<p>Well, I just really like how they started calling it climate change when the numbers didn’t really show much in the way of global warming but I am not a scientist, so yeah. I do know something about talking points, though. They are rarely truthful and they are never objective truth by design. </p>
<p>Nice non sequitor 
</p>
<p>But I’m confused: are you, or are you not a scientist (as you claimed in #257)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Global warming is [url=<a href=“http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php]indisputable[/url”>Global Warming]indisputable[/url</a>]. [url=<a href=“http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/]And[/url”>http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/]And[/url</a>]. They started calling it climate change, because some people think that global warming literally means a higher temperature at all times in all places, and that our recent severe winters are proof that global warming is a hoax. And it’s actually more accurate; the climate is indeed changing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Colleges, especially elite ones in the US…and many other societies throughout history may have aspired to that ideal. However, that has not usually been the case even hundreds of years ago. </p>
<p>For instance, students in medieval universities in Europe actually participated in insurrections they instigated against local towns/rulers…and they were armed when doing so. A factor in why there’s some records of towns either driving out colleges or trying to discourage them from setting up a campus with armed militia. As students were considered clergy with associated exemptions and entitlements, local authorities had a hard time arresting them or even discouraging such antics. </p>
<p>Reading some accounts of medieval undergrad or 18th/early 19th century boarding school student life makes the more recent protests by undergrads of the last few decades seem quite peaceful and serene in comparison.</p>
<p>Here’s a glimpse of student life in British “Public Schools” or really boarding schools in the late 18th/early 19th century:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLezmzsw_PY”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLezmzsw_PY</a></p>
<p>@katiamom awcntdb is a scientist. </p>
<p>You’re right, thanks for the correction </p>
<h1>221–You are uninformed about methods of natural family planning. What you’ve described is not the rhythm method (which went out in the 60s). It is called the sympto-thermal (or temperature) method. Multiple scientific studies have been done on this (and other NFP methods–Billings/Ovulation, Creighton, etc.) over decades and it is proven effective. There ARE guidelines for taking the temperature at the same time each day, and how to store a thermometer. (MD’s and scientists who developed these methods do know more than 7th graders.) Today’s basal thermometers are highly accurate. You can google various NFP methods and find multiple international studies published in medical journals like this: <a href=“effectiveness of a fertility awareness based method to avoid pregnancy in relation to a couple's sexual behaviour during the fertile time: a prospective longitudinal study | Human Reproduction | Oxford Academic”>http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.abstract</a></h1>
<p>I’m sure your neighbor doesn’t say that “rhythm is the ONLY effective method.” (No one who uses natural methods uses the term “rhythm.” And rhythm, which was scientifically based on women’s cycles back in the 30’s, is the least effective of the natural methods). Perhaps she said this method is effective and is the only “acceptable” method for her for health or religious reasons?
BTW, did your neighbor tell you that her 7 kids were unwanted/unplanned? If not, why would you assume that her family size is “wrong,” or merely an indicator of “ineffective birth control?” Is your neighbor free to choose to have a large family–or only the family size YOU think is “correct?” There are some people–even educated people–who choose to have large families.<br>
Did your neighbor also tell you about the " leftist plot to sterilize women against their will?" Perhaps there is some truth there, but those protesting this are mostly “far left” – ultra feminists, minorities, champions of the poor, etc. because while contraceptives were being tested, many poor, uneducated women were sterilized or had contraceptives implanted without their consent. Maybe she was thinking of this: Women died during trials for the pill, or experienced severe side-effects that were discounted or ignored. <a href=“The Puerto Rico Pill Trials | American Experience | Official Site | PBS”>The Puerto Rico Pill Trials | American Experience | Official Site | PBS. Search for Depo-Provera and you will find a lot of feminist groups concerned about the types of contraceptives being pushed on poor minorities. </p>
