Liberal Bias on College Campuses?

[Alex]

Yes, but exit polls also showed Kerry winning by a landslide in the afternoon, showing how well those worked out and how reliable.

Prove this please.

 

[edb19]

Prove this please.

Did you watch or listen to the election coverage? There's nothing to prove, LMR's statement is common knowledge. :doh

 

[Alex]

Yes, but exit polls also showed Kerry winning by a landslide in the afternoon, showing how well those worked out and how reliable.

Afternoon numbers are not final. Exit poll results are so they are reliable.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Afternoon numbers are not final. Exit poll results are so they are reliable.

Good point, its just they can’t stand that the smarter someone is, the more statistically likely they are to vote Democrat. Then again that’s always been the case.

Remember the old Adlie Stevenson quote who ran for president against Eisenhower:

Someone had come up to him after a speech in Chicago and told him "What a brilliant speech! You'll have the vote of every thinking man." Stevenson replied, "Yes,
perhaps, but I'll need a majority to get elected."

 

[faminedynasty]

Excuse me? That's one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard.

I know many JD's, MBA's, PhD's, MDivs - all extremely intelligent and extremely well educated and more of them are conservative than liberal. And they are not conservative because of outdated "religion-based" stances, but because of their understanding of a free market economy and it's effect on our social and political structure.

Certainly, there are many well educated, brilliant conservatives, I don't dispute that. Many of them are conservatives for reasons based on principle, certainly. But the fact is that a solid majority of very well educated people are liberal or left-leaning. There isn't a qualified political scientist, conservative or liberal who would dispute this.
Which is the very reason you have to turn to the argument of liberal bias in colleges.

 

[edb19]

Certainly, there are many well educated, brilliant conservatives, I don't dispute that. Many of them are conservatives for reasons based on principle, certainly. But the fact is that a solid majority of very well educated people are liberal or left-leaning. There isn't a qualified political scientist, conservative or liberal who would dispute this.
Which is the very reason you have to turn to the argument of liberal bias in colleges.

Not necessarily, according to a Pew Study. The fact is the majority of uneducated are liberal/left leaning. If the "other studies" are correct then I'll take the people with the bachelor's degrees who are conservative over the advanced degrees or the lack of education any day. Another thing to consider, while I have friends who are college educators - one must realize that people often go into academia because they can't make it in the real world.

From a Pew Research study:
'Americans with less than a high-school education are overwhelmingly Democratic, 41 percent to 20 percent, while people who have just a high-school degree are Democrats, 34 percent to 28 percent. People with some college training tend to be Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent while those with at least bachelor's degrees are Republican, 33 percent to 32 percent. I've seen other surveys on partisanship that show people with advanced degrees to be more Democratic than Republican, making those just bachelor's degrees more Republican if they're broken out of all those with some sort of a college degree.'

 

[Kelzie]

Not necessarily, according to a Pew Study. The fact is the majority of uneducated are liberal/left leaning. If the "other studies" are correct then I'll take the people with the bachelor's degrees who are conservative over the advanced degrees or the lack of education any day. Another thing to consider, while I have friends who are college educators - one must realize that people often go into academia because they can't make it in the real world.

From a Pew Research study:
'Americans with less than a high-school education are overwhelmingly Democratic, 41 percent to 20 percent, while people who have just a high-school degree are Democrats, 34 percent to 28 percent. People with some college training tend to be Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent while those with at least bachelor's degrees are Republican, 33 percent to 32 percent. I've seen other surveys on partisanship that show people with advanced degrees to be more Democratic than Republican, making those just bachelor's degrees more Republican if they're broken out of all those with some sort of a college degree.'

I hate the "My group is smarter.", "No, my group is smarter." game. In the end both parties have smart people and dumb people. And I can find studies that show that Democrats are smarter. In fact, here's one right here. Basically, how many high school diplomas a state had, had no correlation with how many people voted for Bush or Kerry, while state with a higher percentage of graduate degrees had a much higher percentage of people voting for Kerry. There's no point to it. And does it really matter? I mean, it's not like "dumb" people are less of a person, or don't deserve the right to decide which way their country is heading.

 

[nkgupta80]

one must realize that people often go into academia because they can't make it in the real world.

I know in science-related fields atleast, that most people go into Academia because of research. And how is academica not the real world. Does real world only mean entrepeneurship and business? There are professors who make awesome salaries.

This liberal vs. conservative, who is smarter stuff, is bullshit anyways.

 

[tr1414]

Not surprising in the least considering how smart NYU students are and the city in which they live and go to school.

