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

[editec]

No, I don't wonder at all. Tenure is why. Once a teacher gets it, accountability can basically go out the window. And liberals hate to be held accountable for anything.

You have been misinformed about what tenure means, lad.

Do feel free to check the contracts of the teachers in your local school district.

You will discover that tenure isn't remotely what you think it is.

 

[Oldstyle]

Tenure at the college level means that you have gone through a probationary period of up to 7 years and have been voted tenure by the Administration and by senior colleagues. If you can't win those votes then you will most likely lose your job. It's what's called an "up or out" process. So tell me that you honestly believe that "senior colleagues" who are liberal in their views are as apt to vote tenure for someone who's views contradict them? It's a "club" and the members get to vote on who get's in and who doesn't. Is it any wonder that departments attract the same type?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Wow.
It's fairly clear -you- did not go to college.
-I- had to fight liberal bias in virtually every major/minor related class I took, as did most of my friends/relatives.

I'll never forget shaming my post-civil war US history prof - a black woman from the African Studies department - iinto including a day's disuccsion on WW2; she omitted the entire 2s world war from the syllabus because she didn't think it was important. When we did dicuss it, all we takled about was the internment of Japanese citizens, which fit right in with her "how white men screwed everyone" slant of the class.

She also determined the focus of the main/final paper for the class - we had to write on the positive effects MLK2 had on the improvement of civil rights for minorities.

Cuz, you know, if you're only going to have one class on post-civil war US history, that's what you should concentrate on.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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.

"retard"..."jackass".....Do all social scientist types like you refer to people in that way?.....No wonder so many psychologists are as loony as those they "supposedly" treat.

And yes, Global Warming does exist, as it has periodically since the beginning of time....It's the man made claims that are full of shit.

 

[regent]

The social sciences are referred to as soft because the object of what they study, people, people might just be the most complex of creatures to be studied. It is much easier to study and experiment with say the fruit fly than people. Fruit flies can be caged, killed, sprayed, cut up and experimented with no end, and it seems even the fruit flies behavior patterns seem to be much more simple than man's.
Some would protest if young homo sapiens had part of their brains removed to study the effect.
The Western Electric Hawthorne experiments in the Twenties were often used to illustrate this point. Fruit flies also seem to have no culture, no religion, no political parties, so we can have at those little rascals. But fool around experimenting with people like fruit flies and one quickly finds there are limits, and worse, boundaries.

 

[Staidhup]

Academia is packed with theorists who mistakenly categorize human behavior in simplistic cause and effect terms. The act of solving a complex set of circumstances from the result to the root cause fails to address the essence of human behavior.
When one studies the results of social engineering and myriad of government sponsored programs it becomes apparent the end result fails to accomplish the objective. Great ideas seldom accomplish the objective when human nature is introduced, it simply validates the premise of the travail of liberalism.
The strength of academia centers on identification and thought processes employed to fully understand a select issue and theoretical solutions employed in altering the outcome. Bottom line, theory and reality seldom mix which is the essence of why conservatives subscribe to reality and Liberals become entangled in theory and fantasy.

 

[SAYIT]

No, I don't wonder at all. Tenure is why. Once a teacher gets it, accountability can basically go out the window. And liberals hate to be held accountable for anything.

You have been misinformed about what tenure means, lad.

Do feel free to check the contracts of the teachers in your local school district.

You will discover that tenure isn't remotely what you think it is.

Precisely? Maybe not, but remotely? Absolutely:

Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year.

If it is difficult --- purposely difficult --- to fire a tenured professor, it's also very hard to become one. The probationary period averages three years for community colleges and seven years at four-year colleges. This is a period of employment insecurity almost unique among U.S. professions. People denied tenure at the end of this time lose their jobs; tenure is an "up-or-out" process...

A finding of incompetence or unprofessional conduct can still result in firing.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...j4D4Bw&usg=AFQjCNHfNKanylbF8AYpmQUG3W5VfDL1EQ

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, I don't wonder at all. Tenure is why. Once a teacher gets it, accountability can basically go out the window. And liberals hate to be held accountable for anything.

You have been misinformed about what tenure means, lad.

Do feel free to check the contracts of the teachers in your local school district.

You will discover that tenure isn't remotely what you think it is.

Precisely? Maybe not, but remotely? Absolutely:

Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year.

If it is difficult --- purposely difficult --- to fire a tenured professor, it's also very hard to become one. The probationary period averages three years for community colleges and seven years at four-year colleges. This is a period of employment insecurity almost unique among U.S. professions. People denied tenure at the end of this time lose their jobs; tenure is an "up-or-out" process...

A finding of incompetence or unprofessional conduct can still result in firing.

My wife is a tenured professor - presently the math department chair of a well-known midwestern university.
What you say here is correct enough.

