Republicans Outnumbered in Academia, Studies Find (NYT)

Well, duh. You can't have it both ways. Many conservatives with high academic acheivement just want to max out on money. They will sell bonds or do dirty crap at Enron or big defense law firms and accounting firms.

It is the free market. Make being a professor pay more than covering up crap at Enron, Halliburton and Vinson Elkins, Arthur Andersen etc. and you'll find high achieving conservatives flocking to be professors of humanities and social sciences.

 

you are the MASTER of sterotype.

 

To be fair, the REALLY good people in any subject will be drawn to where they can make the most money, particularly if they go to one of the top tier schools. While glynch does stereotype, I don't think that anyone would disagree that if salaries for professors (or high school teachers or any other instructor for that matter) were to rise, we would get more people who are more focused on money (as many conservatives are, particularly if they were great students at upper eschelon schools) into those professions.

 

Barring the hyperbole, I don't think it's too stereotypical to suggest that those with a frame of mind that would predispose them towards Republicanism/Neoconism would be more likely to major in business/technology/money-making type stuff, while those with a frame of mind that would predispose them towards Democratism/Liberalism would be more likely to be attracted to the Humanities.

I'm sure this doesn't apply in every case (what does?), but I would guess it's applicable enough to provide at least a partial explanation.

 

When I went to CAL in the early 90's there were a few prominent conservatives who while getting criticized by student groups weren't discriminated against in regards to tenure or anything else.

Also while I'm not a rightwing conservative I do have plenty of right leaning views regarding trade and property. I wasn't shy about taking on the extremely liberal "hippie" views of some of my professors and most of them appreciated that I was willing to challenge their views intellectually.

From what I've seen of David Horowitz and campus groups like the Berkely Patriot most of them seem like the types looking to deliberately inflame people for attention. They're basically doing the same thing as the radical leftists, and pretty much motivated by the same ideal of being an in your face campus radical rather than as people really interested in deep intellectual discourse.

 

Max, that was a stereotype for you. I'll give you that.

I thought I would get a rise out of the fans.

Sort of Dakota style.

Of course claiming to always be reasonable, without prejudice and a moderate middle of the roader who is a neutral weigher of the facts without any stereotypes can be questioned, too.



Now I really do think that this is a reason why so many leftists went into academics in the 1960's and early 1970's. In the 1960's, the real high point of the American economy, many of us felt like what is the big deal, you can always make a decent living, so why not do what you like the best.

The humanities and the social sciences don't pay as well. Even today conservatives are in general more likely to go into business and the sciences and I believe this is at least partly for the money.

Of course what comes first the chicken or the egg? Take a few simplistic economics courses from conservatives in the business school, mixed with finance and accounting and banking etc. and you are more likely to have your conservatism reinforced as opposed to taking economics in liberal arts where you are more likely to have strong liberals, also.

 

i've known liberals and conservatives both who were motivated solely by money in choosing profession. i went to law school with a slew of liberals who went out to work for big firms representing energy companies before regulatory boards. at the same time, i know and have even worked with conservative folks who specifically take lesser-paying jobs so they can volunteer time in the community and/or spend more time with their families.

people don't break down into categories that simply. they just don't. that's a crowning point of liberalism, and rightly so, all the time...unless we're talking about those who simply disagree with them...then it's ok to group them however you wish, apparently.

 

"Our goal is not to have the government dictate who's hired but to take politics out of the hiring process and the classroom," said Mr. Horowitz,

Yeah, let's have some Clarence Thomas style affirmative action for conservatives.

Reserve some slots for conservatives, no matter how low achieving to create balance.

BTW let's also demand that slots be reserved in the business schools for leftists no matter how low acheiving as there is a shortage there.

Hey I'll volunteer for the business school once they create some affirmative action slots for leftists. I would like to teach business ethics. Apparently they need a new approach.

