Going to a conservative college=disadvantage

College Search & Selection
41

<p>I perceive that those arguing their points on this thread are treating liberal and conservative orientations as if they’re genetically inherited traits which are unchanging over time. There’s a perfectly valid reason why people tend to link higher education and liberal viewpoints. All of us come from a particular place, were raised by particular individuals, and reflect the biases of the particular cultures in which we were raised. A higher education is (or should be) all about expanding that circle of exposure to thought, cultures and influences. Most of us are initially resistant to viewpoints other than those with which we were raised, then gradually come to “tolerate” them, then learn to “entertain” them, and finally get to the point at which we’re willing and able to critically assess our original positions in light of new and differing viewpoints. That’s the hallmark of liberal thought (and that’s the reason that those perceived as liberals are often criticized for lacking “common” sense when they question what others think to be “common” values). Researchers such as Pascarella and Terenzini have typically found that a liberalizing of social views is a consistent byproduct of a higher education. That doesn’t make faculties which reflect more conservative political views any worse or better than others, but it does tend to place them in the minority.</p>

<p>Now, regarding CUA? There’s no reputational problem there. But any university that is unwilling to have its students discuss and entertain viewpoints that differ from its own agendas and doctrines is offering indoctrination but not higher education. That basically renders the reputations of any fundamentalist-controlled schools worthless to a significant portion of society.</p>

42

<p>“I’m sure insulting people on this thread is the correct way to display how tolerant conservatives are.” </p>

<p>I’m insulting their bigotry and their ignorance regarding conservatism. In other words, their closed-mindedness. I’m intolerant of intolerance, if that’s what you means. I suppose it’s better than being closed-minded in general, like most of the posters in this thread. I love how you reproach me but do nothing to address the hideously inaccurate and general statements by others, which are in fact just as offensive and also completely unjustified, unlike my own criticism.</p>

43

<p>You’re not insulting our views when you say we are supposed to be at least somewhat intelligent. You are insulting us, personally, when no one said anything about you or any others who decided to post on this thread. What you did was you moved the discussion from general to personal, and I responded accordingly. And as for not correcting hideously inaccurate statements, I made it clear that there ought to be a distinction between religion, liberal/conservativeness, and political parties which some people fail to understand. And while we are on the topic of hideously inaccurate statements, I like how you and tomslawsky, like to post facts that confuse the argument-such as more Republicans supported Civil Rights, which has nothing to do with the argument because at that time Republicans took the Liberal stance (supporting Civil Rights) while Conservatives, were trying to conserve the status quo-aka no Civil Rights. Tomslawsky posted that the Constitution doesn’t say separation of church and state and while it literally does not say that, the critical interpretation of the First Amendment and Article 6 by none other than TJ lends itself to separation of church and state. So please, before you start reproaching others for their grossly inaccurate statements first view your own. If you notice my posts, they’ve used generalities with caveats, yours however, have used absolutes which tend to weaken your argument because you rarely provide context.</p>

44

<p>“You’re not insulting our views when you say we are supposed to be at least somewhat intelligent. You are insulting us, personally, when no one said anything about you or any others who decided to post on this thread.”</p>

<p>Oh, sure. I’m sorry, I did insult you personally. People who make such absurd statements as those in this thread do not give off an aura of intelligence to me. Perhaps they are. I should have attacked their closed-mindedness instead. I’m completely sorry, I’m being perfectly serious. I should not have claimed that they were unintelligent, I should have attacked their unintelligent statements.</p>

<p>“And as for not correcting hideously inaccurate statements, I made it clear that there ought to be a distinction between religion, liberal/conservativeness, and political parties which some people fail to understand.”</p>

<p>Conservatism is, generally, a rejection of great societal or political changes. Notice that that is not at all incompatible with education. Some professors have views that are simply contradictory to the current situation. They propose radical change. Being for the status quo is not something that affects education.</p>

<p>For the record, there is a strong correlation between religion and political/societal views. It depends on the religion, of course, but tendencies are clearly visible. Political parties also tend to have some connection with societal views, but these two demographics are more fluid, as seen by American history in general.</p>