You know, did you ever consider that one reason Bush doesn't want to improve education is because he would lose voters? Just a thought...

This is a typical liberal response.... I'm smart, your not. I know better than you. I know whats good for you.... you libs keep making my point for me.

 

[Trismegistus]

While I agree that the "who is smarter" argument is a waste of time, I also feel that there is a sizeable amount of truth to the idea that the Academy, as a viable subculture, leans decidedly to the left. There may be a variety of reasons for this, but I am sure that it is a complex issue. In fact, over the years, I've thoughtfully witnessed the public school system undergo a similar transition. I've spoken with many committed liberals who agree and who also retort "....it is a good thing." Regardless, it is what it is. What troubles me, at times, is the lack of "tolerance" on campuses toward those with conservative views from those who advocate tolerance as a foundation of their political idealogy. This suggests that a definate subculture, within the academy, has formed which attempts to exclude conservative ideas based on the view that they are toxic to the campus environment. I, myself, experienced this strangeness. I had a professor that really enjoyed my writing and shared my love of alternative music. I looked the part, too. I felt very comfortable and welcome. He found out that I wanted to join the military and that I was slightly to the right politically. All of a sudden, my writing wasn't so good anymore and he stopped asking my opinion in class. Of course, when he later found out I am Native American, all of a sudden I was, once again, in good graces.

 

[topgun146]

I have always said that the true students cut through what people say to find their own truths, liberal or conservative.

Agreed. Students in college look to professors for information regarding a certain subject. Most subjects allow no leaning one way or the other in teachings. 10*5 is always 50, whether you are democratic, republican, independant or commie.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Simple Reason. Before I go on, remember I am speaking in majority generalizations here, and I am very aware that there are exceptions to every rule.

People who have conservative republican leanings generally lean towards careers in corporate industry, being attracted by high pay, orderly work environment, and of course the left brain attraction to numbers.

People who have liberal leanings usually have an underlying goal of changing the world... the easiest way to change the world is to become a teacher of young minds. That way they can push their views at those who are there to learn from them.

There's also the view that liberals, not fond of the american capitalist dog eat dog world, tend to want to spend more time at college building up utopian political idealisms instead of facing the reality of the cold, cruel, world that lies before them, so much so that they make a career out of it.

Personally, i tend to accept the old addage 'Those who can't, teach'

 

[liminal]

I attend the University of Toronto and am currently working toward a double major in Political Science and History.

Canada is considerably more liberal than the US, but I have found the Political Science department to be a completely different story. Last year I took a political theory class with a professor Frost, a "strausian" (neo-conservative) who studied at UChicago, the mecca of neo-conservatism (I couldn't resist.) My favorite neo-con moment with Frost was when he used Machiavelli's advice to 'be like the Romans' and intercept problems before they occur to justify the Iraq war. My very liberal TA from Vermont was prepared the next day with half a dozen reasons why Machiavelli would say that the Iraq war was both a mistake and executed badly. The TA definitely had a better thought out argument. The political theory class I took is normally taught by Clifford Orwin and Thomas Pangle, both noted strausians. The majority are definitely liberal, but there is a very strong conservative core. That said, I took a US History course with a professor Wayne who was so liberal that several conservative friends of mine left the classroom. I remember at one point he said that the only reason Bush was in office was because he was a reformed drunkard who had become a born-again Christian; people could identify with that in so many different ways from so many different angles that they voted for him. I dislike Bush with a passion but, come on, there's clearly more to it than that.

As far as students are concerned, the vast majority of students are definitely liberal. That said, I know many students who consider themselves conservatives, even a few who are card-carrying Republicans. There are both liberal and conservative groups listed and, while there are more liberal groups, the difference is not great. A friend of mine runs a conservative group that had several relatively high profile speakers come.

I often end up in political discussions with people who don't seem to realize that college campuses are definitely not average in terms of political slant. The number of times that I've had to point out that 'none of my friends are going to vote for him' just doesn't cut it when only two of those friends are registered to vote, and both of them voted for Nader last time.

 

[donkeykong]

Simple Reason. Before I go on, remember I am speaking in majority generalizations here, and I am very aware that there are exceptions to every rule.

People who have conservative republican leanings generally lean towards careers in corporate industry, being attracted by high pay, orderly work environment, and of course the left brain attraction to numbers.

People who have liberal leanings usually have an underlying goal of changing the world... the easiest way to change the world is to become a teacher of young minds. That way they can push their views at those who are there to learn from them.

So liberals want to create a better world while Conservatives want to be corporate drones. I'm not sure I'm quite ready to give up the 'my group is smarter than your's argument quite yet.

