Do conservatives ever wonder WHY liberalism is prevalent in higher education?

[Oldstyle]

The truth is...Obama, Reid and Pelosi used the Stimulus to prop up the public sector while they let the private sector twist in the wind. They rewarded their constituents with subsidies and turned their backs on millions of out of work Americans in the private sector. The reason that the unemployment numbers really haven't moved much in the past four years is that most of the jobs Obama "saved" were IN the public sector...jobs that were subsequently lost as soon as the stimulus ran out and State and local governments couldn't retain their bloated staffs. The private sector is what creates jobs AND creates the revenue to maintain jobs in the public sector...a concept that Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't seem to grasp.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I wasn't criticizing his grammar. I was criticizing his writing style.

"Atrocious" is an exaggeration and you know it.

The point of my OP is that liberalism represents intellectual ideas. Do I really need to break it down for you?

Ok, let's just call it "terrible," as opposed to atrocious.

And, just what is so "intellectual" about liberal ideas that equal failure?

Basically, the only "ideas" liberals come up with are, "ideas" that have already been tried, and have abjectly failed, time and time again.

Oh that is so untrue. Take Obama's stimulus package for instance. Contrary to what Republicans will tell you, the stimulus saved 2 million jobs according to CBO. Moody's projected the stimulus saved 2.5 million jobs. Both of these are independent sources.

lol, The stimulus was a political pay back to union contract pension funds and the like. It didnt save no jobs or create permenant jobs and btw all the money was not spent nor could it.

 

[kaz]

I wasn't criticizing his grammar. I was criticizing his writing style.

"Atrocious" is an exaggeration and you know it.

The point of my OP is that liberalism represents intellectual ideas. Do I really need to break it down for you?

Ok, let's just call it "terrible," as opposed to atrocious.

And, just what is so "intellectual" about liberal ideas that equal failure?

Basically, the only "ideas" liberals come up with are, "ideas" that have already been tried, and have abjectly failed, time and time again.

Oh that is so untrue. Take Obama's stimulus package for instance. Contrary to what Republicans will tell you, the stimulus saved 2 million jobs according to CBO. Moody's projected the stimulus saved 2.5 million jobs. Both of these are independent sources.

The CBO is an independent source?

The CBO is actually a source that is skewed by law. By congressional law, they are required to ignore that decisions change based on tax law. Congress was tired of being told their tax policies effected behavior, so they passed a law requiring the CBO to not factor that in.

So for example, if one stick of gum is a dime and there is a 2 cent average tax, and there are 1 billion sticks of gum sold in a year, then the gum tax is $2 billion.

If they change the tax to $1.02 a stick. Then the price of gum goes to $1.10 per stick of gum. Clearly that would reduce the demand for Gum. However, the CBO, by law, would be required to project revenue for gum the next year to be $102 billion, they are not allowed to factor that taxes change the price of the gum and that reduces demand.

There are two big impacts of that.

1) Revenue is short of projections, which drives up deficits.

2) Democrats go out and campaign that based on CBO projections taxes will not affect sales, when CBO is required ... by law ... enacted by them ... to project that way. And it's so because before they forced the CBO to project that way, they didn't.

It's the typical dynamic. Democrats lie, the media are their lap kittens, the public is ignorant, and the Republicans are pathetic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I will concede that "impossible" was a poor choice of words. Bias is still possible. However, it is unlikely. You obviously don't know how it works. Studies are reviewed by people independent to the research to itself. There is no reason for them not to be objective. This premise that they wouldn't be because they are "liberal" is ridiculous. Like it or not, psychology is a legitimate field. You thinking It's not means nothing because you don't know anything about it. Psychologists are not insecure about the work they do. They don't have good reason to not be objective when they review a peer's study.

Billy, that's like saying oreilly wrote a book or paper and rush limbaugh and sean hannity reviewed it....would you by that? They are peers and objective, correct?

