Why is there a Liberal Bias in higher Ed.

[selkirk]

Ok, I think most people are willing to readily accept that there is a liberal bias in education (k-12, and collegiate) as well as in the science community. So my question for everyone is why?

 

Is it something that self selects? Liberal establishment chooses to promote/advance liberal causes, which are pursued by each new generation of liberal researchers/teachers/proffessors who then become the liberal establishment?

 

Or is it something more fundamental?

 

On a related note, why does education seem to correlate progressive/liberal beliefs? What are everyone's thoughts?

[dberdinka]

Education requires being, in fact demands being, open to new ideas. Right? Learning means considering and either accepting or rejecting thoughts you haven't had before.

 

Definitions

 

Liberal: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

 

 

Conservative: Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

[TheJiggler]

I'll state the obvious . . . . . . Education for all its problems tends to generate open minded thinking people. People who think, naturally migrate toward a liberal perspective. Why? Such a perspective tends to be more sustainable, just, and creates a happier society.

[Jim]

Ok, I think most people are willing to readily accept that there is a liberal bias in education (k-12, and collegiate) as well as in the science community. So my question for everyone is why?

 

This question is on the same level as "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

[foraker]

I can't say I ever ran into liberal *bias* in education. Maybe times are different now. I certainly met a number of liberal students, but then I also met a fair number of conservative ones as well. Maybe it's because highly educated people tend to educate themselves more about issues, to see more sides of an issue than just one, and to disdain hate mongering talk radio? But that's just a generalization. As soon as I say that, though, I immediately think of representatives from both sides of the political spectrum who are close-minded zeaolts.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Education requires being, in fact demands being, open to new ideas. Right? Learning means considering and either accepting or rejecting thoughts you haven't had before.

 

I've met just as few liberals who "consider" opinions outside their dogma as conservatives.

 

As for "learning", much of this in higher education demands walking a narrow path of "acceptable" view-points. This is not only true in technology and "hard science", where there is a "right" and a "wrong" answer, but to in the softer social sciences, where subjective grading mandates parroting the opinions of your professor or teaching assistant to succeed.

[chucK]

If your main goal is wealth, if you're willing to overlook basic respect for others in your drive for the $$$'s, then your obvious path is not in education or in academia.

 

My appraisal of the situation is that academics as a group are more liberal (here "liberal" meaning a sense of basic respect for the welfare of others, or the antithesis of, "Fuck 'em if they don't want to work. Let them die in the streets if they can't keep up with me".) because most of the republican types are siphoned away into more fruitful (i.e. $$$) avenues.

 

Shareholders like the the type of people who are willing to steal from their mother to advance their careers. That type of person would do well in academia also, but the pay there is not as good. And nine times out of ten, that type of person is going where the dollars are.

Edited April 12, 2005 by chucK

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If your main goal is wealth, if you're willing to overlook basic respect for others in your drive for the $$$'s, then your obvious path is not in education or in academia.

 

Intellectuals and academics can be the most selfish, ego-centric, callous people out there. The self-delusioning left cracks me up without fail. Keep stroking your egos and rationalizing your inherent "goodness". Your holier-than-thou self-righteousness rivals that of the most vocal evagelical that you hate so intensely.

[foraker]

The one thing I have observed in education, both as a student and as a researcher, is that there is a strong anti-intellectual cuture in this country. While 'keeping it real' might be laudable, it doesn't bode well for us maintaining our superiority in science and technology. In fact, most students these days seem to be 'doing the numbers' and finding out that it doesn't pay to be a programmer or engineer or scientist and are heading into marketing or medicine.

[foraker]

KK, while I'll agree with your point apropos academics, your words are something I would equally apply to numerous members of the right wing.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The one thing I have observed in education, both as a student and as a researcher, is that there is a strong anti-intellectual cuture in this country.

 

Agreed. In other countries, there is a whole different perspective on this AND the politics don't cut the same way as the do in the US, proving that the situation in the US is not necessarily the way it has to be.

[rbw1966]

Education requires being, in fact demands being, open to new ideas. Right? Learning means considering and either accepting or rejecting thoughts you haven't had before.

 

I've met just as few liberals who "consider" opinions outside their dogma as conservatives.

 

 

I agree with this statement. Closed-mindedness is a part of either political extreme. Reed, a decidedly liberal college, had one lone republican student on campus (I bet Pax and Squid remember him) that was in a number of my classes. I never saw anyone catch more shit than that guy, who often presented well-reasoned, thoughtful analyses of his viewpoint which was in stark contrast to the shallow, incoherent opinions of some of our classmates who attacked him.

