0
   

Diversity of Everything but Thought

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 10:21 am
well revel I would think it obvious that future hiree's at state funded institutions of higher education would need to be vetted by a committee from the Flat Earth Society.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 10:21 am
As I said, people with better resources than I are discussing this in Washington and elsewhere. Washington at times has dictated a more diverse ratio of races, gender, socioeconomic backgrounds, etc. in colleges. There is nothing to keep them from dictating a diverse curriculum in the public colleges. Maybe that's the answer. I honestly don't know. I do know I am ready to throw my support, however that might be given, to a remedy of the problem.

I think if the federal government (and its funding) had stayed out of it in the first place, we might not have the problem to the extent that I think it exists, but since we do have the problem and federal funding does exist, it is appropriate for the federal government to have some say in how our money is spent.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 10:38 am
McGentrix wrote:
Did I miss the post showing the facts that disputed the opinion peice?


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=39783&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=270

You might want to reread the whole thread.

What's missing in this thread is a little exactness. Foxfyre likes to sum it up like this: conservatives think a bias exists and liberals don't. In actuality we've acknowledged that there is probably a bias in the social sciences, but the study being cited 1) only covered ivy league schools, 2) shows that there are more unaffilliated professors than either two major party affiliations and 3) fails to show that ones political affilliation must necessarily lead ideologically based teaching. In addition, the next part of the conclusion, that it is impossible to find a balanced education and that liberal bias prevents conservative students from getting a good education, is not even close to being demonstrated but is merely a leap of logic based upon a study which shows nothing more than the fact that there aren't many Republicans in academia.

Let me sum it up to say, there are many problems facing higher education in this country that deserve our attention, liberal bias, right now, isn't one of them.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 10:42 am
Stanford and Colorado are Ivy League schools? Wow, the Ivy league have really expanded their sphere of influence, huh?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 10:47 am
Quote:
The Center generated a list of 32 elite colleges and universities. We included the entire Ivy League, premier liberal arts colleges like Amherst and Pomona, well-known technically-oriented universities like MIT, highly competitive public institutions like the University of California at Berkeley, and other elite private universities like Stanford. We compiled lists of tenured or tenure-track professors of the Economics, English, History, Philosophy, Political Science and Sociology departments - choosing these because they teach courses focusing on issues affecting the society at large. We compared these lists to the voter registration lists of the counties or states in which the colleges were located, and attempted to match individual names.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=55
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 11:40 am
Some studies cited in the 31 pages of this thread did involve Ivy League colleges but not all. However, whether Ivy League or random studies have been done, they all have come to the same conclusions.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 11:40 am
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
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 11:47 am
Top 10 Signs Your Professor is a Hardcore Liberal
By Jason Hermsen

10. The bookshelf in your Macroeconomics professor's office has seventeen copies of the "Communist Manifesto."

9. Your professor gives a lecture on the benefits of medicinal marijuana, and the only problem is, it is in a Calculus course.

8. The professor in your History class rambles on about how "they" still have Richard Nixon's brain in a jar.

7. The Construction class you are taking has a section on "Hiding dead bodies of scabs and other proven methods of Jimmy Hoffa and the trade unions."

6. She is a Woman Studies' professor.

5. The required readings for your Early Education class includes "Jimmy Has Two Mommies," "The New Math: How Four Plus Four Equals Thirteen Boosts a Child's Esteem," and "The Effects of Che Guerara's Writings on the Early Years of Sesame Street."

4. Your Physical Education professor always reminisces about his days playing baseball with Fidel Castro in Havana.

3. Your Religion professor thinks that "Dogma" was way better than "The Ten Commandments."

2. The professor in your Political Science class always pees his pants while laughing at the "Doonesbury" cartoons in the Waterloo Courier.

1. The only music you get to study in your Musical Appreciation class is by "Rage Against the Machine," Barbara Streisand, and "Phish."

Source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 11:47 am
The thesis dear Cyclop is 1) modern colleges have excessively liberal faculty and 2) modern education is woefully lacking. That is your correlation. You don't agree with it and that is fine. The thesis is we need more balance to have better education. You don't agree with that and that is fine. But you can't dispute the studies, you haven't proved Williams was wrong about those 'bird courses'--the prospectus for the course won't do it--he has the PhD and you don't--and I know from my own experience of looking at hundreds of resumes and job applications from todays 'graduates', education is largely not happening out there.

But I will give you an A for at least a reasoned rebuttal this time Cyclop. Good work there.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 11:54 am
McG Smile
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 11:55 am
Foxfyre wrote:
The thesis dear Cyclop is 1) modern colleges have excessively liberal faculty and 2) modern education is woefully lacking.


I've been skimming this thread and may have missed a discussion of this point....