My dad is a prof, he's had several papers and I know how it works......but science(the hard kind) is objective, social science is not.....it's just not objective, they use studies and try to acertain from behavior, it led to a field called profiling....now they want that banned......which I think that's the only thing social scientists really gave us worth anything

Why can't you just admit you don't know how it works? The social sciences use the scientific method like any hard science. A hypothesis is generated. Variables are identified, defined and controlled before experiments are conducted. The data is obtained objectively and then computed and conclusions are drawn. They don't "use studies" that have already been done to ascertain behavior. That is not even close to how it is done. Take my word for it.

The closest thing you are describing would be a literature review that is included within a study aside the experiment. Relevant research already published is reviewed and tied into the hypothesis.

They do not use the scientific method.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Given how poorly written this post is, I seriously doubt you have been to college.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to go there, and I'm VERY sure that if you do, I will make you regret it.

Are you threatening me over the internet?

Remember when you challenged my education with your art degree in fake science?

 

[buckeye45_73]

I wasn't criticizing his grammar. I was criticizing his writing style.

"Atrocious" is an exaggeration and you know it.

The point of my OP is that liberalism represents intellectual ideas. Do I really need to break it down for you?

Ok, let's just call it "terrible," as opposed to atrocious.

And, just what is so "intellectual" about liberal ideas that equal failure?

Basically, the only "ideas" liberals come up with are, "ideas" that have already been tried, and have abjectly failed, time and time again.

Oh that is so untrue. Take Obama's stimulus package for instance. Contrary to what Republicans will tell you, the stimulus saved 2 million jobs according to CBO. Moody's projected the stimulus saved 2.5 million jobs. Both of these are independent sources.

First, before OBama, NOONE used the jobs saved, because you cant calculate it, it's just an estimate.....which we can all manipulate....man you're not the brightest star in the sky are ya?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wasn't criticizing his grammar. I was criticizing his writing style.

"Atrocious" is an exaggeration and you know it.

The point of my OP is that liberalism represents intellectual ideas. Do I really need to break it down for you?

Ok, let's just call it "terrible," as opposed to atrocious.

And, just what is so "intellectual" about liberal ideas that equal failure?

Basically, the only "ideas" liberals come up with are, "ideas" that have already been tried, and have abjectly failed, time and time again.

Oh that is so untrue. Take Obama's stimulus package for instance. Contrary to what Republicans will tell you, the stimulus saved 2 million jobs according to CBO. Moody's projected the stimulus saved 2.5 million jobs. Both of these are independent sources.

Now you are lying, the CBO does not say that, neither does Moody's, there is no way for anyone to count how many jobs were saved. If you actually understood math you would know why even attempting to argue that government spending saves jobs is absurd. By the way, the CBO is not considered an independent source.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, the estimates say "saved or created" 2.5 million jobs. The stimulus was a big success, unfortunately, it wasn't as big as it should have been.

total horseshit. there is no way to calculate "saved" jobs. Its a lie and you bought it. Doesn't say much for your intellect does it?

Look up the stimulus on Wikipedia. It gives a detailed analysis on all of the independent studies conducted on the package. It is without question that the stimulus had a dramatic effect. Don't like Wikipedia as a source? Look at the references. They are all there. Read those if you aren't satisfied.

You use Wikipedia as a source?

 

[buckeye45_73]

I will concede that "impossible" was a poor choice of words. Bias is still possible. However, it is unlikely. You obviously don't know how it works. Studies are reviewed by people independent to the research to itself. There is no reason for them not to be objective. This premise that they wouldn't be because they are "liberal" is ridiculous. Like it or not, psychology is a legitimate field. You thinking It's not means nothing because you don't know anything about it. Psychologists are not insecure about the work they do. They don't have good reason to not be objective when they review a peer's study.

Billy, that's like saying oreilly wrote a book or paper and rush limbaugh and sean hannity reviewed it....would you by that? They are peers and objective, correct?