<p>OK, now back to the topic of the thread. Someone asked if there ever was a case of “charismatic” profs having an undue influence on students. At the University of Kansas in Lawrence (not a conservative town. . .) back in the 1970s, three professors started an “Integrated Humanities Program.” ( a Great Books or Western Civ. course). It was suppressed, then shut down after parents complained that many of the students (hippies, liberals, atheists, jews) converted to the Catholic church, a number of them joined traditional monasteries or became priests/religious sisters. The movement had far-reaching effects–several converts are now Catholic bishops or heads of religious orders. Those who joined the Benedictine monks in France later came back to found a monastery in Oklahoma. <a href=“http://www.clearcreekmonks.org/_pdf/EOC-June-2013-IHP-Catholic-legacy-endures-born-in-wonder.pdf”>http://www.clearcreekmonks.org/_pdf/EOC-June-2013-IHP-Catholic-legacy-endures-born-in-wonder.pdf</a> Wyoming Catholic College is a “grandchild” of the program, etc. Strange stuff–and not what one usually is afraid of when sending a kid off to your big state u.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Championing the poor is “far left”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course there is. You didn’t read the article I cited above, did you? Here is an excerpt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience”>ShieldSquare Captcha;
<p>
</p>
<p>No legitimate scientist (as you say you are) would use insignificant anecdotes rather than decades of recorded data, analysis, and consensus in the scientific community to form an opinion. </p>
<p>I don’t recall anyone on this thread calling the OP an idiot or other derogatory names. Some of the posts which discuss aspects of activism/liberalism/conservatism etc., on college campus are just the natural drift posts on threads like this take. I think that has happened on this thread in part because there really is no such thing as an apolitical campus culture. There will always be issues some students on every campus will feel strongly and make it known. </p>
<p>If the OP doesn’t want their student exposed and possibly influenced by a Prof or peer- the best thing would be for student to live at home and attend a local college .The parents can more easily monitor the student and have a better idea of whats happening on campus that might give parent concern. </p>
<h2>I don’t recall anyone on this thread calling the OP an idiot or other derogatory names. </h2>
<p>Talk about counter-factual.
I actually cited the post number above; the other sneers were implied.
You can actually search the thread to gather evidence, you know. (Yay, data!)</p>
<p>Your suggestion of “stay at home” was also previously suggested, more than once, I think. But I don’t think it was suggested on the thread about avoiding party colleges, which is odd.</p>
<p>Maybe “stay at home” wasn’t suggested, but going to a predominately commuter school to avoid a partying atmosphere was. </p>
<p>But, imo, I think both of these threads end up in the same place. There is no such thing as a school were kids don’t party and no such thing as a school were politics is absent. </p>
<p>Also, this thread’s topic has the added “problem” of professor/administration influence on student- where the other is mostly about the peer group. </p>
<p>I don’t know how people jumped to the conclusion that the OP wanted a conservative, religious environment for his or her kid, or a university where political viewpoints were “balanced” between right and left. I thought it was clear from the beginning that what the OP wanted was an “ivory tower,” stick-to-business environment, where political viewpoints were not balanced or correct so much as irrelevant. The antithesis of, say, Berkeley or Antioch (or the Sorbonne, the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, or any Chinese university) in 1968. </p>
<p>I think it’s a misguided question, but it’s a question that deserves analysis and discussion, not vilification. (I note, however, that when someone arguably called the OP an “idiot,” it was in a very civil manner, and referred to the original Greek source of the word as someone who cannot comprehend points of view other than his own.) It might even have been a sensible question in 1968 or 1969, with some campuses regularly having classes shut down or exams canceled due to general strikes about this or that. However, by about 1972 that wasn’t happening anywhere anymore, and nothing like it has happened since. The idea that anything similar continues is essentially a marketing project of right-wing talk radio.</p>
<p>Today, some students are significantly engaged politically – on both the right and the left, and in conventional electoral politics as well as fringe alternatives – some others are engaged sporadically – depending on how compelling the issue du jour is, how close it is to midterms, and whether good-looking people are likely to be involved too – and most are not engaged at all, besides (maybe) voting in meaningful elections. Just like non-students. It’s not so different from life in the real world.</p>
