Professors and their politics

Professors and their politics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

goldn321 -> Professors and their politics (12/5/2012 10:21:29 PM)
I've had five teachers/professors in memory who have let their political lean slip. The first two were in high school; a history teacher shared strong liberal views, and a math teacher expressed conservative ones. The others were in college. A writing teacher of mine (and a law school professor) actually mocked Sarah Palin to our class. A year later, a mathematics professor of mine handed out printed copies of a three-page article criticizing President Obama's fiscal policy to our class, as it had the quote "square that circle" in it (which, of course, was actually relevant to his class). The last professor was an economist. His bias was more subtly presented; he taught us the Laffer curve in class shortly before presenting a quantitative economic argument that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton (namely that the recession started in the penultimate fiscal quarter of Clinton's presidency). I really hate induction, especially considering my sample size, but this did suggest a pattern. Tonight I found studies sort of confirming this pattern: that ~80% of humanities faculty identify as liberal, while only about half of professors in the sciences/economics identify this way. For those that are curious, roughly 70% of all college professors identify as liberal. I would love to hear any insight or guesses as to why politics vary so significantly by discipline. Is this variation a coincidence, or from the respective natures of the subjects? Additionally, in my case did the teachers cross a line?

Moonhead -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 8:17:49 AM)
Have you got a citation for these studies that claim that humanities professors are more likely to be liberals than science lecturers? It's possible that the disparity could be down purely to economics being treated as a science, but enough of a bend in the figures to drop the figures by twenty percent?

PeonForHer -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 8:28:48 AM)
There's an anti-intellectual strain in the overall right wing outlook, goldn. For that reason alone there'd be an anti-right wing tendency amongst intellectual types like your dons, too, I'd imagine. Beyond that, though: do you think it's crucial that your lecturers show no political bias? If so, why?

tazzygirl -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 8:28:58 AM)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/college-doesnt-make-you-liberal.html?_r=0 As far as indoctrination, if that was the case, than more graduating from college would be liberal. Truth is, according to the people who did the study the OP is using, that isnt the case. It’s certainly true that professors are a liberal lot and that religious skepticism is common in the academy. In a survey of more than 1,400 professors that the sociologist Solon Simmons and I conducted in 2006, covering academics in nearly all fields and in institutions ranging from community colleges to elite universities, we found that about half of the professors identified as liberal, as compared to just one in five Americans over all. In the social sciences, humanities and natural sciences, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents outnumbered Republicans by a wide margin; among social scientists, for example, there were 10 Democrats for every Republican. Though a majority of professors said that they believed in God, 20 percent were atheists or agnostics — compared with just 4 percent in the general population. It’s also true that young college graduates are somewhat more likely to identify as liberal and to hold more liberal attitudes on social issues than their non-college-educated peers. But contrary to conservative rhetoric, studies show that going to college does not make students substantially more liberal. The political scientist Mack Mariani and the higher education researcher Gordon Hewitt analyzed changes in student political attitudes between their freshman and senior years at 38 colleges and universities from 1999 to 2003. They found that on average, students shifted somewhat to the left — but that these changes were in line with shifts experienced by most Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 during the same period of time. In addition, they found that students were no more likely to move left at schools with more liberal faculties. Similarly, the political scientists M. Kent Jennings and Laura Stoker analyzed data from a survey that tracked the political attitudes of about 1,000 high school students through their college years and into middle age. Their research found that the tendency of college graduates to be more liberal reflects to a large extent the fact that more liberal students are more likely to go to college in the first place.

tazzygirl -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 8:33:44 AM)
quote: I really hate induction, especially considering my sample size, but this did suggest a pattern. Tonight I found studies sort of confirming this pattern: that ~80% of humanities faculty identify as liberal, while only about half of professors in the sciences/economics identify this way. For those that are curious, roughly 70% of all college professors identify as liberal. Induction.. as you put it... is a bit late come high school. And college? lol Thats a place where I would expect Professors to put their views out there. Thats what high school and college are about. Teaching you to think for yourself. If you dont hear varied view points... and you point out you did... then that is more likely to induct you to one way of thinking over another. JMNSHO

SilverMark -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 9:53:02 AM)
My degrees being in political science and public administration, I am not so sure any of my core profs. ever really let much slip as to their leaning. As an undergrad, a few were as most professors are thought of, art: liberal, out, and proud science, conservative on economic issues but certainly not on the more wierd conservative, anti-science types, history, somewhere in the middle. My public relations prof, was a flaming liberal in social matters, and never really discussed fiscal issues. Funny, after all these years I remember them so well. My grad school profs, although we were taught in classes most often held in offices and small groups, I never really knew except for one I knew on a social basis.

