I find this hard to believe. Westpoint is a school as is Berkeley. Both teach, for example, Int'l Relations and also poetry. You can't really slant to the left or right poetry. But I.R. has votaries from either side, I'm certain, in either school. It would be unwise and irresponsible for established institutions to not present "sides" of a subject through their faculty. They wouldn't be viable educational institutions if otherwise.

As far as potential teachers coming from low-scoring test groups. I don't know - almost every teacher I can remember, from at least middle school through graduate school, held PhDs. You gotta' have some sort of brain to get one of those sheepskins.

What another load of hogwash. I was an ultra conservative in College and when I taught. Never saw any such "poor treatment" and I got tenure.

man, you need to get better support for the junk you put out

What happened to you Steve, that changed your views from "ultra conservative" to flaming liberal? Did you get a union job or marry a Green Peacer or trial lawyer? (joking... well kinda)

I'm interested as well. I always thought you were supposed to become more conservative as you aged.

Tell the truth... Were you really "ultra" conservative? Or, simply making a point. ;)

- Skip

yup...sorry Flint, but you're just wrong. Or generalizing from n=1 again. At CMC, the campus was awash in conservative faculty. In fact, as a liberal I was in the minority.

I was quite conservative when I began college, but I chalk that up to ignorance of the real world. College eventually exposed me to a plethora of different people from different backgrounds, socio-economic structures, etc. who also proved my conservative ignorance. BTW: that doesn't mean I'm a liberal, either.

In any event, if Fint wants to criticize the education system for promoting liberalism, maybe a good place to start is with those who use the education system.

I didn't realize this was regulated. :)

It goes along with the general dementia and the need for larger and larger doses of viagra (case in point: the conservative jealousy over Clinton's gettin' lucky in the oral office).

I think Jamie79SC pretty much hits the nail on the head and I might add that there really isn't any distinction between the democrats and republicans when it comes to spending our hard earned dollars.

Quote:

I see nothing truly conservative about the government telling people who to marry, what drugs to put into their bodies, what to watch on TV, or listen to on the radio. I don’t see anything too conservative about the extensive foreign adventures upon which we’ve embarked over the last few years. Massive government intrusion into our private lives through mechanisms like the PATRIOT act don’t seem too conservative to me either.

Our friends, Citizens Agaisnt Government Waste, most recently bestowed upon the senior republican senator from Alaska a very worthy title, "HOGZILLA." So what does this say about all the worthy republicans out there lining their pockets with out hard earned dollars?

Republican does not necessarily mean Conservative

Just as voting Democrat does not make you liberal.

For instance: I own a gun, and have CCP.

I ride a motorcycle in the woods whenever I can, as fast as I can.

I served in the Army 10 years, volunteering twice for combat.

I am Pro-death penalty

I will not vote Republican.

Do I qualify as a liberal?

No, just confused.

But I can think for myself at least.

Much like dd74.
I would say that I was a conservative when I was naive and hadn't seen much outside of my own rather lilly white working class community-we had one token black kid in high school who got suspended and transferred after being in a fight. I was pro Vietnam War in mid 60's, in ROTC my freshman college year, involved with Young Republicans, was in Student Senate as a "conservative", part of group which published an independent conservative college newspaper, became a born again Christian in a very conservative Baptist Church who almost preached that the catholic church was the anti-christ, and my friends worked on Nixon's 72 relection campaign. Then Watergate, the war got worse and I joined one protest against the war. Got a teaching job, thought I could take my Bible to school and put it on my desk as a reference-very naive. Married a wonderful Catholic woman and after three years as a teacher and even with both of us working I could not afford a house. Quit teaching, got my masters, became a rocket scientist and doubled my pay immediately, we bought a house and started raising a family in a very racially, ethnically, and religiously integrated suburb with many of them being recent immigrants.
I would mark my turning point at Watergate. So now I would say I am a social liberal in that I believe in helping people who can’t help themselves, and I know for certain that ***** happens to people through no fault of themselves and I view it as better to help them now than to pay more later when they sink lower. But I think I try to be a fiscal conservative sometimes in that we should get tangible results for money spent. I support my local schools but tend to vote down state wide bonds because it is irresponsible to add to the debt load for the future. I tend to give 5-10% of gross to charity. I believe there is no such thing as a free lunch, and we all need to ante up sometimes for the betterment of society and we each should be treated fairly and equitably without regard to our monetary wealth.

Yeah, this is a way more eloquent version of what I meant above.

However, this is way more interesting:

So, I guess there aren't too many "It's not rocket science" jokes around work huh?