My dad is a prof, he's had several papers and I know how it works......but science(the hard kind) is objective, social science is not.....it's just not objective, they use studies and try to acertain from behavior, it led to a field called profiling....now they want that banned......which I think that's the only thing social scientists really gave us worth anything

Why can't you just admit you don't know how it works? The social sciences use the scientific method like any hard science. A hypothesis is generated. Variables are identified, defined and controlled before experiments are conducted. The data is obtained objectively and then computed and conclusions are drawn. They don't "use studies" that have already been done to ascertain behavior. That is not even close to how it is done. Take my word for it.

The closest thing you are describing would be a literature review that is included within a study aside the experiment. Relevant research already published is reviewed and tied into the hypothesis.

Look, I'm tired of you stupidity....hard science and soft science are just that. You cant have a controlled experiment with soft science, therefore you cant have a real outcome.....social science is bs guesswork. You're telling me anthropology is as exact as chemistry? No wonder people like you get caught up in the global warming scam....


Hard and soft science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are a few of my favorites:
Critics of the concept argue that soft sciences are implicitly considered to be less "legitimate" scientific fields,[2] or simply not scientific at all

During the late 2000s recessions, social science was disproportionately targeted for funding cuts compared to mathematics and natural science,[17][18] and proposals were made for the United States' National Science Foundation to cease funding disciplines such as political science altogether


But this is the real key to libtards and why they want them equated:::::


Being labelled a soft science can affect the perceived value of a discipline to society and the amount of funding available to it

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/12/opinion/la-oe-wilson-social-sciences-20120712

Once, during a meeting at my university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only faculty member present from a science department. When I corrected him, noting that I was from the Department of Psychology, he waved his hand dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played baseball.

I think his analogy backfired as well.....little league science....ok we'll go with that....bwahahahahaa


so again Social science is bs, DOES NOT use the scientific method (it cant, when dealing with behavior, behavior is not quantifiable nor is it objective)

 

[Cecilie1200]

and who measures that one? just because you know how to spell and use grammer correctly lets you judge? oh pppppppppppllllllease.another moron that dont know the differance between knowledge and wisdom.

Let's just say that criticizing someone else's intelligence publicly in that nearly incoherent form is NOT a demonstration of wisdom, hmmm?

but it is, guess the point shot way over your head sorry. and what dictionary do you find the word "hmmm" in ? put another quarter in and play again.

Look up the word "colloquialism" in your dictionary. After you've done that, contemplate the difference between a conversation in text, and a college essay. Perhaps when you've finished both those chores, you can ask yourself how much I'm laughing at your lame attempt to conflate your pathetic spelling, grammar, and punctuation with my post on the basis of my use of a colloquialism.

Epic fail.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Ah, Billy? The Stimulus was supposed to "create" jobs...not "save" them. The whole "jobs saved" thing is something that the Obama Administration came up with to obscure the fact that their stimulus DIDN'T come close to creating the number of jobs that they said it would. The great thing about a statistic like "jobs saved" is that there IS no way of getting a verifiable number.

Actually, the estimates say "saved or created" 2.5 million jobs. The stimulus was a big success, unfortunately, it wasn't as big as it should have been.

LOL...what was a "big success" was creating the term jobs "saved or created" because it allowed the Obama Administration to run from how many jobs they DIDN'T create. Sorry, Billy...but that was political theater...put on by the White House and allowed to stand by a compliant main stream media.

One could also assume, that the term was created to cover for the fact that ridiculous programs like "Cash For Clunkers", "Clunkers for Cars," and the throwing of a couple of billion dollars of taxpayers money that will never be recovered, towards "green" energy companies that had no way of ever being viable, were abject failures.

As was just handing the average citizen money, as a roll of the dice, that failed under Bush the first time it was tried, in hopes that it would magically stimulate something or other....Once again, another example of these so-called "intellectual" liberals who come up with ideas that have already been proven failures.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

Do liberals ever wonder why liberalism does so poorly in the real world?