[chucK]

You're right, they can be. But we are talking about preponderance here. It certainly helps in academia (or anywhere) to advance your career if you're a self-serving MF. But usually, if you're all about money, power, fame, whatever. at any cost, there's a lot better places to go than academia.

 

I would think selfish conservatives like yourself would consider the lack of a drive to succeed at any cost a weakness, and would not consider my statements egotistic, but self-deprecating.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

KK, while I'll agree with your point apropos academics, your words are something I would equally apply to numerous members of the right wing.

 

Few members of the left wing would agree with a lot of my opinions on education. For example, I support well-rounded education, including lots of humanities - what the right would consider "useless" or "unnecessary".

[selkirk]

First off, I may have mistated myself. I don't necessarily think the Liberal bias in education makes itself overly strongly felt. Most of the instructors/TA's etc that i've dealt with do a good job seperating their own beliefs out from the subject matter, and teach the subject of the class pretty cleanly. I am however in engineering so there isn't all that much controversy. What I have seen is not so much liberal bias affecting most courses, as have met very few (none in higher ed) highly conserative people who teach at any level.

 

Trying to sum up the basic positions real quick.

 

KK: Liberal Bias exists because in order to academically succed one must kowtow to the profs and either actually hold or at least espouse their own liberal bias. Does that sound right?

 

Dberdinka, Jiggler, Foraker: Liberal bias is there as to be successfull in education you can't be close minded or too dogmatic since you must continually analyze opposing viewpoints and analyze the support for your own beliefs.

 

ChucK: Liberal bias is an artifact of conserative individuals having a different set of priorities (i.e. $$$)

 

Jim: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

And KK, please, of course there are liberal ego-maniacs in each and every field , though I tend to see this more in people who are primarily researchers then those who are primarily teachers. I've met a number who seem to view teaching as penance that they have to do in order to be allowed to research at a major Univ. However there are also an awful lot of good people who are very focused on education and learning and aren't their for their own prestige or advancement.

 

And yes there are dogmatic extremist wacko's on both end of the spectrum. As for a more well rounded education? Why would the left wing not support that? I have to agree completely, and i'm certainly a liberal though I doubt i'd qualify as left wing.

 

We've shifted too far from the original intent of a university education, from a broad, general education that teaches one how to think clearly about any topic with some specialization in one field, to an advanced technical degree, where the only issues you are ever confronted with come from one very narrow field (extremely true in engineering).

 

 

My own impression is along the line of ChucK's. I've met very few conservative people who are interested in teaching others. Many tend to be of the "Those who can do. Those who can't teach." mindset, and primarily define success in a career/monetary sense. While the more liberal people I know tend to define their success/quality of life based around the relationships and/or the positive outcome of the work they do.

 

It's my opinion that the people who go into education to teach, do so because they feel that teaching the next generation of students is the most valuable thing anyone can do, and the best way to insure that our societies and ideas don't dissappear. (Those who go into academia primarly to research are often of a very different breed though.)

 

On a sidebar, i'd even be willing to venture that there is a spectrum of the level of liberality from lower education through higher. The more complex and involved the concepts are, and the higher the amount of education necessary to teach those concepts, the more liberal (in general) the average person who ends up teaching at that level. (So I bet the Elementary and Middle school teachers, are on the whole, somewhat less liberal than high school teachers, who are somewhat less liberal the Community College Instructors, who are somewhat less liberal than major Univ. instructors. (again, thos who are primarily focused on research are somewhat excepted.)

[ChrisT]

Rats! Paul Krugman, a prof at Princeton and an op ed columnist for the NYTimes had a really great piece on this subject about a week ago but you have to order it now

 

EDITORIAL DESK | April 5, 2005, Tuesday

 

An Academic Question

 

By PAUL KRUGMAN (NYT) Op-Ed 760 words

Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 23 , Column 6

 

ABSTRACT - Paul Krugman Op-Ed column examines charge by conservatives of liberal bias in university hiring and promotion; says claims that liberal bias keeps conservatives off college faculties almost always focus on humanities and social sciences, but fact is that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences; says conservatives claiming alienation of universities should wonder if some of fault lies not in professors, but in themselves; wonders how scientists could support party whose leader, Pres Bush, claims that 'jury is still out' on theory of evolution...

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

It's 'cause lefties are actually interested in helping people, whereas most righties/conservatives are more interested in fucking people over, and not giving tax money to anything but the military-industrial slush fund part of the budget. Teachers, teaching, and learning are obviously totally antithetical to the conservative gestalt. So clearly, most conservatives are no more interested in joining the ranks of educators than most lib'rals are interested in joining the military.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

of course there are liberal ego-maniacs in each and every field , though I tend to see this more in people who are primarily researchers then those who are primarily teachers.

 

It's the egomaniacs who call attention to the bias and make it so unpalatable. If they went away, the bias would not matter much.

