Act 4 sure is turning up to be a doozy!
Foxfyre Wrote:
Quote:Show me Freeduck. The only one who even tried was Cyclop and he only challenged Williams' list of 'bird courses' and the rebuttal he came up with was laced with faulty facts. One other post--not Dys's--came up with some data that showed a lot of professors are registered independents but otherwise strongly supported the case for liberal bias. So, what we're left with are the A2K liberals saying they just don't believe it's a problem and the A2K conservatives saying there is plenty of evidence that there is.
I did a lot more than just challenge the 'bird courses,' as you put it. And I only made one error; not 'laced with error' as you put it.
I'll list my objections to your source right here. All quotes are from Fox's link,
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120804.asp
Quote:College costs have risen dramatically over the last several decades. In many cases, it's difficult to find a college where per-student costs are under $20,000 each year. Most often, tuition doesn't measure the true cost because taxpayer and donor subsidies pay part of the expenses. While costs are rising, education quality is in precipitous decline, particularly at the undergraduate level. Part of the reason is the political climate on college campuses, where professors use their classrooms for proselytizing and indoctrination and teach classes that have little or no academic content. Let's look at some of it.
To begin, the writer makes a logical jump from the fact that
some believe the quality of our education has dropped, and the fact that our schools are very liberal. But he provides
no factual evidence whatsoever, in the entire article, that these two independent ideas are linked.
Quote: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.
Instead, he points towards several courses which he believes (and apparently you agree, Fox) are the result of 'what happens when all your educators are liberal.' I googled the wrong course on dogs, but Fox thankfully found the correct one for me; so we have two courses on American culture, and three on American music.
From the titles of these courses alone, Foxfyre and the autho have judged and weighed their merit. ('Bird' courses, right?) The problem with this, of course, is that one really has no idea how challenging these courses are, what they teach, how often they meet, or what degrees they are going towards fufilling requirements for. Therefore, this branch of the argument holds no water whatsoever.
So far, we've gone through half of the opinion piece and found no proof of, well, anything.
Quote:In a study to be published in Academic Questions, sociologist Charlotta Stern and economist Daniel Klein found in a random national sample of 1,678 university professors that Democratic professors outnumber Republican professors 3 to 1 in economics, 28 to 1 in sociology, and 30 to 1 in anthropology. As George Will said in his Washington Post column, "Academia, Stuck to the Left" (Nov. 28, 2004): "Many campuses are intellectual versions of one-party nations."
This rounds out the first half, and really doesn't tell us anything other than the fact that Democrats (and how they know who is who is a mystery to me) outnumber Republicans in the social sciences. But, it doesn't say
why. It doesn't claim that they are being frozen out of the positions, it doesn't explain how legions of Republicans are vying for positions they can't seem to get, it doesn't even show how Democratic professors add to the liberal bias; Hell, Zell Miller is a Democrat! Party affiliation does not equate to base ideology in all cases, as I'm sure you conservatives are well aware of; so this tells us
nothing, as well.
Quote:A Zogby survey was commissioned by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) to compare the general cultural knowledge of today's college seniors to that of yesteryear's high school graduates. The questions for the survey were drawn from those asked by the Gallup organization in 1955 covering literature, music, science, geography and history. The results were reported in a NAS publication titled "Today's College Students and Yesteryear's High School Grads." It concludes that "Contemporary college seniors scored on average little or no higher than the high-school graduates of a half-century ago on a battery of 15 questions assessing general cultural knowledge."
A 1990 Gallup survey for the National Endowment of the Humanities, given to a representative sample of 700 college seniors, found that 25 percent did not know that Columbus landed in the Western Hemisphere before the year 1500, 42 percent could not place the Civil War in the correct half-century, and 31 percent thought Reconstruction came after World War II.
In 1993, a Department of Education survey found that, among college graduates, 50 percent of whites and more than 80 percent of blacks couldn't state in writing the argument made in a newspaper column or use a bus schedule to get on the right bus, 56 percent could not calculate the right tip, 57 percent could not figure out how much change they should get back after putting down $3 to pay for a 60-cent bowl of soup and a $1.95 sandwich, and over 90 percent could not use a calculator to find the cost of carpeting a room. But not to worry. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni's 1999 survey of seniors at the nation's top 55 liberal arts colleges and universities found that 98 percent could identify rap artist Snoop Doggy Dogg and Beavis and Butt-Head, but only 34 percent knew George Washington was the general at the battle of Yorktown.
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.
NONE of the surveys quoted above show any link between the number of liberal profs. on campus and the decline of education. None. The author (and Fox, by extension) are attempting to use non-corrolary statistics to attack those with different views than theirs, and fail miserably upon inspection.
Not only that, but we don't have any methodology listed; are these 'college seniors' from community college? Liberal-arts colleges? Technical schools? Universities? All provide a wide range of studies, and the knowledge that one could expect to have coming out of one of them would be varied. But, apparently that doesn't matter to the writer of this piece at all; why let a silly thing like facts get in the way of a
point?
The only one that actually gives a quote on the basis of testing is this:
Quote:The American Council of Trustees and Alumni's 1999 survey of seniors at the nation's top 55 liberal arts colleges and universities found that 98 percent could identify rap artist Snoop Doggy Dogg and Beavis and Butt-Head, but only 34 percent knew George Washington was the general at the battle of Yorktown.
Most seniors take history their freshman year, and then never again. They see Snoop Dogg and Beavis and Butthead every week of their lives. If you disagree with the amount of history that is being forced to be taken by students, I suggest you talk to your state legislature; the professors have
nothing to do with this. I also would say that anyone who is surprised that a popular celebrity is much more easily recognizable than a historical name/date combination, has a rather unrealistic view of the human mind and especially the minds of today's youth.
--------
So, in conclusion, not a single point from the linked piece stands with any sort of validity whatsoever. The author does nothing more than throw up 'evidence' to support a theory that he desperately wants to believe. This is then parroted by Foxfyre in an attempt to defend the article she posted, over and over, no matter how much evidence is posted her way that non-correlating facts
do not make a strong argument.
Cycloptichorn