 

[Kelzie]

I often end up in political discussions with people who don't seem to realize that college campuses are definitely not average in terms of political slant. The number of times that I've had to point out that 'none of my friends are going to vote for him' just doesn't cut it when only two of those friends are registered to vote, and both of them voted for Nader last time.

I completely agree with this. This biggest problem I see on college campuses is not whether a prof is liberal or conservative. Some people are going to lead by thinking for themselves, and some are going to follow by letting their profs think for them. You can't make a follower lead, just like you can't make someone think for themselves.

I think a bigger problem is the huge amount of apathy in the college generation. Now I know, obviously, college-age students on this forum don't have this problem, but the number if college students who aren't even aware of the Israel-Palestine problem is astounding. It drives me nuts to be talking to someone about the war in Iraq, and they say "Wait. We didn't find any WMD?" I'd rather have someone be an (informed) right wing conservative nut than just not care.

 

[FiremanRyan]

So liberals want to create a better world while Conservatives want to be corporate drones. I'm not sure I'm quite ready to give up the 'my group is smarter than your's argument quite yet.

you took his quote completely out of context.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

So liberals want to create a better world while Conservatives want to be corporate drones. I'm not sure I'm quite ready to give up the 'my group is smarter than your's argument quite yet.

Really.. well you liberals are always saying corporations run this country... who do you think usually runs the corporations? the liberal professors?

 

[donkeykong]

you took his quote completely out of context.

The context of the origional post was incorrect.

 

[chiral]

Hello all,

I just finished a bachelor's in math at UMichigan and will be attending grad school in math at UMinnesota with the eventual goal of becoming a professor.

Could this be because conservative thinkers would rather enter the marketplace with their ideas and seek out their own fortunes while liberal thinkers would rather enter a job where they would be assured their elitist status and job security without facing difficult situations or hard work?

Hard work is relative. The career of an academic isn't exactly a difficult one. Two classes a semester, teaching 6 hours a week, paid 4 month sabbatical once every few years, summers off...not such a bad deal.

While the job security provided by tenure is nice, keep in mind that getting tenure is a long process which does require hard work and facing difficult situations.

In math, doctoral programs typically take 4-6 years to complete. At Minnesota, the typical teaching expectation for math grad students is two sections of calculus. In addition to this, however, grad students must take classes and pass both qualifying exams and a three-hour oral general exam. Also, in order to write and defend a thesis, students must produce (and often publish) independent mathematical results at a steady rate - this takes up many a 'free summer month'. This requires a constant effort to keep up with the current state of research in their area of math. The typical stipend given to a grad student at Minnesota is $16,500 per year (this is comparable to the stipend at Berkeley, Brandeis, Washington, Wisconsin, and other research institutions) - keep in mind that many grad students start families in grad school, so finances are often quite tight.

After graduation, in order to be eligable for a tenure track job, most newly minted doctorates must take on a (or a series of) two- to three-year postdoctoral positions. The pay for these positions is less than outstanding - about $45,000 /yr. at UMichigan in math. In addition to teaching duties, postdocs are in 'publish or perish' mode - if their list of publications is not long enough, they will not get a tenure track job. Since many of these positions arise from NSF funding, the current shortage of funding to the NSF has made these positions difficult to get.

If an aspiring professor gets hired at a tenure track position, they are still in 'publish or perish' mode at a relatively low salary until their tenure review, which typically comes at least 6 years after they were hired. If they are awarded tenure, they have job security and a salary of about $80K - $90K /yr. in math at Michigan.

Keep in mind also that salaries for academics in humanities, poli sci, etc. are typically lower that the amounts shown here. At least in the sciences, the notions that attaining academic tenure is easy if you pass a political litmus test or that the benefits of tenure are disproportionate to the work required to achieve it are false.

The reason why conservatives have such a hard time getting into tenured positions in higher education is because they need the support of the current faculty. Professors have to publish papers which are anonymously peer-reviewed. Liberal professors rate down conservative candidates, thus ensuring the sanctity of their offices. This explains why there is an increased discrepancy in departments where professors are forced to be more political.

I cannot say much about nonmathematical review boards, but in my experience with getting things published, the boards would probably have no way of knowing my political leanings. Indeed, the probability that I have met my reviewers is low and math papers do not usually discuss current political affairs.

:fyi: Colleges do not require all teachers to have a Doctorate. If I took the time and money to get a Doctorate, I certainly wouldn’t settle for a low paying job at a University. Maybe Professors were at the lower end of the grade scale and couldn’t get hired any place else. Did that scenario ever occur to you?

