<p>“It’s definitely clear that many liberals believe in liberties and freedoms as long as they AGREE with them”</p>
<p>so true…their hypocrisy makes them like so foolish that they can’t be taken seriously.</p>
<p>on a side note, all this college talk might not mean very much with the way the economy is going…and how the current administration is totally lost on what to do. DOW down another 300 points today, wall street has zero faith that these guys know what they are doing.</p>
<p>keep the pork bills coming Pelosi…it’s sure to help…</p>
<p>i certainly don’t want my conservative professor friends to leave the campus. . .your son needs them! believe me, they are out there teaching and subject to the same standards of scholarship as my liberal friends. what does the moderate left, or right, think? don’t assume there are only extremists teaching. one can’t avoid the bias factor on a college campus, one can, however, put it a context which contributes to ones understanding of life/society/happiness and how to productively contribute to this greater community in which we live.</p>
<p>geeps, have you ever had a crazy idea? did it work/succeed or not? conservatives have crazy ideas, so do liberals. . . both are called ‘thinkers’ and both must test their ideas against reality. i suspect you want your son and daughter to test their ideas. let them learn and then live their life. . .learning and learning and learning. . .</p>
<p>good luck</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang (#679):</p>
<p>The professor using the textbook is representitive of opinions on this topic throughout academia. This particular field suffers from what can best be called “ideological capture.” I assume the professor will grade fairly, though some don’t. The problem is that he, and the majority of those who publish in this field, believe that the opposing viewpoint is worthless so they don’t bother to seek it out. An isolated literature has developed with thousands upon thousands of articles that can be cited to make one’s case. There is no need to read outside it and people can’t teach what they don’t know. Work that opposes the reigning paradigm takes place outside of academia, or, within academia, in fields that people within this discipline are ill-equipped to follow and understand. Therefore, it can be safely ignored. </p>
<p>Academic research, as those who have been it it can tell you, is often dictated by which mafia controls the funding. The funding mafia in this field is particularly centralized and particularly ideological.</p>
<p>The most public current example of this problem is the the climate change debate. Young PhDs will tell you that the data don’t support the policy conclusions, but they have to get published so they do it with their voices lowered and their doors closed. You have to read blogs for significant discussion of the flaws in the academically accepted paradigm. I know of other such cases in other fields in the engineering and sciences. </p>
<p>Undergraduate education is what it is. The fact remains that current universities are ill-equipped, both by existing faculty, the politically correct reign of terror, the resulting tenure criteria, the grant-making process, and the fads and fashions of academic publishing, to turn out well rounded undergraduates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>geeps, your responses are not at all clear. From the post above, I could not tell what exactly you thought was “garbage.” Was it the claim that there is a strong liberal bias on college campuses? The fact that the poster thought that liberal bias was OK? The idea that elite schools should not support racism, etc.?</p>
<p>Many posts later you did finally say that you thought the “garbage” was the assumption that conservatives are racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic. That’s a legitimate argument, but it’s one you never really made until other posters asked you multiple times to explain what you meant. Your statements are often confusing because you never elaborate, explain, or back them up in any way. </p>
<p>While I disagree with you on most everything, I am just trying to point out that name calling and labeling isn’t enough to support your argument, and in fact is obscuring what you may be trying to say.</p>
<p>anneroku…again…the above statement was clear in what it was saying…I find it naive of you that you needed an explanation on why I called it garbage. It was offensive as stated…and I find it amazing that it went unchallenged.</p>
<p>Anneroku – I’ve concluded he’s not really trying to say anything. He’s just amusing himself by lobbing spitballs leftward. Signing off.</p>
<p>conclude what you want…If someone wants to attack me or state something ridiculous…I will continue to respond…</p>
<p>geeps, if you found the statement offensive, a better approach would be to say that explicitly and challenge it, rather than simply writing “garbage.” I truly had no idea what you meant.</p>
<p>really???again amazing…equating conservatism to being a racist, sexist…and you didn’t give a it a second thought?</p>
