<p>I’m a conservative who works in an incredibly liberal environment. My pet theory, and I think it holds to colleges as well, is that courtesy is courtesy and nice people are nice people. It doesn’t matter what a person’s political persuasion is if he or she is polite and pleasant. If the person is a jerk, it will come out in some fashion, whether political or not. I’m sure your child will have some jerk stories no matter where he goes to college, so I don’t think you should worry too much about this issue.</p>
<p>In my opinion, think long and hard about attending a school that is known for their “homogeneous student population”. When you go on a college visit and after a couple of hours you realize that everyone around you looks the same, it might be time to look elsewhere or at least think twice about it. The most interesting classroom discussions take place when those involved in the discussion have varied life experiences.</p>
<p>geeps20 - I just saw your son’s stats – or, at least the one’s you predicted for him on another post you made about two weeks ago <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/646372-thoughts-list.html#post1061753906[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/646372-thoughts-list.html#post1061753906</a>. and, unless there’s a lot more to it (like legacies, underrepresented region of the country, etc., etc.) I really don’t think your son’s political viewpoints are going to be a problem in terms of potential match schools. UConn, UMass, The University of Vermont – all good schools without much of a rep for producing firebrands of any stripe. LACs might include Skidmore, and Trinity.</p>
<p>Zoosermom - I think you are correct - courtesy and acceptance of others views is always important. </p>
<p>I can’t imagine a more fallacious approach (as some have taken here) than to imply that because liberals (and frankly, they are no longer liberals but mostly now are on the far left) dominate academe, and academe draws the “best and the brightest”, that the far left approach in some sense is quintessentially correct. </p>
<p>I was an editor of a law review at a top law school twenty some years ago. By the school’s radical left standards, I was a conservative. By the standards of the 60’s, I was then and am now a liberal. I was the only “conservative” on the editorial board. Now mind you, I am a pro-choice, very pro free speech (the Fairness Doctrine is insane to any good 60’s liberal), pro-civil rights (not affirmative action as it is practiced in many places today but a strong believer in treating individuals fairly) and support environmentally sensitive, but reasonable laws. I believe in law and order, but at the same time am open to rational discussions about the over-criminalization of conduct in society, particularly our drug laws. And so on. But by the standards of academe, I was a stark raving conservative, and worse, since I had no innate love for groping for grades or acting in the "in-crowd’, could care less about being anything but blunt. </p>
<p>In any event, the fashionable thing on the law review was to imply that something was wrong with me or that I was not that smart because I held fiscally conservative views. That is the first impulse of the indoctrinators that abound in academe. Worse yet, I had a twin brother on his way to becoming a world class economist and had some notion that mere redistribution of wealth never works. I thus carried the ugly mark of actually being interested in economics and business and markets. (A negative thing with a legal system that likes to re-distribute wealth to attorneys and others in disproportion to the harms or injuries at hand). And worse yet, I came from a poor single mother home, and unlike the rest of the apparatchiks and indoctrinators, actually worked for a union (Teamsters, thank you - hardly a wimpy outfit) and could speak fairly about their pluses, and of course, their material minuses that no progressive deigns to admit exist. And because of the beauty of anonymous exams (something not often seen in undergrad), was able to put lie to the falsity that only the indoctrinators were smart. And I did enjoy deflating stereotypes. </p>
<p>By the way, not all of my liberal professors were indoctrinators. One of the best I had was the most liberal, but went out of his way to educate, and not indoctrinate. My respect for him was immense. But let’s be blunt - in many cases professors act unprofessionally and permit their agenda to prevail over the objective of educating, and the problem has become worse over the years. (My undergrad alma mater has and is still enduring a huge dispute borne from excessive political correctness and a lack of regard for the truth). </p>