 

deleted

 

there is no evidence, antecdotal or not, on any subject that i've ever posted which you find convincing, glynch. i could try all day, and i wouldn't convince you. i don't try to convince you. and that post wasn't directed at you for that very reason.

but since you asked...i don't believe most people are full line, hook and sinker, liberal or conservative. i know personal injury attorneys who are liberal on economic issues, but conservative on abortion issues. i know insurance defense attorneys who are economically conservative, but would see gay marriage bans as unconscionable. these are REAL people i know. normal people.

i think you are full line liberal. i can not remember one issue where your views differed from that of most would characterize as liberal. you poke at my moderation...but i'm hardly moderate. rarely do i take a middle position on any issue. i'm passionate about a group of issues...i just don't find that either political party espouses my views on all of those issues. in fact, i find they typically agree with some and take the exact opposite view with others. i find that they play a team sport with poliltics that's frankly, disgusting. i'm sure you'll agree with me that we're seeing that right now with the Republicans defense of DeLay. guess what...we've seen it from the Democrats before too! and that's why i have such a hard time with what i perceive as an oversimplified classification or sterotype or generalization about human beings, being broken down into groups like this...and it's why i mention it nearly every time i see you do it.

 

i think i beat you to it!

 

I have been involved in/seen the academic hiring process at three universities and I have never seen politics enter into anything. Generally it involves presenting a paper, being interviewed by faculty about experience, teaching philosophy, research goals, etc., and being interviewed by students with similar questions.

I think the bias in general has to do with personality types, perhaps with idealism having something to do with it but I have no idea why things would be getting more liberal in academia, especially since universities are becoming more corporate as they have to w**** themselves out for money that is becomin more and more scarce...which is a real problem.

 

This is something I noticed really picking up during my last year of school. Universities are being run more and more like businesses everyday, and while that may give them more more income for fountains and football, it seems to have a very detrimental effect on academia itself. Professors are often treated like "resources" in the same way library books and computers are, the variety in available classes is deteriorating, and people who are eager to learn about their world (instead of just learning how to get a bigger paycheck) are slowly being alienated by this shift in focus. Maybe I'm idealistic, but I believe a true scholar in any field is worthy of respect, and shouldn't be bandied about like a fry cook at McDonald's.

We have businessmen and professional fund-raisers now occupying positions that were once held by genuine, respected scholars. This may be great for making a school a profitable business, but it's not supposed to be a business, it's supposed to be an institute of higher learning. A university should be so, so much more than just a job training facility. Unfortunately, state schools are the most prone to this type of weakening, due to their dependence on public funding.


God Bless Capitalism.

 

Those who do, do
Those who can't...

Well you know the rest

 

I think we need to distinguish here between general politics and national politics.

Academia is obsessed with politics regarding personalities, intellectual ideologies and all sorts of things. In grad school and as a research fellow some of the nastiest fights I saw were between people who would vote exactly the same in a major election but would accuse each other of being thought police over Heidegger vs. Derrida.

 

The article was about governmental politics, specifically Democrat vs. Republican, thus, the distinction has already been made. Politics in the colloquial form exist in every aspect of life so that would be silly.

 

Wait, liberals are still in the majority of something? The outrage!

 

Sure doesn't apply in my case. I'm in graduate school for literature right now and wrote two theses; one in English, and one in Political Philosophy. I'm about as conservative as they come. In fact, as I take a look at my fellow students and professors, we all seem to be into the humanities and very much conservative, so much so I would say 85% of people here are conservative.

And there is an academic push towards liberalism found in modern and post modern philosophy that many in academia mimic without even realizing it. I think that's why a good number of professors are wickedly liberal.

Things kind of suck in this day and age though. Used to be, everyone got a liberal education. Now they get a liberal education in the pejorative sense of the word. Seriously, you can't even mention a controversial topic in mixed company these days without a poo flinging fest ensuing. Students educations are highly balkanized from the second they hit the college classroom floor and a solid background in the Western Tradition seems to have been deconstructed at most major colleges. Regardless if one agrees with Homer, Aristotle, Plato, and the like, they should be read-- but they are not. Instead, kids come in with greater knowledges of Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth. Not that these folks aren't great to learn about, but one should have a footing in the classics first.

Well, that's my rant on the topic. Check out my old work's webpage if you want more info on what is wrong with education these days. www.aale.org

/rant