<p>So that’s reason #1 why the question was misguided: The problem doesn’t actually exist. It’s a myth, born out of 1968 and 1848. Reason # 2 is more interesting. Apart from the mass psychoses of those particular moments in history, some amount of political ferment at universities has positive educational value, not just for those directly involved in it but for everyone in the community. It makes people think about the relationship between what they are learning and the world, before (at least to some extent) their position is affected by what job they hold and who signs their paycheck. It’s a laboratory for forms of debate and persuasion, larger than a family but smaller and more personal than a city or a nation. It helps students learn about themselves and begin to define themselves by asking them to make choices they may not have considered before. In moderation – and I don’t think it exists other than in moderation anywhere – that’s a good thing. And it’s not a liberal vs. conservative thing, either. It happens all over the political spectrum.</p>
<p>“No evidence is powerful enough to force acceptance of a conclusion that is emotionally distasteful.” ~ Theodosius Grigorievich Dobzhansky</p>
<p>I don’t think that living at home solves this problem. I’m sure plenty of students who live at home while in college still join clubs, attend rallies, work for social or political causes, etc. And, I’m sure many of them even attend parties and have boyfriends, which I think is far, far, far more likely to be a source of distraction to the OP’s daughter’s studies. Perhaps enrolling in online courses while living at home would provide the OP with the desired amount of oversight and sheltering from any possible distractions to her daughter’s study.</p>
<p>Totally agree with JHS in post 272. </p>
<p>I also did not assume that the OP is a rightwing conservative wingnut. My assumption is that this is a family who highly values education and believes that one’s time should be spent learning and studying, and not attending political protests. Since there’s so much coverage of campuses with political protests, s/he wants to know what colleges don’t have this “problem.” </p>
<p>I agree that it’s misguided to think that charismatic professors incite students to attend these protests. I think the students are more than capable of starting protests all on their own. </p>
<p>My slightly amusing anecdote: I went to Brown, which certainly today is considered a hotbed of political protests, and thus a school the OP should strike off his list (although plenty of Brown students manage to attend for four years without going to a single protest). My good friend was not co-opted by a charismatic professor or boyfriend, but by a roommate who belonged to a religious cult. This friend became a full-blown member, causing parents to call the Dean, who called other students in our unit to figure out what was going on. I am 100% sure that my friend never went to a single protest in four years, but attended a lot of religious activities.</p>
<p>Point being: You really never know what your kid is going to get into when you send them off to college. </p>
<p>Now, I better click post comment before this thread is closed for political discussion.</p>
<p>PS: Friend eventually saw what was happening and left the cult, and is doing quite well.</p>
<h2> (I note, however, that when someone arguably called the OP an “idiot,” it was in a very civil manner, and referred to the original Greek source of the word as someone who cannot comprehend points of view other than his own.) </h2>
<p>I admit that the insult was delivered with civility typical of passive aggression.
I have to laugh at the irony of people criticizing and deriding me for failing to comprehend other points of view for asking an unpopular question.
Am I supposed to recant and confess to the errors of my thinking?</p>
<p>No, but you could accept the overwhelming consensus that your question and worries are, to quote JHS, misguided - and based on a faulty picture of what’s going on in today’s academia. (Not that I expect this will happen.) BTW, I graduated from UC Berkeley in 79. The biggest club on campus was the Young Republicans. So much for stereotypes. </p>
<h2>No, but you could accept the overwhelming consensus that your question and worries are, to quote JHS, misguided - and based on a faulty picture of what’s going on in today’s academia.</h2>
<p>Strangely enough the tenor of the majority of the answers here has convinced me of the opposite. It strengthens my impression that status quo thinking is so rampant that people are not even aware that they hold opinions rather than indisputable facts; and that dissent is shouted down.</p>
<p>What kind of indisputable facts would you like? And what would you consider a reliable source of those facts? Do you want to see the actual number of young people coerced into political activism today versus, say, 25 years ago? The number of hours students devote to political activism versus their studies? The number of professors who insert extreme politics into their science classes? Please do tell just what you expect to hear. </p>