<p>So I don’t view this issue as one whether a kid will be comfortable in a liberal environment. Kids ought to be flexible and tolerant enough to deal with those that disagree with them. The real issue is bang for the buck - if a student is spending thousands of dollars on an education, they ought to be substantively educated and challenged, and not just presented with a variant of neo-modernist dreck that the clever student can quickly learn to parrot back without engaging in tough critical thinking. Put bluntly, the clever can master the turgid prose of the neo-modernists quickly and make certain that whatever material discussed conclusively refers to some evil “ism” that satisfies the demands of the academic echo chamber. That is not learning, although high IQ people can do it well. Academe will likely always slant liberal or radical - its a good gig for those that don’t like the stress of the business world and find tenure alluring - but those in academe should always pay attention to educating and leave their politics at the door as much as possible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought that calling people you don’t agree with “fascists” went out of fashion by the mid-70s. </p>
<p>Rather than spewing wide-ranging insults, why don’t you engage someone on a specific point?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I sincerely hope that this is not the attitude that he brings with him to Dartmouth.</p>
<p>My S’s host for the Dimensions weekend was an African-American Christian conservative student who writes a conservative column in an online publication. My S is a white atheist/agnostic who is not an ideologue, but certainly not “conservative” politically. They got along perfectly well. That’s what civilized, intellectual people do. (I would not number the idiot “professor” zoosermom described among them. She should be fired.)</p>
<p>On the other hand, if your S does approach people with the mentality you ascribe to him, he will be cut down to size in no time flat. I know just the kid to do it.</p>
<p>Two of my nieces who are devout Mormons attended a college in NY named after toothpaste.
Conservative opinions are welcomed as part of the dialogue on campus</p>
<p>The political tendencies of profs may vary depending on your major.
Evolutionary biologists are not going to be teaching literal interpretations of the Bible.</p>
<p>hrrumpph</p>
<p>Your comment is just one more variation of the fallacious approach that mam1959 referred to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course there are, ZMom. But the person who originally brought up that subject by proposing as an analogy the idea of sending a gay kid “to a school for future missionaries, in order to have his views challenged and develop the ‘capacity’ to view issues from other perspectives,” obviously was not talking about that sort of environment, and obviously was talking about an anti-gay environment.</p>
<h1>128</h1>
<p>haha, I hope that is not the out of your education.</p>
<p>Two quotes I wanted to pick up on from two different posters:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, yes, yes. Schools like Liberty and Patrick Henry etc are off the table for my kids for religious reasons. We’re Jewish, and schools like this simply wouldn’t work for them, regardless of their (admittedly liberal) political leanings. In fact, OP, some of the discussions I’ve seen on CC about what schools are good for Jewish students raise the types of points your son should be considering in evaluating schools on his list. You can consider the percentage of students who share your background. You can consider the raw number of students who share your background. You can also consider if there is an active core of like-minded students, small in both raw numbers and percentage but yet mighty in terms of commitment and community. When you tour campuses, have your S talk to the campus republican organization. Find out from the students there what it’s like for them.</p>
<p>“I find it ironic that since most LACs are predominately liberal, then liberal parents send there kids to liberal schools…yet these some parents respond here that I shouldn’t worry about sending my conservative son to a LAC because he should hear “different points of view” or “If all he wants from college is to validate his current opinions, he’s missing the whole point” or “Is he going to college to have his belief system confirmed or is he going to learn?” Lots of hypocrisy there…IMO”</p>
<p>OP: I am at least one “liberal” who absolutely isn’t suggesting you send your conservative kid to any school which you perceive to have a liberal bias; I am not recruiting his attendance in any way.</p>
<p>“I think there’s a distinction, to some extent, between people with a “conservative” political philosophy, and people whose social conservatism is grounded in some version of literalist religious faith”</p>