vincentML -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 9:55:10 AM)
~FR~ FWIW . . . everyone brings bias to the table in every human encounter. Get over it! [8\|]

joether -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 12:23:48 PM)
I find it more likely that a conservative/religious school teaching K-12 or a college/university would indoctorine than a liberal arts school. For starters, liberal arts schools force you to back up your B.S with evidence in dicussions, papers, and exams. Your have to develop your arguement with supporting evidence that shows you actually sat down and did some hard reading rather than simply regurgitate what you were programmed to speak. Here's an example. Recently while reading about ANOTHER black kid getting killed by some middle age moron in his 40's and stating he was 'standing his ground' I found several commentors speak about the '2.5 million self defense acts in the US'. Really? 2.5 million self defense actions with a firearm every year? Since 1776? Most of those spewing off this number have no idea where it originates (a study from Northwest Unviersity) or what it really talks about (covering firearm related uses from 1981-1993, and finding the grand majority were by law enforcement). And is that material from the source it comes from still correct, relevent, and most of all, accurate in 2012 terms? Generally, the more educated one is, the more likely they are to hold liberal views. Of course, the words themselves, 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean quite different to how most people would identify them. Try it. Give a defination to the word 'liberal' and 'conservative', then look it up in a dictionary. The defination might give you insight as to why scientists, writers, artists, and even business people are liberal. Were as soldiers, spiritual leaders, and the uneducated tend to be conservative. When I was in college, there existed a pool hall that many of the humanities professors would visit. Another one existed for business professors, and so on. The pool hall was the most fun in my book. While shooting pool, there would be lengthy discussions on economics, politics, religion, beer, sports, and even technology! I would say half the time, the professors did the arguing just to teach us undergrads to think on our feet, and be challenged for the sake of being challenged. Other times, that was their real view on the issue. The intelligent undergrads could figure out when they were being challenged and when to accept that was the person's belief and hardcore view. Which translated back into the classrooms, as I could make better presentations by making sure to ask myself "Does this chart really say what I want it to say, or something else?". Critical thinking is taught in schools. But its put into practice in dorm rooms, discussion halls, and even right there on the campus green! From there, those that understand it, tend to hold liberal views. The Founding Fathers were pretty liberal for their time. Of course, this assumes you have been reading actively and not passively up to this point. Passive reading means to simply aborb information without questioning it. Most people usually read aspirin jars passively to obtain information, for example. Active reading means to simply question if the information being given is accurate, correct, and factual based on what you know at current. Active study of FOX News shows they do a good job at telling total lies to dumb conservatives on a hourly basis! The Founding Fathers thought to have a new system of goverment, based in part to many examples from the past and present. The Bill of Rights was a new concept at that time. The serfs....have rights? That their goverment has to respect and obey? What kind of lunancy. liberal crap is that? The Tory's in the colonies were very much conservative in nature. Again, understanding the defination of the word is different from the 'layman's terms' of the word. When I watch videos of undergrads bitching their conservatives views being challenged by liberal professors. I think, they've been taught not to question authority, but yet, this professor, challenges that very authority to which their minds say "that's not allowed!!!". An demand less work, so their little minds are never challenged, and graduate with a piece of paper that is as fake of credentials as they are on the inside. If your an undergrad, and the professors are not challenging your thinking, then they are doing a huge disservice to you in the long run!

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 1:44:56 PM)
FR There is quite a bit of research out there (from many different countries) linking intelligence with more liberal views as well as more agnostic/atheistic tendencies. This is nothing new. If you expect professors to come from amongst our brightest, then you would expect more of them to be liberal and agnostic/atheist as compared to the general population. Here are some examples (there are more): http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/01/does-smart-equal-liberal.cfm http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/spq/Mar10SPQFeature.pdf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

PeonForHer -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 2:13:12 PM)
So, you're saying that religious people and right wing people tend to be a bit on the thick side, then, FTP? [:)]

Edwynn -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 2:42:23 PM)
In my experience in the econ dept. there is no attempt at persuasion or proselytizing of any sort. I suspect that a slim majority of the professors lean towards the 'conservative' side, but to the credit of all of them there is not much to go on in such attempt. The good thing about this subject is that regardless of political inclination, the actual numbers one is presented with makes assessment of various proposals and nostrums much less- political. One macroeconomics professor actually inadvertently gave himself away, ironically, by several references to ill-advised (as he explained) fiscal policy moves by GW. The tone was one of exasperated disappointment. The next macro prof. gave her leanings away by telling the class that Reagan got rid of Volker because he couldn't deal effectively with the high inflation of the early '80s, and so then had to replace him with Greenspan. I didn't contradict her in class, but I felt compelled to visit some higher-up in the econ dept. to report this and request that she not so misinform young students. ( I am a definitively not-young student, which is why I caught the error.) Other than that, she was a good instructor, and rendered all other historical facts correctly, whether flattering or unflattering to neoclassical economics. These professors generally seem to be a tad harsh towards 'their own side,' if anything, in the few instances of making any such commentary at all. The somewhat 'liberal leaning' are more disparaging of deficits, e.g., than the 'other side' is. But with ~70% of these professors, I have no idea whatsoever what their leanings are or any suspicion of how they vote. Most any hint of the leanings of the remainder I gleaned mostly through after-class private discussion. In any event, one thing they are not is dogmatic.

