<p>smaller class sizes are, indeed, wonderful for the opportunities of discussion. students are not lectured, instead they are invited to participate and this may be what your son needs. it’s a bad professor who ‘imposes’ anything other than rigor with regard to any academic subject they are discussing. my son attends one of these NE LAC’s and communication with him suggests all professors are facilitators of clear thinking and often their role is to challenge one’s point of view in order to help one clarify it.</p>
<p>one of the problems with this whole thread is that the OP posed a vague question, then, went about deciding post by post (often, arbitrarily) what was relevant and not relevant. it’s like chasing a chimera.</p>
<p>the only thing I find relevant is what colleges have a reputation for pushing the liberal agenda…that’s all. Somehow this thread turned into liberals defending why this is OK…as everyone should hear all views. Hearing all views is fine, a professor pushing the liberal agenda on students is not. Big difference there.</p>
<p>^^so, why is global warming relevant but human stem cell research isn’t?</p>
<p>Again, Geeps, you refuse to answer anyone’s question: who is pushing the liberal agenda? What schools and what professors? We are all somewhat informed in this forum and are not going to let you “Limbaugh” us by refusing to defend your proclamations of liberal bias in the higher education community!</p>
<p>i have to agree with johnwesley. . .‘liberal agenda’ is a vague term. please explain it to those of us who are confused and frustrated. and what have you heard about specific professors pushing this agenda. . .are these isolated incidents?. . .which schools/departments?</p>
<p>btw, college is very different than high school. just b/c your son had a problem with something happening in a high school class does not mean it is likely to happen in college. one usually needs a PhD. to teach in college and it’s a whole different level of discourse.</p>
<p>geep; you were given a decent list of colleges and suggestions. Combined; that’s about 1 page of this thread. But unfortunately you’re not going to get any more information about the rest of the thread than you have already. It’s pretty much hit every point of view possible. Whether people want to admit it or not, colleges/universities are NOT some unbiased vacuum where students are simply educated. It’s not possible. That’s because the classes are taught by human beings. And by nature, humans are biased with their own opinions based on their life experiences. </p>
<p>And many also won’t admit or believe that a lot of science isn’t as neutral as they’d like to believe either. Most science is funded from outside sources. And it is very much political. As such, there is a tendency to explain facts in a way that caters to the positions or beliefs of those funding or sponsoring the project. Not that the facts aren’t true. The research and data is completely valid. The “Why’s” and “How’s” however are the opinionated part; and therefor the part that is tainted.</p>
<p>Now, do I hold this believe for every bit of scientific data that I read, study, or discuss? Of course not. But of the years, I have learned that the best thing to do; if it’s a topic/study that I am interested in; is to try and study the data/facts of the research, and come to my own conclusions to the whys and hows. There’s a lot of people out there that believe that because someone is a scientist or government, that we can automatically trust and believe whatever they say. I’m not one of those people. I have seem too many times where scientists; even LARGE GROUPS with the same opinion; were shunned and tried to be discredited, simply because their hypothesis and conclusion didn’t LINE UP with that of the “NORM”. We’ve seen teachers who have been dismissed and blackballed; all the way to the university level; because they didn’t teach to a certain ideology. They taught that there MIGHT be other possibilities. These included POSSIBILITIES of creation and other reasons why mankind and the planet is where it is today. Yes, this is very common. But many will not want to believe it. Education and science is not as NEUTRAL as many would like to believe. As long as their are FUNDING requirements and entities that CONTROL that funding; there will be biases. Many times, facts and data are discovered but displayed in such a way as to support a predetermined position. Yes, there are a lot of scientists and educators who have been alienated and attempted to be discredited because they didn’t CONFORM.</p>
<p>As you have already witnessed and discussed, it is permissible to study, teach, and report some things but not others. Even though both sides of the discussion are debatable; it ISN’T allowed to be debated. That is the fallacy. I.e. I DON’T know ANYONE who doesn’t believe that the planet’s climate isn’t changing. I DON’T know of ANYONE who disputes that CO2 levels are probably rising. But what I do find is that when it comes to the “WHY”; there are 2 positions generally held. (Even though there are even more that aren’t even discussed). The 2 positions are “It’s Man-Made/Caused” or “It’s a natural environmental condition of change”. The problem however is; you’re allowed to TEACH and discuss the 1st position all you want. You CAN’T teach the 2nd position. If you hold the 2nd position as your opinion, then you are considered ignorant, naive, rationalizing, and closed minded. That is NOT education. Not in the classroom, on the news, or in the scientific community. The same with evolution and creationism. You can teach/disuss all you want that this cosmic dust did this and caused that; which turned into this; that evolved into that; which finally became this; etc… Yet, even if you try and say you ACCEPT ALL OF THAT; but that it is possible that there may have been some type of creator that started the whole thing off; then you are shunned. You’re considered an ignorant close minded moron that needs to be sent back to the middle ages. Again, you’re ALLOWED to say, teach, report findings, use scientific data for one position; but NOT the other. This is definitely a bias. </p>