Really? You boys really did well from 2001 to 2009. Two wars that have turned out badly, and economic meltdown that almost matched that of 1929. Failed to go after the murderer of 3000 Americans on American soil. That was left up to President Obama. Not only that, it was left up to our President to try undo the damage that was done by the Bush Admin. while you fellows tried everything in your power to destroy the American economy.

Bush is not a Conservative and Clinton created the Housing bubble you idiot.


.

 

[Billy000]

With all due respect, Billy...if someone HAS a liberal bias then in their mind they may think they are being "objective" when in fact they are not. Bias is not impossible. Bias is not unlikely. Bias occurs on a daily basis. You need look no further than this board. Posters from both ends of the political spectrum back up those who support their political agendas...even when those others post some really ridiculous stuff. You think college faculty members are really all that different?

Okay but what you don't seem to understand is that unless the psychologist is examining some politically related topic, there is no reason to think his liberal ideology is making his findings biased. Also, just because liberalism is prevalent higher education, it does not mean that every professor is liberal. It doesn't even mean that most of them are liberal. Psychologists for the most part don't even give a shit a politics. It isn't their field.

There you go again, Billy! I think you know that there is a much larger percentage of liberals in higher education than there are conservatives yet you're reluctant to admit it. Why? Because you obviously also know that there is a liberal bias that takes place in our college classrooms but you don't want to admit that it exists.

I do agree that there are more liberal professors than conservative. But the idea that their bias affects their curriculum is for the most part untrue. Most professors do not care enough about politics to let it affect what they teach, and even if they did, you can't put a political slant on most things you learn in higher education. The social sciences are the only disciplines that could possibly have a slant and even then it is relatively uncommon.

 

[regent]

Perhaps it is what professors teach that is often mistaken for liberalism simply because if differs from what students believed when they entered the university? I took a course in comparative economic systems once and was quite sure the prof was a communist. Later as got more into the subject matter I realized it was more my beliefs that might be wrong. But at the time the prof sure did sound like a Marxist.

 

[EricTheMan]

Perhaps it is what professors teach that is often mistaken for liberalism simply because if differs from what students believed when they entered the university? I took a course in comparative economic systems once and was quite sure the prof was a communist. Later as got more into the subject matter I realized it was more my beliefs that might be wrong. But at the time the prof sure did sound like a Marxist.

I was lucky to have a supply sider for my Econ prof in college. This was during the Regan years and he explained exactly what would happen and of course it did.

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps it is what professors teach that is often mistaken for liberalism simply because if differs from what students believed when they entered the university? I took a course in comparative economic systems once and was quite sure the prof was a communist. Later as got more into the subject matter I realized it was more my beliefs that might be wrong. But at the time the prof sure did sound like a Marxist.

based on my school experience, he probably was a communist.

 

[Oldstyle]

Okay but what you don't seem to understand is that unless the psychologist is examining some politically related topic, there is no reason to think his liberal ideology is making his findings biased. Also, just because liberalism is prevalent higher education, it does not mean that every professor is liberal. It doesn't even mean that most of them are liberal. Psychologists for the most part don't even give a shit a politics. It isn't their field.

There you go again, Billy! I think you know that there is a much larger percentage of liberals in higher education than there are conservatives yet you're reluctant to admit it. Why? Because you obviously also know that there is a liberal bias that takes place in our college classrooms but you don't want to admit that it exists.

I do agree that there are more liberal professors than conservative. But the idea that their bias affects their curriculum is for the most part untrue. Most professors do not care enough about politics to let it affect what they teach, and even if they did, you can't put a political slant on most things you learn in higher education. The social sciences are the only disciplines that could possibly have a slant and even then it is relatively uncommon.

You're the "King" of sweeping statements that you then immediately back off on because they're so laughably not correct, Billy!...only to make ANOTHER sweeping statement that's equally laughable. Professors can't put a political slant on things you learn in higher education? Really? I'm sorry, Billy but that's simply not true. One of the reasons why Professors like tenure so much is that once they HAVE it...they can say pretty much whatever they want to in their classrooms and nobody in the Administration can do a thing about it. Depending on what college you attend and what school of learning in that college you take classes in...it's possible to receive an extremely "slanted" education. When I attended the University of Massachusetts as a History major the History Department was rather conservative or moderate in their political views The Economics Department on the other hand was extremely liberal in their political views as was the Political Science Department. What I learned taking an economics class at UMass was completely different to what I learned from taking an economics class at Amherst College with Thomas Sowell.