meatcleaver -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 2:43:05 PM)
There was an interesting documentary on Dutch TV not long ago about how biased economic academics are. Many leading economic professors having advised governments and international organisations over the last thirty years and much of their advice being simply wrong to catastrophically wrong and many of these economic professors are teaching tomorrow's economists and simply passing on their own ignorant prejudices. Though to be honest, a modicum of analysis shows economics to be a pseudo science with blind forward vision and modestly informed even with hindsight. Hence governments are tending to find solutions in the same rightwing economics that created the economic crisis in the first place.

mnottertail -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 2:46:58 PM)
But it's not really bias, it is stumbling around in the dark. You may be Malthusian, you may be Kenyesian, you may have misread the shit out of Adam Smith and the invisible hand as all economists are wont to do........but it is theory and ivory tower shit with no basis in reality, not ever. It is like being Jimmy Fuckin Swaggart, except believing the shit you are peddling.

Edwynn -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 3:05:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver There was an interesting documentary on Dutch TV not long ago about how biased economic academics are. Many leading economic professors having advised governments and international organisations over the last thirty years and much of their advice being simply wrong to catastrophically wrong and many of these economic professors are teaching tomorrow's economists and simply passing on their own ignorant prejudices. Though to be honest, a modicum of analysis shows economics to be a pseudo science with blind forward vision and modestly informed even with hindsight. Hence governments are tending to find solutions in the same rightwing economics that created the economic crisis in the first place. One can hire lawyers, statisticians, even medical professors, even historians to speak publicly or "advise" any way you wish them to advise. Just pay the money. Politicians intentionally do not hire those who tell them what they don't want to hear, and intentionally hire those with accepted credentials to tell them what they do want to hear. What a surprise. In any case, as I explain above, what they say in class and what they say outside of class (in published books, in working for politicians, etc.) are two different things. As to the validity of various economic theories, competing theories are given roughly equal time, and new information is invoked on an ongoing basis. Already, in my Money, Credit and Banking textbook (two years ago), the '"mismanagement of financial innovation" is presented. The problem is not this or that economic theory, per se, the problem is when one business sector grows so large as to have undue influence upon government, whereupon they can pick and choose the theories most beneficial to their interests. That was done entirely by politicians and bogus self-serving political theories, not by economists. There is no economist that ever said "Government is not the solution;Government is the problem." More important, to the extent what you say is true, it is so only in reverse direction. I can well assure you that the problem was too much undue influence and insinuation of politics (in service to corporate interests) into economics, not the other way round. Getting rid of Volker and replacing him with Greenspan was a 100% political move.

PeonForHer -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 3:28:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But it's not really bias, it is stumbling around in the dark. You may be Malthusian, you may be Kenyesian, you may have misread the shit out of Adam Smith and the invisible hand as all economists are wont to do........but it is theory and ivory tower shit with no basis in reality, not ever. It is like being Jimmy Fuckin Swaggart, except believing the shit you are peddling. To declare my hand: I started off at Uni doing Economics, and hated it. Deadly dull. So after three weeks I moved to Politics and Government. Economics is just a very weird subject. I don't know of any other that has so much of an appearance of 'scientific' while at the same time being, well, just not that scientific at all. (Though Psychology is up there, natch.) If someone tells you he's a political scientist, you'll take what he says with a pinch of salt - and rightly so. If he tells you he's an economist, though, you might well vaguely assume that he's a kind of 'applied mathematician'. He doesn't deal with woolly things like people's minds, he deals with the 'hard stuff'. You can tell that because he'll be able to produce graphs and charts, accompanied by 'explanatory' formulae with squiggly symbols that, while being utterly incomprehensible, look similar to those you saw in maths books at school. (And everyone knows that Maths is a science. A 'pure' science, to boot - one that's never had sex nor most likely never even sat on the toilet.)

