative. Why? I guess it was the contrarian streak in me. Was fed a steady diet of liberalism in many different classrooms which forced me to research alternatives. The funny thing is as I think of it now, those liberals were childlike amateurs compared to today. My kids experiences 30+ years later were much scarier as they experienced a much more agressive liberal cadre. We regressed a long way from the early 60's to the late 90's.

Interesting. If this is true across the board, perhaps liberalism in schools today is a contrarian attitude to the conservatism experienced elsewhere. At least economically speaking, we are far more liberal today than 30 years ago.