<p>Several arguments are going on in this thread but I want to firmly say I absolutely oppose evangelizing social conservatives “grounded in some version of literalist religious faith” by encouraging them to apply to NE LACs. If they choose it on their own, make them as welcome as possible.</p>
<p>"I’d like to see the kids of liberals being referred to Liberty, Patrick Henry, Grove City, Franciscan, Thomas Aquinas, etc. "</p>
<p>But Liberty and Patrick Henry, at least, require a Statement of (conservative Christian)Faith and a recommendation from the student’s pastor. A liberal student would not be accepted at one of those schools. Liberty and Patrick Henry don’t even pretend to be religiously diverse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not quite sure what point it is that I supposedly validated. What are you suggesting – that I demonstrated narrow-mindedness and intolerance by criticizing someone’s repeated equation of “liberal” with “fascist,” and by stating that sending a gay kid to a school where he’ll be subjected to pervasive, aggressive homophobia is not exactly the equivalent of sending a kid who doesn’t believe in global warming to a “liberal” school?</p>
<p>The drawing of a false equivalence between bigotry and the condemnation of bigotry gets tiresome sometimes. So-called “social conservatives” can condemn LGBT people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, using the most vile and contemptuous language imaginable, but anyone who calls them on it, and says “enough,” is being “intolerant” of “different viewpoints.” </p>
<p>I think Karl Popper put it well, in discussing what he called “the paradox of tolerance”:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m more of a First Amendment literalist than Popper, but I certainly agree that there’s an enormous difference between preaching intolerance and condemning it. Notwithstanding the continual whining to the contrary from certain elements of the right wing. Victimology and the display of a raging persecution complex: the favorite pastime of the right wing in public discourse today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>3Togo, just to clarify, what policies on LGBT issues are you referring to? And are you suggesting that rooming someone’s child with a gay classmate is a bad thing? Or that there are schools that <em>wouldn’t</em> do so? (Query: how in the world would they even know whether or not an incoming student is gay?) Or that there should be a box on the housing form allowing students to specify “no homosexual roommates, please”? How about no Jews, or no African-Americans?</p>
<p>Or are you one of those people who ascribe to the amazingly arrogant heterosexual myth (fantasy?) that all gay people are sexually attracted to everyone of the same sex, and would be incapable of restraining themselves from hitting on a same-sex roommate?</p>
<p>I love the idea promoted in a prior post that top schools are full of liberal faculty because they’re too lazy to work in a real job in the economy. That’s the conservative funhouse mirror image of commitment to education and scholarship. Boy, those teachers at conservative schools must REALLY be lousy!</p>
<p>
The OP was concerned about liberal issues in lectures. I was attempting to make a point that for some conservative students the liberal campus rules may be a much bigger issue than any classroom issues. Personally on social issues I’m basically a libertarian … when I was a student I would not have been very comfortable at a school that did <em>not</em> allow most of the things mentioned in my post. I certainly know schools that allow coed rooms, coed bathrooms, planned parenthood on campus, free condom distribution, and are very open in their support on GLT issues (don’t know one way or the other if schools have theme houses or roommate selection in this area). For me not a problem (actually a pro for the schools) … but these policies might be a problem for some conservative folks … and that is fine … these shools might not be the best fit … and this whole reply has focused on campus life and not classroom behavior of the profs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that the old adage; “Those who CAN; DO! Those who CAN’T; TEACH!” LOL!!!</p>
<p>I think the whole post about colleges are filled MORE with liberal teachers/faculty because liberals care more about education than conservatives; to be pure bull. I think there’s more truth to the adage I wrote above than to that philosophy. </p>
<p>My opinion of why there are more liberals teaching/faculty in the schools than conservatives, is because of experiences. Of course, my opinion isn’t any more valid than that of liberals caring more about education. Does anyone remember the movie with Rodney Dangerfield called “Back to School”. The business professor was explaining the PROCESS of building a business plan and starting up a business. Rodney Dangerfield jumped in and said that the professor forgot many steps in between. Such as “Paying Bribes” to the city council for a bldg permit. Paying off the union to get the cost of labor down. etc… Of course it was intended as “Comedy” and the professor accused Rodney of living in a corrupt business world. </p>
