Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Study Shows Sun Rises in the East

…or rather, academia is the most liberal-leaning of modern Western institutions.

Who knew?

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:


Vale of Ignorance said...

Do liberals really dominate education because they are more intelligent(i.e. have PhDs)? I doubt it.

The truth is, the education system is a cake-walk for liberals, who simply get their worldview re-affirmed every step of the way. For conservatives, even graduating with a basic (liberal) education has become akin to a form of intellectual and moral masochism.

Few conservatives hold PhD's? This, surely, is best explained by the fact that the whole education system delights in opposing, and attempting to refute, the conservative worldview at every juncture. How many conservatives are likely to be attrracted to a career dedicated to that?

Anonymous said...

Q: Why are most professors Marxists.

A: Because they hire each other, its that simple.

Anonymous said...

Politically-correct academics are the biggest hypocrites on two legs. They will teach their students all about the iniquities of discrimination, they will applaud themselves for recruiting "disadvantaged minority students". Yet when it comes to filling posts for academics, they go through the whole hoopla of advertising the posts (replete with all their hollow pledges to equal opportunities). Yet before the advert has even been seen by the public, the successful candidate will have been pre-agreed in underhand deals. They are only going to have people who think exactly as they do.

The effects of this are seen in the peer-reviewed journals, where only official dogma may be published (be that in literary studies, philosophy, or even in medicine).

One only has to consider the brouhaha about whether or not HIV is the cause of AIDS. Any scientist who dared to challenge this was hounded out of a job. And yet there is plenty of evidence to show that there is no change in HIV prevalence in the US in the past 20 years. "Peer review . . . is simply a way to collect opinions from experts in the field. Peer review tells us about the acceptability, not the credibility, of a new finding".

We are living in an age of group think, and ironically it is a group think that considers itself a world view that extols and nurtures individuality and difference.

Green Infidel said...

Before World War II, the Communist party in Poland was mostly made-up of intelligentsia - many of them university professors. Many of its members were so impressed by the Soviet Union that they decided to go there - and were never heard from again...

Lawrence said...

The intent of education is the teach us to learn to think for ourselves, via study and knowledge.

However, we test the success of our education based on how closely our students come to thinking like their teachers.

Liberal teachers claim that this is not indoctrination...

... what say you?

Chiu ChunLing said...

The stated aim of institutions varies from the actual aim so often that it is normal for most people to regard any institution of which they are not a part as having a hidden agenda. But the truth is that institutions aren't people, they don't have intentions, they only have effects that are the inevitable result of their structure, whether by accident or design on the part of the creators of the institution.

If 'educators' are judging their students based on how dependent they can be made in their thinking, then that is the aim of those educators. I've had instructors that valued being challenged intellectually by bright students, they were rare (and almost completely absent from the state-funded institutions) but they do exist.

The reason for creating a system of "public education" rather than leaving it to parents and young adults to select for themselves the manner of instruction that seemed most valuable was always to allow the politically powerful to indoctrinate the masses as they wished. The effects of having a monopoly on education of the young is too well-evidenced and too naturally obvious for there to ever be any other reason for promoting such an institution.

At the same time, I'm not wholly opposed to a certain degree of indoctrination. It is quite useful to indoctrinate everyone to use the same language and system of measures, for instance. Which language and system of measures you use does matter, but far less than being sure that everyone is using the same one. But a really useful indoctrination can sell itself, it doesn't have to be imposed.

As for the value of a PhD., it is not what it once was. And in a year or two, it may be obvious to everyone that the market for higher education will never recover.

Chiu Chun-Ling.