Go onto the website for a math department at any major research institution like Michigan or Minnesota. They often list their requirements for hiring postdocs or tenure track professors - a Ph.D. is virtually always among them. I have yet to meet a professor without a doctorate.

My experience with math and science grad students and professors has been that they are (in general) somewhat left-leaning. I would guess that this is because the perks of a tenured professorship tend to appeal to liberals more than conservatives. College towns are often left-leaning and, as a professor, one gets to travel the world to collaborate, give talks, etc., and is a part of a truly global community. Also, the drive for immediate profit is relatively weaker in academia than the desire for advancing pure knowledge. I guess that the same sort of analysis would reveal why the military, buisness executives, etc., tend to be somewhat right-leaning.

Sorry about the lengh of this post and all of the long past quotations.
:2razz:

 

[RightinNYC]

While the job security provided by tenure is nice, keep in mind that getting tenure is a long process which does require hard work and facing difficult situations.

In math, doctoral programs typically take 4-6 years to complete. At Minnesota, the typical teaching expectation for math grad students is two sections of calculus. In addition to this, however, grad students must take classes and pass both qualifying exams and a three-hour oral general exam. Also, in order to write and defend a thesis, students must produce (and often publish) independent mathematical results at a steady rate - this takes up many a 'free summer month'. This requires a constant effort to keep up with the current state of research in their area of math. The typical stipend given to a grad student at Minnesota is $16,500 per year (this is comparable to the stipend at Berkeley, Brandeis, Washington, Wisconsin, and other research institutions) - keep in mind that many grad students start families in grad school, so finances are often quite tight.

After graduation, in order to be eligable for a tenure track job, most newly minted doctorates must take on a (or a series of) two- to three-year postdoctoral positions. The pay for these positions is less than outstanding - about $45,000 /yr. at UMichigan in math. In addition to teaching duties, postdocs are in 'publish or perish' mode - if their list of publications is not long enough, they will not get a tenure track job. Since many of these positions arise from NSF funding, the current shortage of funding to the NSF has made these positions difficult to get.

If an aspiring professor gets hired at a tenure track position, they are still in 'publish or perish' mode at a relatively low salary until their tenure review, which typically comes at least 6 years after they were hired. If they are awarded tenure, they have job security and a salary of about $80K - $90K /yr. in math at Michigan.

Come to NYU to study at Courant where all grad students are Unionized.

Keep in mind also that salaries for academics in humanities, poli sci, etc. are typically lower that the amounts shown here. At least in the sciences, the notions that attaining academic tenure is easy if you pass a political litmus test or that the benefits of tenure are disproportionate to the work required to achieve it are false.

I don't know a single professor in the entire university who makes less than 200,000. Every single intro and low level calc course is taught by a grad student who speaks little to no English, puts in little to no effort, and doesn't give a damn whether you pass or fail.

Once you're a professor, you teach a grand total of two courses per semester, and spend most of your time relaxing/working on your own studies. And while you may be correct in saying that it is a publish or perish situation, I'd much rather be in a publish or perish situation in a field that I loved so much I dedicated my whole life to it than working 40 hours a week at a job I hated.

I cannot say much about nonmathematical review boards, but in my experience with getting things published, the boards would probably have no way of knowing my political leanings. Indeed, the probability that I have met my reviewers is low and math papers do not usually discuss current political affairs.

As you point out, that's math. It's a bit different for social sciences.

Go onto the website for a math department at any major research institution like Michigan or Minnesota. They often list their requirements for hiring postdocs or tenure track professors - a Ph.D. is virtually always among them. I have yet to meet a professor without a doctorate.

And they're rewarded handsomely. What's your point?

 

[chiral]

I don't know a single professor in the entire university who makes less than 200,000. Every single intro and low level calc course is taught by a grad student who speaks little to no English, puts in little to no effort, and doesn't give a damn whether you pass or fail.

Really? According to the information posted at

http://www.aaup.org/surveys/01z/z01t7.htm

the 2000-2001 average annual salary for professors at NYU was $110,400 for women and $123,900 for men. Granted, this is slightly out of date, but New York is also quite expensive. Also, according to the information here

http://www.ams.org/employment/asst.pdf

Graduate TAs in mathematics at NYU at Courant earned $19,500 in the year 2003-2004. Given that Minneapolis is quite a bit cheaper than New York City, I think that this is about equivalent to the $16,000 they give for an Minnesota - Twin Cities RA.

Once you're a professor, you teach a grand total of two courses per semester, and spend most of your time relaxing/working on your own studies. And while you may be correct in saying that it is a publish or perish situation, I'd much rather be in a publish or perish situation in a field that I loved so much I dedicated my whole life to it than working 40 hours a week at a job I hated.


