<p>^^ That’s the problem with over thirty years of conservative ascendancy. Conservatives equate being heard with being in control; with being spoon-fed one particular “school of thought” or another. Having a liberal education has nothing to do with liberalism (except maybe, in it’s 18th century embodiment) it’s about learning how to think for yourself. The fact that not everyone gets it right – even liberal arts students – doesn’t mean you have to import a particular ideology in order to insure that you are hearing all sides to a particular issue. Any professor worth his or her salt will do that.</p>
<p>jw,
I think you got that one completely wrong. The collegiate liberal ideology has been in place and in control, institutionally protected and unchallenged for decades. Conservatives don’t want to dictate; they want to participate. They want an environment that actually encourages debate rather than limits it. Conservatives don’t lack confidence in the merits of their argument and actually welcome the opportunity to compare/contrast ideas. They want to discuss the merits of conservative positions, eg, a pro-Israel policy, without being shouted down.</p>
<p>There is an enormous divide in this country because each side is becoming increasingly entrenched in its mindset. IMO, a truly free academic and learning environment should be oriented to discovery and increasing understanding of competitive viewpoints and maybe bringing the two sides closer together.</p>
<p>Also to johnsesley:</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that a particular school of though was denied at Ashland University; a public, accredited university denied the tenure of a teacher due to his choice of research. A liberal education is not the topic here, but rather constant trend of liberalism (in the political sense) at certain colleges, including a number of those considered the “most-intellectual.” The idea that one may apply and be accepted to a school which shows a trend of political learning which opposes yours is a bit frightening to some applicants. You (your ideology rather) obviously are the majority at many institutions, so you may not understand how I (and numerous others) must feel. </p>
<p>And though you comment on any good professor will present all sides of an issue, this isn’t always the case. Not that I have any experience with higher education, I still suspect many teacher deprive their students of some viewpoints; one cannot possibly present every single view upon every single issue.</p>
<p>I’ve spent a very large part of my life around some top schools, both as student and as faculty. It’s been my observation that while the faculties at elite institutions generally tilt a little left of center, they are on the whole more moderate than the students at those schools, who tend to be somewhere to the left of the faculty. I think this is borne out in the data presented by hawkette in post #72 above. The categories aren’t the same for faculty and students, but if you place “slightly liberal” and “slightly conservative” in the “moderate” category, you’ll see that a smaller percentage of faculty label themselves “extremely liberal” than the percentage of students who call themselves “very liberal”; and fewer faculty than students call themselves “liberal.” It’s true, there are relatively few self-identified conservatives—but still about as many as there are self-identified “extreme liberals.” </p>
<p>The idea that faculties march in ideological lockstep is pure hogwash, as is the absolutely unfounded and slanderous charge that there’s a conspiracy to keep conservative out. There is, in fact, robust debate between centrists and liberals, between liberals and extreme liberals, between extreme liberals and centrists, and yes, between all these groups and conservatives. In all my years in academia, I’ve never seen a single case where someone was denied hiring or promotion because of their political orientation. Injdeed, the only organized efforts to impose ideological litmus tests I’ve ever seen have come from conservatives who at some schools are now arguing for affirmative action hiring of conservatives.</p>
<p>bclintonk, hawkette, you two have obviously have had very different faculty experiences at your schools. Could you each somehow describe your respective schools, or give a list of similar schools? It might be instructive on why you feel so differently. Thanks for any light you can shed.</p>
<p>tg - I think the short answer here is that you’re not going to find an elite LAC where conservative ideology permeates the faculty and student bodies. But, let’s face it, step for one moment outside of rural or, ex-urban America and you will be hard put to find social conservatives anywhere. And, just what the heck does economic conservatism mean nowadays, anyway?</p>
<p>hawkette - I can’t think of a single prominent LAC that is “anti-Israel”. If that is your litmus test of a liberal university, you’ll have to give specific examples of what the heck you’re talking about.</p>
<p>The fervently pro-Israeli culture at many reactionary universities throughout the US suggests a militarist outlook. Indeed, a teacher was denied tenure at Columbia (not Bob Jones University or the like, mind you) for drawing the wrong conclusion about Israel’s historical boundaries.</p>
<p>[International</a> Herald Tribune](<a href=“http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/11/america/NA-GEN-US-Campus-Mideast-Controversy.php]International”>http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/11/america/NA-GEN-US-Campus-Mideast-Controversy.php)</p>
<p>johnwesley:</p>
<p>I would hate to enforce my opinion here, but I’m having a little trouble with some of your arguments. To begin with, I agree with you that finding a conservative, elite liberal arts college is unlikely. However, one must attempt imaging a liberal arts college without a socialist demeanor on campus.</p>
<p>And on your disappearance, rather nonexistence, of social conservativism in intellectual settings: I have a very hard time accepting this. To begin with, true conservatives, not the corrupt neo-conservative office, are constantly protesting and preaching their views of social freedom, including addressing the second amendment. Economic conservativism means (again) freedom in the market economy. The fact that this doesn’t occur to you dazzles me. I understanding in a union based educational world strict-conservatives are hard to find, but the reappearance of the same liberal, corporation-opposed feminists is quite a headache. Can’t there be a single smaller college that avoids the same stereotypes!</p>