<p>perhaps, like me, many posters are wondering what colleges you and you son are now considering. posting your list will help those of us, with similar concerns, make a more informed decision. . .(actually S2, who is a senior, has made his decision and S1 is in his second year so it’s not so much for me but others who might be in your position). you posted a list earlier, has it changed?</p>
<p>morandi…we have a lot of time to figure it out. Currently, I’m thinking LACs would be too small.</p>
<p>yes, S1 thought that, too. S2 likes large schools.</p>
<p>S1 ended up at a small LAC and now loves it. . .S2 is yet to be determined but he will attend a large university.</p>
<p>additional thoughts. . .dad is a bit liberal, mom is a bit conservative. . .kids can sense different perspectives and have to figure it out for themselves. my only hope, ultimately, is that they are equipped to come to a conclusion which adds to the greater good and allows them to be successful in life. there’s no ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ we all make mistakes and have to move forward with a healthy conscience.</p>
<p>Geeps,
Wonderful article in the NYTimes today about curriculum and current thinking in economics departments across the nation. Possibly your son might be interested if he’s thinking about business. Enjoy!</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/books/05deba.html?partner=rssemc=rss[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/books/05deba.html?partner=rssemc=rss</a></p>
<p>That article is interesting. It (accurately) describes ideologically conservative hegemony in economics departments across the country, even at all those “liberal” universities, and the defensive wagon-circling in which conservative economists are engaged during their “Honey, I Shrunk The Economy!” moment. Nice to know that liberals aren’t in complete control of the curriculum, and that conservatives aren’t faultless.</p>
<p>(My inclination is to agree with these particular conservatives. But – like everyone else – I am more favorably inclined towards government regulation to preserve market integrity than I was a year ago. It turns out, once again, that information costs are a serious issue, and everyone wants a free ride.)</p>
<p>(By the way . . . when was the last time one of our conservative friends on CC used the word “wonderful” in the same phrase as “NYTimes” without sarcasm? I thought one of the core tenets of social conservatism was that if the New York Times said it, it’s wrong.)</p>
<p>My dh, who I admit is pretty far left, was grumbling about the NYT because they’d done yet another article about Newt Gringrich in the Sunday Magazine. He thinks they are a right wing rag. Personally, I think on financial matters the NYT has always been pretty pro-business. It’s most on social matters that it’s left leaning. For most of the Bush years I didn’t think they did too much critical questioning at all. Especially immediately after 9/11.</p>
<p>
geeps, you seem to think nothing needs to be argued, just labeled.
</p>
<p>Uh . . . who here is calling others racists, sexists, homophobes, etc? </p>
<p>Actually, this conservative is tempted to call some liberals all those lousy things because some liberals literally cannot see beyond race, sex, sexual preference.</p>
<p>This whole debate is rich in irony. I think those who are least willing to move on to a society free of racism, sexism, homophobia are, in fact, liberals. These issues define them. They cannot conceptualize of a world in which they no longer need rail against them - and I suspect they really don’t want that world to emerge. So much more fun to live in a world of meanies and victims.</p>
<p>Sorry, sewhappy, but you aren’t engaging with any actual person who has participated in this discussion. You’re just attacking the same, tired old straw-man that “liberals” are the real racists. (The rhetoric doesn’t work so well with “homophobes”, since I haven’t noticed a huge wave of support for affirmative action for gay people, but maybe if you just tack the word on at the end no one will notice . . .) </p>
<p>Meanwhile, although winchester and afadad have been quite eloquent about their beliefs, geeps has never said much about what he or she believes, other than making clear that it’s not “liberal”. I have probably gone farther in calling geeps names than anyone else here – certainly farther than I feel good about – and my biggest blast has been “smug”. Meanwhile, I have read a whole bunch of “loony”, “garbage”, “patently offensive”, with a high ratio of that to actual dialogue.</p>
<p>And while you are complaining about liberals who want to live in a world of meanies and victims, I submit that you go back and read the first few pages of this thread. If memory serves, it was a right-wing whinefest, in which liberal teachers – who apparently are among the most powerful people in the universe – are steadfastly engaged in brainwashing the innocent and punishing the few Maverick Heroes who stand against them with ruthless Bs and Cs on really good papers. (When they are not reporting these Maverick Heroes to the police, who gleefully persecute them, but that’s a different thread.)</p>
<p>i certainly do not want ‘meanies’ or ‘victims’ . . . .which are you? i confess to being both, at times, and don’t feel good about being either.</p>