Edwynn -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 3:38:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But it's not really bias, it is stumbling around in the dark. You may be Malthusian, you may be Kenyesian, you may have misread the shit out of Adam Smith and the invisible hand as all economists are wont to do........but it is theory and ivory tower shit with no basis in reality, not ever. It is like being Jimmy Fuckin Swaggart, except believing the shit you are peddling. To declare my hand: I started off at Uni doing Economics, and hated it. Deadly dull. So after three weeks I moved to Politics and Government. Economics is just a very weird subject. I don't know of any other that has so much of an appearance of 'scientific' while at the same time being, well, just not that scientific at all. (Though Psychology is up there, natch.) If someone tells you he's a political scientist, you'll take what he says with a pinch of salt - and rightly so. If he tells you he's an economist, though, you might well vaguely assume that he's a kind of 'applied mathematician'. He doesn't deal with woolly things like people's minds, he deals with the 'hard stuff'. You can tell that because he'll be able to produce graphs and charts, accompanied by 'explanatory' formulae with squiggly symbols that, while being utterly incomprehensible, look similar to those you saw in maths books at school. (And everyone knows that Maths is a science. A 'pure' science, to boot - one that's never had sex nor most likely never even sat on the toilet.) You go by what the purely politically motivated media tell to get all your info on economics. Congratulations. Robert Shiller, Hyman Minsky, Andrew Smithers, Joseph Stiglitz, and many others are now and have been for decades shooting down the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, and politicians have been roundly ignoring them for the duration. quote: If he tells you he's an economist, though, you might well vaguely assume that he's a kind of 'applied mathematician'. People ignorant of what a subject actually involves might assume all sorts of things, that is understandable. quote: He doesn't deal with woolly things like people's minds, he deals with the 'hard stuff'. Behavioral Finance and Behavioral Economics have been taught for 10-15 years already. What the public knows about economics is what the media and the politicians want them to know. 'Deflection of culpability and responsibility' comes to mind here.

cordeliasub -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 3:45:31 PM)
I have had professors who let their own views and biases show, but I think we all do that in some way. Some I agreed with and some I did not. I had a couple who derided my views and questioned what amount of IQ I could possibly have if I believed X. That usually stopped when I made an A and blew them away with whatever paper I wrote. In fact, i am a little sheepish about admitting this, but there was actually one professor who was truly obnoxious....and he was almost.......angry that he had to give me such a high grade on my expository papers. I loved it cause I'm a smart ass like that sometimes :)

PeonForHer -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 3:59:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn You go by what the purely politically motivated media tell to get all your info on economics. Congratulations. No, I go by what I learned about economics - political economy, particularly - during my studies of political science. I've also taught economics for a while (though admittedly not at university level). Besides, you don't need a politically motivated media - economists are generally quite politically motivated themselves.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 5:34:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer So, you're saying that religious people and right wing people tend to be a bit on the thick side, then, FTP? [:)] [:D] Well, not all of them, but statistically, a religious conservative is more likely to also be of lower intelligence. This is what the research says. And I can't say that I dispute the findings of the research. I know this will offend many. But if you read the research carefully, it really does make sense. Each one of these pieces of research posits reasons for why the difference would exist - and it really makes tremendous sense if one looks at the underlying reasons. (This is why in so many of my posts on religion I flat out say we have to accept that some people will always need it. The issue is only how we can co-exist.) To the OP - the difference with the economists is that people who are Libertarian don't fit the two-sided conservative-liberal spectrum. If you break down academic economists beliefs you will actually find that many are socially liberal. So it really depends on the specific issue that one is discussing. There are also a lot of so-called "conservative" economists in academia that fully support government intervention in a wide range of issues. Again, part of this is how people "self-identify" against a very crude scale of conservative-liberal, that doesn't even begin to capture the detail of how someone might think. Most economists in academia, even the so-called "conservative" ones, are still going to be much more liberal than the average conservative out in mainstream America.

thishereboi -> RE: Professors and their politics (12/6/2012 5:49:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer So, you're saying that religious people and right wing people tend to be a bit on the thick side, then, FTP? [:)] [:D] Well, not all of them, but statistically, a religious conservative is more likely to also be of lower intelligence. This is what the research says. And I can't say that I dispute the findings of the research. I know this will offend many. But if you read the research carefully, it really does make sense. Each one of these pieces of research posits reasons for why the difference would exist - and it really makes tremendous sense if one looks at the underlying reasons. (This is why in so many of my posts on religion I flat out say we have to accept that some people will always need it. The issue is only how we can co-exist.) To the OP - the difference with the economists is that people who are Libertarian don't fit the two-sided conservative-liberal spectrum. If you break down academic economists beliefs you will actually find that many are socially liberal. So it really depends on the specific issue that one is discussing. There are also a lot of so-called "conservative" economists in academia that fully support government intervention in a wide range of issues. Again, part of this is how people "self-identify" against a very crude scale of conservative-liberal, that doesn't even begin to capture the detail of how someone might think. Most economists in academia, even the so-called "conservative" ones, are still going to be much more liberal than the average conservative out in mainstream America. I know too many intelligent right wingers and too many liberals who are dumb as dirt to buy into that bullshit. I also have to wonder where the ones who are on the left but still religous fall into the scale. But if it makes you feel superior to believe it, knock your socks off.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375