Even if the second point is true, have you shown the first is the cause of the second? I must've missed that, too.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 11:56 am
Let me tell you all about what goes on in Jewish synagogues and speak to what a threat the goings on are. I've never been in one, but that's no impediment in the least. There are web sites that lay it all out, and that's enough for me.

I'm having some difficulty, I admit it, confronting the evident fact that anyone anywhere is dull-headed enough to buy the argument being forwarded here.

Note that the folks offering up the 'universities are founts of political propaganda' idiocy are the same folks, almost one for one, who have never attended or who have popped in and out quicker than a Baptist suffering pre-ejaculatory guilt.

There's a very good reason universities ought to be 'liberal' and not 'conservative' which has nothing at all to do with politics other than consequentially.

It has to do with what constitutes the role of universities (or higher learning generally), and that, most fundamentally is the increase or expansion of knowledge.

Free flow of ideas, or the advancing/investigation of new ideas which contradict traditions and established 'truths' or values is not aided through planting conservative individuals or regulations into the machinations of intellectual investigation and discovery. There's rather a lot of history behind us to make this point about as obvious as anything could be.

So, what's going on here? Why are people like foxfyre parroting this regressive and anti-intellectual twist? Here's some clues...
http://hnn.us/articles/1244.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 11:56 am
No Drewdad, it has not been proved that the first is the cause of the second. Nor has it been disproved. It's just if the lake is full of feathers, you gotta suspect ducks.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 11:58 am
or a man with a gun
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 12:01 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
<snip>
I know from my own experience of looking at hundreds of resumes and job applications from todays 'graduates', education is largely not happening out there.
<snip>


Anecdotes are not evidence.

For what position are you interviewing? What is the pay? Where are you located? All of these will affect the quality of your candidates.

I do not expect an engineer to have the same language skills as an English major.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 12:03 pm
You write

Quote:
The thesis dear Cyclop is 1) modern colleges have excessively liberal faculty and 2) modern education is woefully lacking. That is your correlation.


That is not my correlation; it is your correlation. I think modern education is fine. If you wish to argue this, you need to back it up with evidence that the two are linked. Nothing that has been presented in this thread has shown evidence that these two un-related ideas (excessively liberal, declining education) are linked.

Quote:
You don't agree with it and that is fine. The thesis is we need more balance to have better education. You don't agree with that and that is fine. But you can't dispute the studies,


I not only can, I did! Did you forget to read the part of my post where I attacked the methodology of the studies? You're lucky Nimh isn't here to deconstruct this faulty argument.

Quote:
you haven't proved Williams was wrong about those 'bird courses'--the prospectus for the course won't do it


Yes, I have. There are a wider variety of majors today than there used to be. Courses about modern music and American culture are not frivolous. It is only your opinion that they are frivolous. For you to use it as a leg of your argument (or Williams), you must show how these courses provide no benefit to the student, who, by the way, both chose and paid to take said courses.

Quote:
--he has the PhD and you don't--


Lots of idiots have PhD's. It doesn't mean anything other than the fact that he stayed in school longer than most people do.

Quote:
and I know from my own experience of looking at hundreds of resumes and job applications from todays 'graduates', education is largely not happening out there.


And, finally, we're back to the 'personal experience,' the 'anecdotal evidence' which you claimed you don't use. When you are challenged upon the facts of this, you wrote in a later post

Quote:
Well, apart from the scientific study soon to be published that you agree is not anecdotal


I think we all know how much water 'soon to be published' studies hold in a debate.

Look, Fox, you are trying to verify an opinion that you hold. I'm fine with that. But don't present opinion as fact, when it so clearly isn't. This is the point which you continually miss, post after post, thread after thread.

Quote:
But I will give you an A for at least a reasoned rebuttal this time Cyclop. Good work there.


Fortunately, as it seems that I am the one who understands more fully the concepts of debate, argument, logical structure, evidence used in arguments, and corrollary evidence, I am the one more qualified to be handing out grades based upon arguments and rebuttals; so far, you get a C+.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 12:04 pm
I expect a highschool graduate to be literate enough to competently fill out an employment application though. I expect a college graduate to be able to spell simple words and write a complete sentence. When they can't, you simply have to wonder.

And you're right, anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything. But when it happens again and again and again, sooner or later, the probability that you're seeing it accurately becomes more credible.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 12:05 pm
"modern education is woefully lacking"

On the face of it, the above statement is easy to agree with, given this thread.

But, what speaks against giving this claim any undue credibility are the facts of American educational history.

From the seventeen hundreds through to this day, the educational literature (or more accurately, the public/political pronouncements on education) forwards one notion more consistently than any other...that education is 'in jeopardy' or 'in crisis' or 'failing'. (See Richard Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life", chapter titled Education or Schools...can't recall).
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 12:08 pm
Are you offering up opinions as facts blatham?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 12:09 pm
Okay, I'll revoke your A and bust you back to a C Cyclop. You were doing so well too, and then you went and blew it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.72 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 05:38:04