 

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

Perhaps its because liberalism represents intellectual ideas? Perhaps something can be said why political scientists tend to be liberal.

If liberalism is intellectual than why to liberals continue to trot out the same failed ideas?? Why do they stick their head in the sand about the failure of Socialism??
Why do they doggedly stick with racist and sexist ideas such as diversity? Why do they embrace a phony equality movement like feminism which is nothing but a hate movement against half the population??? Why do they defend the community reinvestment act, which almost destroyed our financial system??? Why do they insist on a double standard in immigration where criminals are rewarded for sneaking over the border, while millilons of people around the world who follow the law are penalized???

LIBERALS DON'T WANT ANY CHANGE UNLESS THEY THINK OF IT. Anybody else's new ideas of change such as a flat tax, charter schools, or privatizing social security are mocked by the left.

LIberalism is not intellectual -- it's a cult who's tenets are the following:

1. The average person is stupid,
2. Because we can't trust the average person to do the right thing we liberals will figure out what these stupid people should do
3. When our ideas of controlling people fail, we will do rhetorical gymnastics to help us live in constant denial of our failures...

Are you aware that your misinformed rant did your own side more harm than good? The ideas of conservatism can be attacked just as easily and do nothing to resolve the issues. Instead it makes more sense to focus on the positive ideas that both bring to the table.

What is irrefutable is that throughout history it has been the implementation of liberal concepts that has improved the lives of ordinary people. The Magna Carta placed a restriction on the "Divine Right of Kings" and replaced it with "Govern with the Consent of the Governed". This happened because education had become commonplace amongst the aristocracy and it was they who were restricting the rights of the monarch. As education has spread further so have these principles of liberalism.

The spread of knowledge is difficult to suppress. This applies to both good and bad. The knowledge of how to make bombs from the smallest to the most lethal is now available on the internet. The stark reality of this was seen less than a week ago. Attempts to suppress ideas are usually futile too. The Arab Spring was the result of the oppressed having access to knowledge and the tools to communicate their dissatisfaction with their oppressors.

So you need to decide if your objections to the prevalence of liberalism in education is because you are opposed to the ideas themselves or because you object to others having the right to this knowledge. Conservative objections to liberal ideas are usually based on aspects like money and power rather than on the merits of the ideas themselves.

YOU: What is irrefutable is that throughout history it has been the implementation of liberal concepts that has improved the lives of ordinary people.

ME: Affirmative action helps ordinary people?? No, actually it presumes white people, white males in particular, are presumed racists and everyone else is not. How does that help the ordinary people? Feminism presupposes discrimination against women, when meanwhile Arlington Cemetary is full of men -- not women. Socialism works for INEQUALITY rather than equality by presuming that everyone is equal except for money. None of us start of equal. Some of us are better looking, smarter, better atheletes and so forth. All of these ideas are liberal ideas which are demonstrably false. Futhermore, Nazis were from the socialist movement. How did that idealogy move forward equality for the average person???

 

[sfcalifornia]

Ok, let's just call it "terrible," as opposed to atrocious.

And, just what is so "intellectual" about liberal ideas that equal failure?

Basically, the only "ideas" liberals come up with are, "ideas" that have already been tried, and have abjectly failed, time and time again.

Oh that is so untrue. Take Obama's stimulus package for instance. Contrary to what Republicans will tell you, the stimulus saved 2 million jobs according to CBO. Moody's projected the stimulus saved 2.5 million jobs. Both of these are independent sources.

First, before OBama, NOONE used the jobs saved, because you cant calculate it, it's just an estimate.....which we can all manipulate....man you're not the brightest star in the sky are ya?