Think again. The only ones who would think that any US campus (except maybe a military academy) was awash with conservative professors is someone who is evenn farther left.
Study finds liberals dominate faculties

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Nearly three-quarters of faculty members at U.S. colleges and universities describe themselves as liberals, and at elite schools, the proportion is 87 percent, a survey has found.
What's more, half say they are Democrats and 51 percent indicate they seldom or never attend church, according to the survey, published in the March issue of the online political journal Forum.
"You would expect the majority of English literature and sociology professors to be liberals, but our survey found that 66 percent of those in physics and 64 percent of those in chemistry are liberals," said S. Robert Lichter, a communications professor at George Mason University and an author of the study.

In English literature, 88 percent are liberals and 3 percent are conservative, the survey found.
"And in sociology, 59 percent said they are Democrats and 0 percent said they are Republicans," said Mr. Lichter, who also heads the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
In addition, more than two-thirds of faculty members surveyed say they either strongly (44 percent) or somewhat agree (23 percent) that a "homosexual lifestyle" is acceptable. About 84 percent say they support abortion rights.
The survey, based on data from the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey, questioned 1,643 teachers at 183 four-year higher-education institutions nationwide.
It also found that 15 percent of college faculty members overall consider themselves conservative and 11 percent say they are Republicans. Fewer than a third (31 percent) describe themselves as regular churchgoers.
The findings were compiled by Mr. Lichter, in collaboration with Stanley Rothman and Neil Nevitte. Mr. Rothman, the study's director, is a retired political science professor at Smith College. Mr. Nevitte is a political science professor at the University of Toronto.
Said Mr. Lichter: "This is the richest lure of information on faculty ideology in 20 years. And this is the first study that statistically proves bias [against conservatives] in the hiring and promotion of faculty members."
Mr. Rothman agreed. He said the survey "clearly showed" that faculty members who are "conservative, religious and female are less likely to get good jobs" on college campuses and be promoted than other women.
"Republicans get worse jobs than Democrats," Mr. Lichter said.
The ideological shift to the left among college faculty has become much more pronounced in the past 20 years. In a 1984 survey by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 39 percent of faculty said they were liberals.
Peter Sprigg, senior director of policy studies for the Family Research Council, said the study proves that "American academia is overwhelmingly dominated by liberal secularists."
He said it's time they engage in real "diversity" and hire faculty members who reflect the values and "conservatism of Americans at large."

This is completely false, and a professor of anything should know better. They teach you this in the Research Methods paper taught at ANY and I assume EVERY department of every university.

The study does not statistically prove any hiring bias, as it makes no attempt to control for the political preference of those applying for jobs in the first instance. If 59% of applicants for sociology positions are Democrats, and 0% are Republicans, does this mean there is a hiring bias? Of course not.

Moreover, the reason for the supposed bias in this instance is (to me) self evident. The average conservative places almost no importance on sociology as a subject - go on, admit it, you think its a waste of time. The people who don't think it is a waste of time are... you guessed it... liberal.

The so called "study" has a severe and unavoidable selection bias, imho.

I hope I didn't already post this, but here goes. I did postgrad finance at university. The dept was accounting and finance. 9/10 postgrad finance people were guys, 9/10 postgrad accounting people were girls. 9/10 finance graduate roles go to guys, more than half of graduate accounting roles go to girls (skewed stat because you don't NEED post grad to get an accounting job (and boy/girl split is pretty even at undergrad level), but it is essentially a prerequisite to a finance job).

So, is there a hiring bias in New Zealand's investment banks, or is the 1/10 female hiring ratio a reflection of the applicants? If this "study" had been done, it would have spuriously concluded that there was a severe gender bias, when there is not.

Cam
I did not see anything in the article to indicate methodology......Only a reporter's description of the findings. Did you get a copy by the study?

I am beginning to think that, as one ages, the tendency is to see there are alternative points of view. When I was a young adult, my world was rather limited geographically and philosophically. It is only with the passing years that I have been subjected to individuals of every possible stripe, politically, ethnically, religiously and others. It is in actually listening to these individuals and attempting to understand what motivates them that has changed me from totally conservative to somewhere in the middle. Just a hypothesis, but those with the strongest views, left or right, seem to have limited life experience. Let me explain. Length of life is not the key. One place I worked, an engineer said "I have 30 years experience!" His boss told me later.."He has 5 years experience, 6 times over". The more insulated, the narrower the point of view. In my case, I can no longer follow a narrow ideological belief without questioning and seeing there are flaws in both major parties and the way they approach problems.

Fint:

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/05.03.29.Forum.Survey.pdf

Go nuts.

Specifically, check out this paragraph:

Note that there big fancy regression analysis had (what I recall to be) a pretty low r squared of 20%, and that even at face value the analysis states that achievement is 5x more important that the other factors. This is without discussing the measurement flaws (the Idealogy Index is not benchmarked against the general populace, and an almost useless measure) and what I would hypothesise as the self selection of liberal participants to academia.

Then note that, despite Lichter's breathless "And this is the first study that statistically proves bias [against conservatives] in the hiring and promotion of faculty members.", the study itself states:

and

This is not "proving" anything, and it was dishonest of the guy to say so.