<p>So geep; I’m glad you were able to get your original question and concerns answered. While I think this thread evolved into a very interesting discussion, I feel that there are some that just won’t let it be discussed openly. They believe that science and education is totally free of bias and political influences. They believe that any educator or scientist that doesn’t agree with the status quo; or who has been ostracized by their peers; must in fact be a mental case. They won’t accept that there are influences to our scientific and educational communities. Just like the church influenced the information that science presented hundreds of years ago; MONEY and POLITICS influence a lot of the information we see today. It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s truth. If someone PAYS for certain research to be done, and that person/group has an interest in the findings one way or the other; then the findings will have a certain level of bias to them. Especially if the researchers want MORE money in the future to do more research.</p>
<p>“Again, Geeps, you refuse to answer anyone’s question: who is pushing the liberal agenda?”</p>
<p>LOL…too funny</p>
<p>morandi wrote:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>okay, all libs who found h.s. annoying, raise your (left) hands. ;)</p>
<p>“You CAN’T teach the 2nd position. If you hold the 2nd position as your opinion, then you are considered ignorant, naive, rationalizing, and closed minded. That is NOT education.”</p>
<p>I agree…good post</p>
<p>fwiw – and johnwesley - please correct me if I am wrong-- most students graduating from a NE LAC, regardless of personal political or social leanings, would be capable of at least attempting to define and debate “liberal agenda” whether or not they believed such an agenda actually existed. Some would find this an intellectually interesting exercise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>D1 has now graduated college; D2 is a sophomore. From both high school and college experiences, I’d say the most opinionated and punishing (if you didn’t agree, your grade was lowered) teacher they had was their high school APUSH teacher, who spent most of class time talking about the pope and Ronald Reagan. Had he taught them anything about how to argue their points, that would be fine, but once he realized he was not going to sway you, you disappeared to the confines of students never called on in class to discuss.</p>
<p>johnwesley, my very liberal vegetarian spawn is finding high school annoying now!</p>
<p>alh wrote:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>capable, yes. willing to expend the energy, doubtful. ;)</p>
<p>I have waded through most of the 375 posts on this subject because I am also concerned about my somewhat conservative son attending a very liberal college. I had a bad experience 30 years ago when an English teacher at my conservative college tried to push his very liberal agenda. I pretty much agreed with his thoughts but hated his pushiness.</p>
<p>I think posts 323 & 327 illustrate one of my concerns. Most of us agree that Fox, MSNBC, CNN are all biased in their own way. If we truly wanted to educate, why wouldn’t it be better to alternate the shows and discuss the issues from different viewpoints instead of the conclusion that seemed to be presented here that the conservative needs to see the other side. Why doesn’t the liberal need to see the other side, too?</p>
<p>post 376</p>
<p>roflol </p>
<p>and bless you for your efforts</p>
<p>lotsofquests. . .of course, you are right. . .ALL sides should be examined. that is the point of academics. examined, yes. pushed, no.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But not which ones have a reputation for pushing the conservative agenda? Those are okay with you?</p>
<p>I think the problem is ‘pushing a liberal agenda’ is a relative term. And until the OP can come up with a definition for this ‘practice’, the debate will go on and on.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone here can guarantee that any college, anywhere (minus the Bob Jones, Liberty, etc.) has complete control over their faculty. If the OP’s son won’t even be beginning college until 2012, and graduates in four years (2017), I think it is foolish to project what may or may not happen in a classroom eight years from now, in either direction. So if you are looking for reassurances that your son will not have a liberal agenda ‘pushed onto him’ eight years from now from any college other than the Liberty, etc., you won’t find it. Colleges are big places with a lot of faculty. A faculty member who is there now, with tenure, could very well change their style of teaching and conservative beliefs (or liberal) in the next eight years, and there’s nothing the school can do about it.</p>