Diversity of Everything but Thought

Freeduck writes

Quote:

That would be a really relevant post, McG, if anyone was arguing that.

But I have been argueing that all day.

What I want to know is does the evidence you present show that students are in fact graduating without having learned what they need to succeed and if so is this due to the fact that more of their professors were Democrats than were Republicans. Are they graduating without critical thinking skills and if so is that because of the beforementioned inequality.

Are liberal professors the only jackasses? Of course not. But wouldn't it make for a more complete education if you had a more diverse mixture of jackasses?

I refer you again to the three articles I posted and/or referenced. The learned people who wrote them explain this far more eloquently than I could. I indeed am saying that in my opinion public universities are graduating students with inadequate critical thinking skills and inadequate educations. Do I apply that opinion to every student? No, because some have enough gumption to get an education even without assistance of the unversity.

"There are some huge challenges facing Colorado's higher-education system; this isn't one of them," says State Rep. Andrew Romanoff, a Democrat who is minority leader in the House of Representatives. "I haven't heard from any of my constituents who have identified the liberal-college conspiracy as a problem worth our time."

I hear your concern, and this is as near as I can come to narrowing what the problem is considered to be.

[quote="Foxfyre"]I see the problem in that if only the liberal point of view is presented, then some serious stuff is being left out of the curriculum. This would be stuff that would be necessary in order to draw a reasoned opinion based on all available data. To me public education is not for the purpose of indoctrination but for the purpose of education, and one critical component of education is to encourage critical thinking.

I see the problem in that if only the liberal point of view is presented, then some serious stuff is being left out of the curriculum. This would be stuff that would be necessary in order to draw a reasoned opinion based on all available data. To me public education is not for the purpose of indoctrination but for the purpose of education, and one critical component of education is to encourage critical thinking.]

Creation. Any biology, Bible or other courses at PHC dealing with creation will teach creation from the understanding of Scripture that God's creative work, as described in Genesis 1:1-31, was completed in six twenty-four hour days. All faculty for such courses will be chosen on the basis of their personal adherence to this view. PHC expects its faculty in these courses, as in all courses, to expose students to alternate theories and the data, if any, which support those theories. In this context, PHC in particular expects its biology faculty to provide a full exposition of the claims of the theory of Darwinian evolution, intelligent design and other major theories while, in the end, teach creation as both biblically true and as the best fit to observed data.

I have no quarrel with any private institution of higher or lower learning pushing their particular emphasis on the students who almost certainly know of its presence when they enroll.

I see the problem in that if only the liberal point of view is presented, then some serious stuff is being left out of the curriculum. This would be stuff that would be necessary in order to draw a reasoned opinion based on all available data. To me public education is not for the purpose of indoctrination but for the purpose of education, and one critical component of education is to encourage critical thinking.

But those who choose a public university expecting to be able to get courses that are not filtered through some ideological prism shoul be able to do just that.

It's no problem so long as the student gets what s/he pays for. So private institutions should have a good deal of leeway whether or not I agree with them.

I am not so sure that I understand how public vs private changes the quality requirements of an education.

Perhaps, Mesquite, you can demonstrate how 1) a public institution of higher (or lower) learning can adequately teach any subject other than hard math or science if only one point of view is taught?

I made no such claims

and 2) could you please present either data or a reasoned analysis that would show that conservatism and education are not mutually compatible or that education and liberalism are?

I also did not say that conservatism and education are incompatible. I said "The simple truth is that education and knowledge itself leads to a rejection of much conservative ideology." What I meant there was ideology based on literal interpretation of the Bible or on faith rather than on science.

I am not so sure that I understand how public vs private changes the quality requirements of an education.

But so long as the public schools are controlled by faculty who are overwhelmingly liberal, unless there are some guidelines as to how much ideology is appropriate to funnel into curriculum, it is possible students are getting only a liberal point of view and therefore only half an education and they have no option to get a whole education anywhere except through the private schools. If we're going to have public schools, they should meet the needs of all the students and provide a complete education.

Let me ask you, Fox: why do you think this is? That Democrats outnumber Republicans 28 to 1?

Do you think it is a coincidence?

In my opinion the reason liberals/Democrats so outnumber conservatives/Republicans on the average public university campus these days is that the environment has become increasingly unpleasant and/or inhospitable for conservatism. This is supported by the articles that I posted and articles referenced.

That strong campus leftist bias goes a long way to explain mindless university courses like: "Canine Cultural Studies" (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), "I Like Ike, But I Love Lucy" (Harvard), "History of Electronic Dance Music" (UCLA), "Rock and Roll" (University of Massachusetts) and "Hip-Hop: Beats, Rhyme and Culture" (George Mason University). There are many other examples documented by Accuracy in Academia.

Americans as donors and taxpayers have been exceedingly generous to our universities. Given our universities' gross betrayal of trust, Americans should rethink their generosity as well as rethink who serves on boards of trustees that, in dereliction of duty, permit universities to become hotbeds of political activism and academic fraud. There are a few universities where there's still integrity and academic honesty, and they don't cost an arm and a leg. Among them are: Grove City College, Pa., Hillsdale College, Mich., Franciscan University, Steubenville, Ohio, and others listed at the Web page of Young America's Foundation.

(And as I said, the reason so many take potshots at me in the threads where I post is because I frequently annoy liberals a great deal. I'm rather proud of it actually.)

That's the thing, though, you aren't half as annoying as some other conservatives on this board; but, as Lola put so succinctly earlier, you do have a distressing habit of putting forth shallow idiocies, and then throwing your hands up and claiming that you are being 'personally attacked' when you are called out on them.

I enjoy debate, but not when it is reduced to almost constant self-defense which the two of you seem to wish to make it.