And they're rewarded handsomely. What's your point?

Yes, that is why I and many others go into academia - to get to study something we love and get paid for it. As for the comment about how hard professors work - have you had any research experience? Do you know how much work goes into it?

The point of making this post was to correct some of the misconceptions about how academic jobs are attained. The tenure process, average professor salaries, etc., are not common knowledge, and many politicians have reaped political benefits by portraying professors as an undeserving, lazy, out-of-touch, superwealthy, and elitist group of people. This happens on both sides of the aisle - indeed, Gov. Vilsak of Iowa recently compared professors to spoiled Hollywood celebrities. Since I know about the tenure process and the rewards one obtains by completing it, I felt that I could dispel some of these misconceptions and convince the people in this forum that, while the benefits of being a professor are nice, they are almost always well deserved.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I recall a "NightLine" episode last year which devoted an entire show on this subject.

In it, a study was revealed that a whopping, yet not surprising, 9/10 college professors lean/favor/vote liberal/Democrat. In spite of this large number of political dominance, the breakdown of the students was even more surprising.

Although I can not remember exactly the percentages, I do remember which political leaning was favored more by the students.

More than 1/3 of college students, freshmen to final year students, ages 18-22, found themselves leaning/favoring/possibly voting conservative/Republican. The breakdown between students--same factors--voting for a Democrat or an independent/3rd party was about even, slight edge to the Democrat Party.

What are your thoughts on this subject? And are you encouraged, not surprised, discouraged of the numbers? Does this prove that a liberal teaching curriculum and bias in the classroom by the professor do not matter in the end?

This probably began during the Vietnam era when the college professors of today came out of that era. To listen to the liberals opine, they are like mindless zombies who have been brainwashed by their liberal/leftist teachers and professors. Just look at the likes of Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, for example. I can't even conceive of such propagandists teaching class when I attended in the late '60s and early '70s. Real Americans would have run them out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered.

 

[Kelzie]

This probably began during the Vietnam era when the college professors of today came out of that era. To listen to the liberals opine, they are like mindless zombies who have been brainwashed by their liberal/leftist teachers and professors. Just look at the likes of Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, for example. I can't even conceive of such propagandists teaching class when I attended in the late '60s and early '70s. Real Americans would have run them out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered.

Noam Chomsky is a god. And a recognized genius in linguistics. I suppose you probably would have tarred and feathered Einstein too.

 

[cnredd]

Noam Chomsky is a god. And a recognized genius in linguistics. I suppose you probably would have tarred and feathered Einstein too.

From some guy...make your own judgements...

You had expressed disbelief at my strong and negative reaction (based on memories of the 1970s, when he seemed both in person and in print to be mocking those trying to alert the outside world to the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia) when the name "Noam Chomsky" was raised. You said that Chomsky was one of the most intelligent, hardest-working, incisive, and moral voices on the left today.

And you suggested that I give him another chance.

So the next time I stopped by Cody's, I picked up one of Chomsky's books: his (1992) What Uncle Sam Really Wants (New York: Odonian Press: 1878825011).

But I only got to page 17. Then I put the book down--with my strong negative allergic reaction confirmed.

The book began with a sketch of the history of U.S. foreign relations since World War II. By the second page Chomsky was in the middle of a brief discussion of planning for the postwar period. Four paragraphs were devoted to NSC 68--the end-of-the-1940s policy planning document that proposed building a military strong enough to confront the Soviet Union on any continent, and settling down for a long Cold War of unlimited duration. But NSC 68 was exhibited in a vacuum. There was not a word about the gradual shift in the late 1940s of U.S. policy from Rooseveltian cooperation with Stalin to Trumanesque confrontation, not a word about escalation of tensions--the fate of former German prisoners returned by the western allies to Stalin, the Soviet coup in Czechoslovakia, the disputes over German reconstruction ending in the Soviet blockade of Berlin--and not a word about how NSC 68 had no prospects of becoming policy until Josef Stalin took off the leash and Kim Il Sung began the Korean War.

I found this absence of any attempt to sketch the context disturbing.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/chomsky.html

 

[Missouri Mule]

Noam Chomsky is a god. And a recognized genius in linguistics. I suppose you probably would have tarred and feathered Einstein too.

Chomsky is both an idiot and a traitor. I've actually read his gibberish and it is the meanderings of a mad man. His expertise in linguistics gives him no more expertise in world politics than the man who picks up my trash. Did you ever hear of an idiot savant? Chomsky is a perfect example.