<p>Look, I don’t doubt your sincerity. But, I basically think you have some pretty rigid views and that combination with a small place with its own bubble – no matter how innocuous – will make you feel like you’re in Hell. You should be looking at bigger schools.</p>
<p>“…I don’t believe I’d grow intellectually from the experience of having a fascist lecture me on the virtues of a militaristic police state, a bigot tell me why certain races are inferior, or a religious zealot tell me why I must avoid eating shellfish. I have already decided that such positions are fundamentally flawed…”</p>
<p>Begoner, </p>
<p>Those positions may be fundamentally flawed, but if you can’t imagine those situations as opportunities for you to experience intellectual growth, then perhaps you don’t belong in college. Since you seem to have already staked a position on so many things, and have no interest in lectures from professors whose positions differ fundamentally from yours, there seems little point in bothering with college.</p>
<p>Not really, no. Are you interested in being lectured by someone who thinks slave-owning should be legalized? After all, listening to racist bloviations should engender “intellectual growth.” But if you’d rather not subject yourself to such hate speech, why did you bother going to college in the first place? Indeed, if you asked people for their primary motivation for attending college, I doubt any of them would tell you, “Because I wanted to listen to people whose views were fundamentally different from mine, views which I found repulsive.” Perhaps no one should bother with college, then; or perhaps most people realize that the benefits of college lie elsewhere.</p>
<p>I’ll say it again: if your intention is to go to college just to seek credentials and to have your present views validated and date stamped, you should probably attend an Ivy League university, not an LAC.</p>
<p>Theorygeek, I think you’ve been led to believe that students with non-liberal political philosophies are rarer than they are. I think you’ll find many campuses with groups, publications, and clubs dedicated to conservative, Republican, Libertarian, Objectivist and other non-liberal ideas.</p>
<p>Are those students outnumbered at a lot of these places? Definitely.</p>
<p>I do have some concerns about students feeling so in the minority, or so at odds with some faculty, that they feel constrained in their ability to express their beliefs and opinions. It happens; it’s an issue worth some attention. We shouldn’t accept it. It violates the principles that campuses hold most dear.</p>
<p>However, I reject the notion that we have some kind of irreparable divide in this country (or on campuses) and that there is some corrupt, ugly system of groupthink and brainwashing. That campuses are unredeemably hostile to conservative thought. That kind of position reminds me of the media reports about this so called “deep divide” among Americans. I think it’s counterproductive to solving what are some genuine issues of demonstrated intolerance of certain viewpoints. It’s fixable. It fits within our ideals as institutions. And it’s a good goal for all of us to work for, whatever our leanings.</p>
<p>What about Bowdoin?</p>
<p>reed college</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with the first quoted sentence of momrath’s post. Definitely, at any top private – LAC or university – and at most flagship universities, there are plenty of students who are intellectually driven.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, for better or worse, a few schools have branded themselves for their self-conscious commitment to “the life of the mind”. Chicago has been such a place for most of its ~120 year history. President Robert Maynard Hutchins once quipped, “Whenever I feel like exercise I lie down until the feeling passes.” The absence of a big rah-rah sports scene has been a point of pride at this school for generations. The down side is that some people find this self-consciously intellectual attitude rather cloying, even a little insulting in its implication that other good schools are not equally full of brainy students with strong intellectual interests.</p>
<p>Certainly, the Ivies attract some of the most brilliant students in the world. The difference is that some of them set aside as many as 40% of their places for students with talents, interests, and advantages that are not particularly intellectual. Chicago in contrast seems to practice very little “class crafting”, the strategy of trying to fill a class with just the right number of oboe players, hockey goalies, or BWRKs for balance. This may be out of necessity (because it does not attract as many applicants, therefore cannot be as selective about ECs), but I think it does result (again, for better or worse) in a different atmosphere at the school. </p>
<p>The difference shows up in career choices. Reed, Chicago, and many Midwestern LACs traditionally have turned out relatively large numbers of future college professors compared to Eastern schools that are equally (or more) selective. College professors are by definition “intellectuals”. Investment bankers - per se - are not.</p>
<p>–MIT (think of the types of students who get in and the nerdy activities on campus)</p>
<p>–Washington U. in St. Louis (types of students who get in and the 60% of student body involved in independent research)</p>
<p>–Franklin Olin School of Engineering (types of students who get in and the unique curriculum at Franklin Olin)</p>
<p>I also remember reading a thread in which Williams, the LAC, was heavily referred to. So remember we don’t have to concentrate only on the US News and Rankings top 15 and/or the Ivies. I think possibly there are many less well-known schools whose students are even more intellectual than those at “top schools.” Students at these schools may be less focused on getting in or going somewhere (ie. the types of students who are at top schools may be compelled to get straight As in order to get into a top professional school) and more focused on learning for learning’s sake. Just a thought.</p>
<p>^ Marlboro, Hampshire, New College FLA ?</p>
<p>Swarthmore is definitely a place with highly intellectual students who are focused on learning more than grade-grubbing.</p>