<p>The separation of church and state is not included in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was an anti-federalist, but was hardly a conservative. Consider the Embargo, the Louisiana Purchase, etc. Even the Supreme Court during his time had an incredibly liberal idea of their power. His presidency was marked by great change and an embrace of a new political system. His interpretation of the Constitution, considering his actions as president, would probably not be as strictly constructionist as they were during his early life.</p>

<p>“have used absolutes which tend to weaken your argument because you rarely provide context.”</p>

<p>Fine. One generality that has not been supported is that education and conservatism are incompatible. Also, conservatives are generally closed-minded (and by conservatives, the posters erroneously assumed only the religious). I have seen little support for those statements.</p>

45

<p>Oh God…alright, looks like it’s time for a history lesson.</p>

<p>Republicans were not “conservative” during the era of the Civil War…on the contrary, they were considered “liberals” at the time while the Democrats were “conservative.” At that point, most northern states identified strongly as Republican and southern states as Democratic. In the post-Reconstruction era, we began to see a slow shift of liberal ideology from Republicans to Democrats, especially as Progressive-era reformers, laborers/farmers and African-American workers became frustrated with the Republican party’s refusal to pass progressive legislation circa 1920. It was during the presidency of FDR that we really began to see the Democrats becoming liberal, at least in the North. </p>

<p>So, yes, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican but he was also a liberal. </p>

<p>With regards to civil rights legislation, yeah historically Republicans have a better voting record, but you really have to remember that before the 1970s the South was still VERY strongly “Democratic” but also very strongly conservative. There was a huge bifurcation between the liberal northern “Democrats” and conservative southern “Democrats,” who were sometimes referred to as “Dixiecrats.” So a lot of the so-called “Democratic” vote in Congress before the last few decades was cast by very conservative southerners who opposed the civil rights movement. It wasn’t until pretty recently that we began to see the divide between the Democratic AND liberal coasts/cities and the conservative/Republican south and midwest. </p>

<p>Tomslawsky: Actually, not all of our Founding Fathers were religious by any stretch of the imagination. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were well-known deists, and George Washington’s personal religious conviction has been a highly contested point of historical debate. </p>

<p>And the concept of the separation of church and state certainly existed in the 1700s. Do you honestly think modern-day liberals just pulled that out of their asses? The phrase was taken from the writings of Thomas Jefferson in, yes, the 1700s. And given that he was one of the most influential thinkers behind modern-day America, I would say that while that phrase isn’t in the constitution, it is still certainly part of our intellectual inheritance. </p>

<p>In response to the OP, the schools you’re looking at aren’t notorious for being close-minded and unintellectual. I’m speaking as a leftist, and the people I’ve met from Hillsdale and Pepperdine are well-educated, tolerant and intellectually curious. They’re certainly conservative, but I wouldn’t call them close-minded so much as strongly opinionated. As long as you stay away from college likes PHC and Liberty (known for being intolerant and shying away from real intellectual debate) you’ll be fine!</p>

46

<p>Not all conservatives are close-minded and not all are religious. I am neither of those things yet I still consider myself conservative. If the many accounts from <thefire.org> are true, then I’d argue that the liberals are actually more close-minded.</thefire.org></p>

<p>I sympathize with CoffeeAddict. I’d really like to go to a conservative college, but the only one that’s conservative and not too religious is Hillsdale, and that’s not a good size for me, and not in the location I’m looking for. So I’m just looking now for a reputable school that is tolerant of opposing viewpoints.</p>

47

<p>Hey CoffeeAddict–</p>

<p>Make a list of possible schools, keeping in mind academic reputation, possibility of admission and any other priority important to you. Research those schools’ graduation placement statistics–most should publish annual highlights and percentages of students employed. This should speak for itself in terms of the school’s reputation in the job market and with graduate programs. Make sure you find out what the response rate is, also…A 95 percent placement rate isn’t so impressive when only 40 percent of the senior class surveyed actually responded. :slight_smile: </p>

<p>I do know that both Hillsdale and Grove City, both considered “conservative” schools boast incredible placement rates and the sampling of graduate programs and companies hiring their grads is impressive and mainstream.</p>