 

I've met very few conservative people who are interested in teaching others.

 

I applied for a full-time teaching position at the UW and was not hired - not because of bias, but they preferred a candidate with a PhD to an MS. I taught two courses as a pre-doctoral instructor prior to that and enjoyed it greatly. Unfortunately there are not so many opportunities to teach when universities (i.e. *research* universities) focus more on research and an elite set of researchers, rather than those skilled in *teaching*.

 

My experience as both an undergraduate and a graduate student was that college is more a place where you learn to teach yourself, rather than a place where you are "taught". This was especially true in engineering and the hard-sciences.

[selkirk]

It's the egomaniacs who call attention to the bias and make it so unpalatable. If they went away, the bias would not matter much.

 

The same is also true of the right wing as well. But that doesn't matter much since it's not under discussion at the moment. Though the egomaniacal researchers i've met never really applied their ego to politics save occasionally department politics. It's usually reserved for students in the courses, and their own grad students when they aren't as brilliant as they should be.

 

I applied for a full-time teaching position at the UW and was not hired - not because of bias, but they preferred a candidate with a PhD to an MS. I taught two courses as a pre-doctoral instructor prior to that and enjoyed it greatly. Unfortunately there are not so many opportunities to teach when universities (i.e. *research* universities) focus more on research and an elite set of researchers, rather than those skilled in *teaching*.

 

Good for you. Now that brings the number of conservatives i've met with an interest in being instructors at the Univ. level up to 1. But if you finished your masters you obviously did well in your coursework, so why didn't the liberal educators chew you up? Or did you just tell them what they wanted to hear? The only times i've heard of students having issues with over-zealously liberal instructors is at the level of freshman english, when it's being taught by grad students. Has anyone here ever run into elsewhere?

 

And the whole "research" focus at major universities ends up being a huge disservice to the undergrads there, thought it's great for the grad students. A lot of people end up teaching courses, when they shouldn't ever be allowed out of the lab . That's actually one of my ongoing grievances against UW and other major research universities. The big name is made on research funding and graduate student output. Said big name draws in lots of undergrads, who proceed to take introductory classes with 300 other students in lecture, and often get exposed to egonmaniacal wankers who teach by lecturing, and telling their students how stupid they are. (not all mind you, there are some who are great at it.) There's so little focus put on teaching, that the undergrads get a bit lost in the shuffle. Smaller, more teaching oriented universities seem to do a better job actually educating students. And yes it is about teaching yourself, but that doesn't mean effective instruction can't accomplish a great deal more than ineffective instruction.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

But if you finished your masters you obviously did well in your coursework, so why didn't the liberal educators chew you up?

 

Because my graduate coursework had nothing to do with the humanities or soft-sciences. There were right and wrong answers that had nothing to do with politics. And I avoided social conversations geared towards the latter.

[Peter_Puget]

Selkirk -

 

You must be young as this question was settle definiatively several years ago - - link!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Selkirk -

 

You must be young as this question was settle definiatively several years ago - - link!

 

"Why then do contemporary intellectuals feel entitled to the highest rewards their society has to offer and resentful when they do not receive this? Intellectuals feel they are the most valuable people, the ones with the highest merit, and that society should reward people in accordance with their value and merit. But a capitalist society does not satisfy the principle of distribution "to each according to his merit or value."

 

Orwell put it best: some animals are more equal than others...

[jon]

Ok, I think most people are willing to readily accept that there is a liberal bias in education (k-12, and collegiate) as well as in the science community. So my question for everyone is why?

 

It's because we don't watch NASCAR.

[Jim]

Selkirk -

You must be young as this question was settle definiatively several years ago - - link!

 

Oh yea, The CATO Institute. There's an unbiased source.

[selkirk]

Selkirk -

 

You must be young as this question was settle definiatively several years ago - - link!

 

only with respect to "Wordsmiths" though. While the liberal leaning of wordsmiths might be stronger than that in other fields. Why does the rest of intellectual society (i.e. scientists and engineers, the numbersmiths neglected by Nozick.) seem to be leaning left as well? (support of the global warming data, interest in stem cell research, opposition to Bush's treatment of scientific research etc etc. )

 

This article also only addresses the opposition to capitalism and the mechanism of wealth distribution ,and not the broader sense of liberal as well (tolerance of alternative lifestyles, environmentalism, pro-choice, desire to provide care for the elderly and poor instead of letting them fend for themselves, etc)

 

As a whole the article seems a little thin. Numbersmiths don't lean left because they don't get vocal recognition? The article itself states that it's just a hypothesis, or arm chair conjecture in need of evaulation and quantitative testing. Has this been done yet? Anything beyond speculation?