<p>
</p>
<p>It is in some ways, worse if it’s done in a way which is dismissive of other points of view and/or to excess…especially when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject/topic of the class. </p>
<p>Well, maybe. But only if the student gives a flip. Eye-rolling is not uncommon, either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know if you’d feel the same if the Prof teaching a core requirement subject in a field which one needs to have some working knowledge of for one’s career ends up effectively not covering any of the material as a result of going on and on about his/her politics/political campaign to gain elected office. </p>
<p>I don’t blame my supervisor nor his classmates for being angry and filing multiple complains with the engineering dean for having to teach themselves electrical engineering out of the textbook. Especially considering this was taking place at a private medium-sized university. Even if my supervisor was receiving a full-ride from said college. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You crack me up, xiggi. Earlier on this thread you treated us to these gems:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a hard time following the logic of the point you are trying to make by juxtaposing three of my “gems”, Sally. But, obviously, I will vehemently disagree with whatever it is supposed to be. ;)</p>
<p>Yes, and of course you will bat your eyes innocently at the same time. 
Do you really see no irony in accusing others of “gross generalizations” and/or “outright fabrications” when you make them yourself?</p>
<p>I spent a little time looking back over this thread and trying to understand how it went off the rails. Seems to have started on the second or third page, when the aforementioned “gems” as well as feigned outrage over suggesting online college started to emerge.</p>
<p>I answered with a wink on purpose. Of course, I noted the focus on gross generalizations being inherently false and the parallel to my expressed opinions on the tolerance and mental and moral superiority of the group I label liberal. Obviously, that is a point of contention between the accused and the defendant. We will simply never agree on that. You will think I am grossly wrong, and I will look at my selected set of examples to satisfy myself. </p>
<p>As far as why this thread might have derailed, we will also look at various reasons. I will claim it was a reaction that included derision of the OP, and others will find enough justification in the “errors” of the OP. That is one typical Mexican standoff. Am I pushing the envelope as well as a few irritating buttons? Sure! But that comes with the territory! </p>
<p>Regardless of the above, debating opinions is a bit different from questioning preposterous posts pretending to be authoritative. In this case, I questioned the “translation” by. Cobrat of the very different political classifications in Western Europe. One needs to dig a but deeper and learn why parties such as Liberal-Conservative, Christian-Democrats, Social Christians, and other “illogic” parties exist in Europe before calling Euro conservatives the Democrats of the US. That is similar to calling the Mexican PRI a party for US conservatives and republicans. </p>
<p>And to revert to the necessary context of colleges, one needs to remember that Europe is still trying to undo centuries when tertiary education was the sole domain of the male aristocracy. </p>
<p>Reading this thread is like watching Groundhog Day while having a bad acid trip. Carry on!</p>
<p>Floaters in the pool, Lucie? Ewww…</p>
<p>Could be worse. </p>
<p><a href=“The Paradox of a Great University | The New Yorker”>The Paradox of a Great University | The New Yorker;
<p><a href=“‘At Berkeley,’ a Documentary by Frederick Wiseman - The New York Times”>‘At Berkeley,’ a Documentary by Frederick Wiseman - The New York Times;
<p>Going back to the OP’s initial question: why not visit some of the mid-Atlantic colleges that have been suggested, and get some feeling for the intensity of political engagement this fall. Since you are only interested in colleges within driving distances, you will not have to plan any ambitious road trips. I don’t know what your daughter’s school’s regulations are regarding college visits, but most high school seniors are allowed at least one or two days off for college visits or interviews. You can get a pretty good idea by looking at bulletin boards, student publications, etc. Most of the people I’ve known from Princeton have not been overtly political, but some very prominent political figures have emerged (e.g. Senator Ted Cruz, First Lady Michelle Obama, Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Samuel Alito, et al) from there, and faculty members like Paul Krugman are known for outspoken partisanship. An afternoon in and around Princeton might give you a sense of whether it is too “political” for your comfort. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Xiggi,</p>
<p>It sounds like you’re conflating how US-based conservative/libertarian mass media and featured politicians with how many Western Europeans would define US liberal democrats…especially if we’re talking political scientists who have studied US politics and the US political spectrum at any length. </p>
<p>Sorry, but asserting that with my Western European friends or in a mid/upper-level political science class with reasonably engaged students will earn nothing but dismissive laughter in the same way a certain politician elicited when he corrected an elementary student’s correct spelling of a tuberous food crop…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting example as Princeton 2+ decades ago had a reputation as a campus favorable to heavily conservative/libertarian students and higher SES private/boarding school grads. </p>
<p>A factor in why many young Republicans/Libertarians in my HS gravitated to Princeton whereas most young radical progressive lefty political activists/neo-hippies and lower SES classmates made a point to avoid applying/matriculating there…especially if they were admitted to Brown, Harvard, or even Yale. </p>
<p>Granted, that’s no longer the case and I’m hearing Princeton is much more welcoming of URMs, lower SES public school graduates, and more politically lefty oriented students than was the case 20+ years ago. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh. So when other people make sweeping statements they are “gross generalizations” but when you present a negative opinion about an entire group of people it is an innocent case of “pushing buttons”? Do you really think doing that advances the civil discourse on this site?</p>
<p>It’s interesting that you bring up Berkeley. I’m pretty sure no one here would suggest that particular institution for the OP’s daughter. Remember the “racist bake sale” put on by the College Republicans a few years ago? Not only would that be a distraction from her studies, she’d have to have access to a kitchen to bake in. And we all know how distracting cookie batter can be. :)</p>
<p>Correct. No-one would suggest Berkley. The rest of that failed attempt to be clever is the whole problem with this thread amped up a few unfortunate notches. What part of NOT political is so hard to grasp? Jeez. </p>
<p>Actually… it is hard to grasp. There is probably NO college where professors and students have no political opinions and they are never shared. People have projected their own opinions of what types of political leanings they THINK the OP is trying to avoid. And people have expressed that they think the OP’s delicate little snowflake probably won’t melt in presence of such activity. But honestly, I think there is no college where you could find this. You through young people who are trying to figure out the world together in a time when we have 24/7 access to events across the world, and you are going to get political discussions and activities no matter what school is chosen.</p>
<p>Okay, by not political I don’t think she means a school that bans all political discussion and activity in or out of the classroom. Rather, I think she means a school where the majority of the student body is not filling their time with mindless rallies, petition drives, and idealistic efforts to change the world, somehow. Of course, everyone has opinions. But, lots of people also have other more dominant interests. For now, she’s hoping for her daughter that’s STEM. </p>
<p>
</code></pre>
<p>Just change the words to reflect the current topic…one knows it when one sees it.</p>
<p>Has anyone noticed the OP has left the building?</p>
<p>What difference does it make how students fill their non-class/studying/lab time? Is going to the gym “mindless”? Hanging out with friends? Going on a date? What is “idealistic,” and why is it inherently bad? Would anyone really criticize their own or other people’s kids for doing normal things college students tend to do? This is why people are reacting the way they are. The OP at one point said “getting over a broken heart” was something she considered a waste of time in addition to political rallies and whatnot. A lot of us find that–and the faux outrage in defense of her position–perplexing, to say the least.</p>
<p>She didn’t say idealistic was bad, btw. She said she wanted her daughter to get educated and get a job and adults could work on world problems until then. I do think the boyfriend part may be her bigger problem, though. </p>