 

[regent]

At one time public jobs were part of the spoils system, it was a to the victor belongs the spoils thing. School districts followed the spoils system as did most governments; with a new political party elected there would be a clean sweep, teachers, janitors, clerks all but students and taxpayers.
Civil service was introduced to stop this political wholesale replacement of government workers and tenure introduced for teachers. Tenure was also used to stop the firing of teachers that had a different political persuasion than the new school boards. Teachers are constantly being dismissed, those with and those without tenure. But the biggest turnover of teachers is probably their voluntary leaving for various reasons.

 

[Mustang]

Academia is packed with theorists who mistakenly categorize human behavior in simplistic cause and effect terms. The act of solving a complex set of circumstances from the result to the root cause fails to address the essence of human behavior.
When one studies the results of social engineering and myriad of government sponsored programs it becomes apparent the end result fails to accomplish the objective. Great ideas seldom accomplish the objective when human nature is introduced, it simply validates the premise of the travail of liberalism.
The strength of academia centers on identification and thought processes employed to fully understand a select issue and theoretical solutions employed in altering the outcome. Bottom line, theory and reality seldom mix which is the essence of why conservatives subscribe to reality and Liberals become entangled in theory and fantasy.

That doesn't reflect my experience.

In my experience, conservatives rely more on their beliefs (sincerely held, though they may be) that they're not likely to challenge in any meaningful way. Liberals, on the other hand, are quite receptive to new information which may challenge so-called conventional thinking or beliefs.

 

[Oldstyle]

Liberals are just as deeply rooted in their core convictions as conservatives are, Mustang. This notion of yours that conservatives are "rigid" and liberals are "flexible" is laughable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Academia is packed with theorists who mistakenly categorize human behavior in simplistic cause and effect terms. The act of solving a complex set of circumstances from the result to the root cause fails to address the essence of human behavior.
When one studies the results of social engineering and myriad of government sponsored programs it becomes apparent the end result fails to accomplish the objective. Great ideas seldom accomplish the objective when human nature is introduced, it simply validates the premise of the travail of liberalism.
The strength of academia centers on identification and thought processes employed to fully understand a select issue and theoretical solutions employed in altering the outcome. Bottom line, theory and reality seldom mix which is the essence of why conservatives subscribe to reality and Liberals become entangled in theory and fantasy.

That doesn't reflect my experience.

In my experience, conservatives rely more on their beliefs (sincerely held, though they may be) that they're not likely to challenge in any meaningful way. Liberals, on the other hand, are quite receptive to new information which may challenge so-called conventional thinking or beliefs.

Tell you what, score higher than me on this test and I will admit you are right about everything you ever posted.

Science and Technology Knowledge Quiz | Pew Research Center

On the other hand, if you score less than me you have to admit I am.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Academia is packed with theorists who mistakenly categorize human behavior in simplistic cause and effect terms. The act of solving a complex set of circumstances from the result to the root cause fails to address the essence of human behavior.
When one studies the results of social engineering and myriad of government sponsored programs it becomes apparent the end result fails to accomplish the objective. Great ideas seldom accomplish the objective when human nature is introduced, it simply validates the premise of the travail of liberalism.
The strength of academia centers on identification and thought processes employed to fully understand a select issue and theoretical solutions employed in altering the outcome. Bottom line, theory and reality seldom mix which is the essence of why conservatives subscribe to reality and Liberals become entangled in theory and fantasy.

That doesn't reflect my experience.

In my experience, conservatives rely more on their beliefs (sincerely held, though they may be) that they're not likely to challenge in any meaningful way. Liberals, on the other hand, are quite receptive to new information which may challenge so-called conventional thinking or beliefs.

Tell you what, score higher than me on this test and I will admit you are right about everything you ever posted.

Science and Technology Knowledge Quiz | Pew Research Center

On the other hand, if you score less than me you have to admit I am.

You dd not score better than me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That doesn't reflect my experience.

In my experience, conservatives rely more on their beliefs (sincerely held, though they may be) that they're not likely to challenge in any meaningful way. Liberals, on the other hand, are quite receptive to new information which may challenge so-called conventional thinking or beliefs.

Tell you what, score higher than me on this test and I will admit you are right about everything you ever posted.

Science and Technology Knowledge Quiz | Pew Research Center

On the other hand, if you score less than me you have to admit I am.

You dd not score better than me.

I can guarantee you did not score better than me. I would love for everyone that posts about how smart they are to take the test though. I have a nice screenshot of my results.

You answered 13 of 13 questions correctly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tell you what, score higher than me on this test and I will admit you are right about everything you ever posted.

Science and Technology Knowledge Quiz | Pew Research Center

On the other hand, if you score less than me you have to admit I am.

You dd not score better than me.