<p>My point is; I believe that most teachers get into the teaching business very young. Right out of high school; right into college; right into teaching; working their way up to teaching possibly at a University. Most; not all; teachers have been in an academic and STERILE environment most of their lives. Academia is “supposedly” Utopia. It’s where everything is fair. It’s where everything is honest. It’s where supposedly the TRUTH can be found. It’s where we can ALL get along. It’s where we share ideas and supposedly have a MUTUAL RESPECT for those around us and their ideas/opinions. It is a BEAUTIFUL WORLD. Unfortunately; it is not the REAL WORLD. Yes, the teachers spend time in the real world with their families, going shopping, paying bills, taxes, etc…; but the vast majority of their life is spent in a vacuum away from the REAL WORLD. A world based on capitalism. Where profit determines success and labor and effort determines profit. Where it’s a world of competition. A world where there really are WINNERS and LOSERS. A world of HAVEs and HAVE NOTs. A world that can sometimes seen very unfair. Where racism, sexism, political correctness, are real and people have problems. In a class room, these problem are discussed most times in the Hypothetical. It can be discussed slowly and in the teacher/student’s time. In the real world, it has to be addressed NOW. And when there’s problems with other people, decisions are being made that will affect people. It’s not something that you can get a “C” on. You can fire or be fired. You can go bankrupt or expand. Other people’s REAL LIVES can be in your hands. It’s the real world.</p>
<p>Not that the teachers purposely become liberal. It’s just that their perspective on life is much more “Polite”. They live in a world of cooperation, tolerance, and respect for ideas. The real world isn’t as polite. Now; there are conservatives and liberals in society as well as in the class room. But I think you will find that when people are in NON-PROFIT type environments; including government jobs (Not including our military members); and jobs in the public service such as hospitals; that most of these jobs have a lot more “Liberals” than conservatives. Most of these people live in a world where combining the efforts of everyone; or using combined funding from everyone (Taxes); is the NORMAL way of doing business. It’s the very essence of liberalism and socialism. It’s a great principle; in theory. But it’s not practical. You NEED capitalism and conservatism and that “Dog eat Dog” world also. Necessity is the mother of invention. Most of this necessity is the desire to make more profit.</p>
<p>Anyway; that’s why I believe most teachers/faculty in the education industry are liberals compared to the conservatives. And why they are less tolerant of conservatives. Because their “World” believes more in the GROUP mentality; while the conservative believes more in the INDIVIDUAL mentality. So, because the conservative isn’t seen as much as part of the GROUP; liberals get frustrated. Whereby conservatives put up more with liberals because their beliefs revolve around the individual, and being the liberal is an individual; they can accept and support that. Where the problem arises is when the liberal tries to change/force policy where it affects the individual. I.e. restricting prayer in school; gun rights/laws, etc… Then the conservative sees it as an attack on the “INDIVIDUAL”; while the liberal sees it as a cooperative means for the “GROUP”.</p>
<p>Most of this is moot with respect to the OP’s son, anyway: he is unlikely to want to attend one of the elite New England LACs because he wants to major in business and they don’t offer that major, and according the the stats the OP posted on another thread, he is unlikely to gain entrance to them unless, as someone suggested up-thread, there are some major factors around legacy and/or athletic recruitment or other ECs in play.</p>
<p>I would suggest Elon and Furman, even though they are outside the NE. In another thread started by the OP I suggested Bentley and Babson, and to that I would add Stonehill, Clark, and perhaps Holy Cross (I don’t know if it has a business major, but I’m assuming, perhaps erroneously, that Stonehill does.)</p>
<p>I’d be please with a environment that would just tolerate non-liberal ideas. New England has become a place where non-liberals just shut up to avoid abuse. I’m amazed at the intolerance voiced by educational professional and student in New England.</p>