48

<p>Coffee: I have been following your threads on CC now for a few days. First of all, you should focus on the BEST undergraduate experience you can find that will nurture your professional interests. You dont have to be a journalism undergrad major to go into journalism. Being a strong English major certainly helps, but the best education for journalism it seems to me is REALISM and WORLDLY knowledge. Of course you must know how to write, whether you enter broadcast journalism or newspaper/magazine journalism. But what you really need is a “boots on the ground” kind of knowledge. My opinion. </p>

<p>In THAT regard, then, a more urban campus may be what you should focus upon. Johns Hopkins in Baltimore if you have the stats; Catholic, American, GWU, Georgetown in DC; Maryland in the DC suburbs; NYU, Columbia, Fordham, Manhattan College in New York; Vassar or Marist outside of New York; BC, BU, or Tufts in Boston; Loyola, DePaul, or UChicago in Chicago; Northwestern in Chicago suburbs; WashU or Saint Louis U in St. Louis; Seattle U or Seattle Pacific in Seattle; PLU or UPS in Tacoma; U San Diego in San Diego, Santa Clara in South-Bay-SFO; Loyola in LA; Emory in Atlanta; Villanova in Philadelphia etc.</p>

<p>These schools all have very strong programs in history, english, languages, political science etc…all majors that lead to careers in journalism. And all of them are urban or near urban environments. </p>

<p>I am a proponent of Fordham. Its a FABULOUS Jesuit School with a stunningly gorgeous campus next to the New York Botanical Gardens. Their connections to the broadcast and print journalism industry is PHENOMENAL. They are a school which requires a LOT of writing during your curriculum. Its Catholic, Jesuit, and offers spirituality for those who want it. Fordham students were HUGE into the visit of Pope Benedict in April and MANY of them had the opportunity to either meet him or be very, very near to him, including MY D. Fordham does have some party people…that is part of life. But being a campus, but also easily accessible to Manhattan (they go into the city in groups) makes it a very special place for an education on many levels, not just in the classroom. The student body leans right…but not overwhelmingly so. Its more centrist. There are liberals as well. The faculty is not known as being left wing or radical. Most of the faculty (like 70%) have Ivy League Credentials. You will find many points of view, many socio-economic backgrounds at Fordham, and even many religious points of view and all. Its 60% Catholic, but the 40% who are not are either Jewish or Protestant, with a smattering of muslims and hindus and even some Orthodox Christians. Its a fabulous experience if you ask me. Its getting harder to get into Fordham..they had 23,000 applications last year for a Freshman class of 1,700. They typically admit around 40% of applicants. </p>

<p>Fordham has Division I sports which are wonderful. They even have a Division I women’s rowing team. They have wellness dorms where they pledge to not use or abuse drugs, alcohol or tobacco products. </p>

<p>There is a gorgeous Church on campus right next to one of the oldest dorms and about centrally located on campus. Lots of kids go to weekly mass. </p>

<p>I have to say the Cathedral on the campus of Saint Louis University is one of the most beautiful churches in the United States. So if that is what grabs you, then maybe that is another option. </p>

<p>But frankly, Fordham is an outstanding university that I think will provide you the environment you are seeking, while challenging you to become a better person and very well connected to real world experiences. A superb place to prepare for a career in broadcast or print journalism. </p>

<p>It has MANY very famous alumni as well.</p>

49

<p>Liberals want to keep us in some form of the systems that have been tried through the ages: socialism, communisim, etc. Perhaps “conservative” is a misnomer. I would like to see a new era - something that has never fully been tried but which we were very close to during the Enlightenment and industrial revolution. - capitalism, rugged individualism, unwavering search for truth. Modern liberals tend to think that truth is relative - that we each have our own truth. As a conservative, I can more correctly call myself a classical liberal. I can be wrong about a particular issue but there is an absolute truth that I must search for. If truth is relative why go to school, study, research, or anything else - just believe what you want and it will be “right for you.”</p>

50

<p>Well said, mochamaven, well said. I’m a Hillsdale man, personally. The only thing that causes me pause is your saying that George Washington’s “personal religious conviction has been a highly contested point of historical debate.” Considering his statement within the Thanksgiving Proclamation, “It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor,” I should hope it’s not THAT big a mystery.</p>

51

<p>Zombie thread is made of old.</p>

<p>As for your George Washington reference… you’ve heard of Deism, I hope? Christianity has no monopoly on the phrase “almighty God.”</p>