I can guarantee you did not score better than me. I would love for everyone that posts about how smart they are to take the test though. I have a nice screenshot of my results.

You answered 13 of 13 questions correctly.

Not much to it

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You dd not score better than me.

I can guarantee you did not score better than me. I would love for everyone that posts about how smart they are to take the test though. I have a nice screenshot of my results.

You answered 13 of 13 questions correctly.

Not much to it

I am willing to bet that the guy who started this thread couldn't get 5 right without looking up the answers.

 

[Billy000]

Academia is packed with theorists who mistakenly categorize human behavior in simplistic cause and effect terms. The act of solving a complex set of circumstances from the result to the root cause fails to address the essence of human behavior.
When one studies the results of social engineering and myriad of government sponsored programs it becomes apparent the end result fails to accomplish the objective. Great ideas seldom accomplish the objective when human nature is introduced, it simply validates the premise of the travail of liberalism.
The strength of academia centers on identification and thought processes employed to fully understand a select issue and theoretical solutions employed in altering the outcome. Bottom line, theory and reality seldom mix which is the essence of why conservatives subscribe to reality and Liberals become entangled in theory and fantasy.

That doesn't reflect my experience.

In my experience, conservatives rely more on their beliefs (sincerely held, though they may be) that they're not likely to challenge in any meaningful way. Liberals, on the other hand, are quite receptive to new information which may challenge so-called conventional thinking or beliefs.

Tell you what, score higher than me on this test and I will admit you are right about everything you ever posted.

Science and Technology Knowledge Quiz | Pew Research Center

On the other hand, if you score less than me you have to admit I am.

That test does not determine anything about what you two are disputing.

They are high school level questions. I missed one I will admit though. Whether you did or not, I am guessing you are going to say you got a perfect score, am I right? Your record on honesty is pretty bad.

 

[hazlnut]

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

Agreed.

Liberalism by definition means open-mindedness, free-thinking, discovery.

But there is much to be said for a conservative and traditional approach to public safety, economics, and sexuality.

To me a conservative idea would be to protect the community against water pollution and air pollution-- encourage good behavior by offering businesses tax breaks for clean records and innovative solutions.

To me a conservative idea would be to pay your debts. Everyone tighten his belt to pay down the country--those with bigger belts will need to do more tightening.

To me a conservative idea is to teach your children to be responsible, not to engage in sexual activity until they're ready, and if they get pregnant consider adoption along with termination of the pregnancy. Don't have a child you're not ready to care for. If your faith forbids abortion, and you follow those tenets, then get in touch with a good adoption agency.

To me, a conservative idea would be block and close any and all loopholes used by criminals to get guns. Offer sportsmen and hobbyists an easier solution for quick background checks.

 

[Mustang]

Academia is packed with theorists who mistakenly categorize human behavior in simplistic cause and effect terms. The act of solving a complex set of circumstances from the result to the root cause fails to address the essence of human behavior.
When one studies the results of social engineering and myriad of government sponsored programs it becomes apparent the end result fails to accomplish the objective. Great ideas seldom accomplish the objective when human nature is introduced, it simply validates the premise of the travail of liberalism.
The strength of academia centers on identification and thought processes employed to fully understand a select issue and theoretical solutions employed in altering the outcome. Bottom line, theory and reality seldom mix which is the essence of why conservatives subscribe to reality and Liberals become entangled in theory and fantasy.

That doesn't reflect my experience.

In my experience, conservatives rely more on their beliefs (sincerely held, though they may be) that they're not likely to challenge in any meaningful way. Liberals, on the other hand, are quite receptive to new information which may challenge so-called conventional thinking or beliefs.

Tell you what, score higher than me on this test and I will admit you are right about everything you ever posted.

Science and Technology Knowledge Quiz | Pew Research Center

On the other hand, if you score less than me you have to admit I am.

13 out of 13. What surprised me is that there wasn't even ONE question I thought that was worthy of being ON a science quiz.

 

[Mustang]

Liberals are just as deeply rooted in their core convictions as conservatives are, Mustang. This notion of yours that conservatives are "rigid" and liberals are "flexible" is laughable.

Alas, it IS true. I'm not saying that it's categorically true in every case since there are many people from both sides of the political spectrum who become wedded to beliefs. But as a general rule, liberals tend to be more open-minded to new information. Conservatives tend to be more 'traditional' in all things.

Sometimes being open-minded actually works to the detriment of people since certainly not every new idea has merit. In fact, some new ideas are quite silly, especially when one considers how they look in retrospect. The one example that always gets everyone laughing is when people see a film of early prototypes for airplanes. Like the one with the flapping wings where the plane is jumping up and down on the ground from the movement of the 'wings.' Then there's the one with the corkscrew wing.

But many advancements in science have come about from questioning orthodoxy, and conservatives as a group are not really known for assailing conventional thinking.