What's funny is that you think you are.

Not a big fan of school, were you?

 

[Billy000]

Billy, that's like saying oreilly wrote a book or paper and rush limbaugh and sean hannity reviewed it....would you by that? They are peers and objective, correct?

My dad is a prof, he's had several papers and I know how it works......but science(the hard kind) is objective, social science is not.....it's just not objective, they use studies and try to acertain from behavior, it led to a field called profiling....now they want that banned......which I think that's the only thing social scientists really gave us worth anything

Why can't you just admit you don't know how it works? The social sciences use the scientific method like any hard science. A hypothesis is generated. Variables are identified, defined and controlled before experiments are conducted. The data is obtained objectively and then computed and conclusions are drawn. They don't "use studies" that have already been done to ascertain behavior. That is not even close to how it is done. Take my word for it.

The closest thing you are describing would be a literature review that is included within a study aside the experiment. Relevant research already published is reviewed and tied into the hypothesis.

Look, I'm tired of you stupidity....hard science and soft science are just that. You cant have a controlled experiment with soft science, therefore you cant have a real outcome.....social science is bs guesswork. You're telling me anthropology is as exact as chemistry? No wonder people like you get caught up in the global warming scam....


Hard and soft science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are a few of my favorites:
Critics of the concept argue that soft sciences are implicitly considered to be less "legitimate" scientific fields,[2] or simply not scientific at all

During the late 2000s recessions, social science was disproportionately targeted for funding cuts compared to mathematics and natural science,[17][18] and proposals were made for the United States' National Science Foundation to cease funding disciplines such as political science altogether


But this is the real key to libtards and why they want them equated:::::


Being labelled a soft science can affect the perceived value of a discipline to society and the amount of funding available to it

'Soft' sciences don't deserve the snobbery - Los Angeles Times

Once, during a meeting at my university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only faculty member present from a science department. When I corrected him, noting that I was from the Department of Psychology, he waved his hand dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played baseball.

I think his analogy backfired as well.....little league science....ok we'll go with that....bwahahahahaa


so again Social science is bs, DOES NOT use the scientific method (it cant, when dealing with behavior, behavior is not quantifiable nor is it objective)

Lol I bet you're very proud of yourself.

The fact you keep calling it guess work makes it clear you have no idea how it works. Are you too dumb to understand that I never said the results of a soft science were as concrete as a hard science? So no jackass, anthropology is not the same as chemistry. The fact that you think global warming is a scam further shows how stupid you really are. Here you are advocating the validity of hard science, yet you don't believe in a phenomenon that is supported by the large majority of the INTERNATIONAL scientific community. Geology is a hard science retard. Have some humility in knowing that scientists would know more about global warming than you do.

"Here are a few of my favorites."

Lol you and I both know that this was the first time you have ever done in any sort of research on the difference between hard and soft science. Otherwise, you would have brought this article to my attention from the beginning. It's painfully obvious that all you care about is winning the argument for the sake of winning the argument.

It doesn't surprise me that less funding is given to the social sciences. The hard sciences have more practical application in the real world. And yeah, no doubt some hard scientists look down on the soft. However, that does not mean that many Other hard scientists do regard them as legitimate.

Why are you so convinced psychology doesn't use the scientific method? What exactly are you basing that on? You obviously have a very narrow understanding of what the scientific method is. Tell me genius. If psychology was nothing but guess work, why would it even be classified as a science? Are you so ignorant to believe that psychiatric disorders do not exist? If it was all about guess work, why would health insurance companies cover them? Obviously there is a level of objectivity that goes along with it.

The reason why psychology is legitimate is because like any hard science, there is consistency. Specific results can be replicated. If it was all about taking a shot in the dark, you wouldn't get repeated data.

Here do me this favor and read the Wikipedia article on psychology. Once you read it, come back and explain to me why you are right and why I am wrong. If you read anything in the article, read the section on "research methods", specifically the sub section "controlled experiments" which is the primary research method used by psychologists.