<p>I'm not arguing that the Times prints lies... but it is definitely run by the far-left elitists who chose WHAT facts get printed. </p>
<p>And if you want to talk about the domestic spying.. the Times released that report about a day after the successful Iraqi elections in hopes that they could dampen the conservative momentum. Ok, the domestic spying was fact, but the Times got to choose WHEN to publish it, and they predictably picked the day that would do the most harm to the Bush administration. </p>
<p>--"Is it your contention that everyone in the US is to the right of the Times? If so, that would put the Times on the left extreme, but it would make it very difficult to explain election results."-- </p>
<p>The American public remains a very conservative bunch, and there were plenty of outside factors (Foley, Iraq... ) that influenced the results. If you notice, the Democrats decided to move more towards the center (the opposite direction of the Times)</p>
<p>oracle1, you say "the American public remains a very conservative bunch," and I agree. It's also true that, according to a recent NSF survey, 47% of American adults believe the sun revolves around the earth. Afan's point about the NYT influence spoke of "informed adults." If the evidence forces us to admit that most Americans are sadly uninformed, then the debate is meaningless. The whole concept of "far-left" is meaningless if we try to apply it to the general public, most of whom haven't the faintest notion what the issues actually are.</p>
<p>And why are we arguing about whether or not the NYTimes is or is not the "newspaper of record" and/or at one extreme or another? I thought the question was whether or not it is fair to discuss politics in college interviews. If you all want to discuss the NYTimes, perhaps you should start a thread on that topic.</p>
<p>it bugs me when you and afan hint, but don't outright say, that the American public is stupid. just because we all don't subscribe to the liberal spin you, the NY Times, and most other media put out there, doesn't make us unintelligent. </p>
<p>Please refer to my previous question: When did we all get so high and mighty?</p>
<p>i'm just a kid...but conservatism is the way of the future. this secular progressive path some of you want to lead us down will not be welcomed by the masses.</p>
<p>oracle, you misunderstood. I didn't "hint" that the American public is stupid, I clearly asserted it and tossed in a tiny bit of evidence -- more is readily available. I'm not so terribly smart myself, even though I do indeed read the NYT and several other news sources regularly. I'd make a poor showing in a college interview if I were asked to explain, for example, the historical underpinnings of the conflict in Somalia.</p>
<p>I speak only English and have no deep understanding of cultures beyond my own. Trying to stay informed, without the resources to travel and learn firsthand, means reading the opinions of people with firsthand knowledge. In English. The NYT, the Washington Post, the SF Chronicle (The Wall Street Journal just doesn't speak to me) -- these present news and opinion that is, I'm well aware, influenced by bias from the right (the current administration) and from the left, but they're among the best sources we have. The OP raised the question of political discussion in college interviews, and I think that's what we're all addressing. Afan appears directly knowledgeable and I value Afan's posts. When Afan suggested that HS students were less informed than adults, the reference was, I believe, to adults who have carefully followed politics for many years. If someone believes the Sun revolves around the Earth, I'd have to wonder what sort of reading that person has been doing. Probably not the NYT.</p>
<p>Michael Moore is an entertainer. No intelligent, analytical, informed person would unquestioningly accept Moore's one-sided picture of the world. Certainly the editors of the NYT wouldn't. I have to ask -- do you read the Times or just its critics?</p>
<p>It's innappropriate to discuss politics during a college interview. Think about it...would a school like Swarthmore like an open Republican? Likewise, would a school like Wheaton (IL) want a proud Democrat? Most universities are so polarized politically, I would fear discussing my political views during an interview.</p>
<p>I don't know about Wheaton (IL), but I would think Swarthmore would welcome a few Republicans. I know of several Swarthmore grads who have had prominent positions in Republican administrations, e.g. Robert Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State and U.S. Trade Representative in the Bush administration.</p>
<p>I think most colleges welcome both Republican and Democratic students, as well as students with other political ideas. Although I am in very strong agreement with one of our major parties, I would NOT want my kids to go to a school in which my viewpoint is the only one presented. </p>
<p>Currently, emotions are running high about huge moral issues: the war, treatment of detainees, etc. It would be easy, I think, for a student answering questions to (perhaps inadvertently) offend an interviewer, after which the interviewer might find it difficult to be fair. Thus, I think it is best for interviewers to stay away from questions about politics.</p>
<p>Exactly. I personally am a moderate to slightly conservative Democrat. Being right down the middle, I'm wary of schools that are far to the left or right, and I'm afraid that my centrist position would make me seem like an "indifferent," although nothing could be further from the truth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It would be easy, I think, for a student answering questions to (perhaps inadvertently) offend an interviewer, after which the interviewer might find it difficult to be fair.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The purpose of a college interview is to exchange information, yes? It's an opportunity to share views regarding important issues. For students, it's an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of the world and their concern for its future. For adcoms, it's an opportunity to present the college's resources and give a sense of its culture.</p>
<p>I'm not sure we're all defining "politics" in quite the same way here, which leads to misunderstanding. The OP suggested a fairly narrow definition -- "do you think opinions on current politics and political figures are appropriate interview question?" -- which is apparently being narrowed further to comprise just the current U.S. administration. Too narrow for my taste.</p>
<p>Political discussion strikes me as an important tool for refining match -- not a match of party affiliation, but a match of culture. An adroit kid could learn a lot about where he'll best thrive.</p>
<p>oracle, that's pretty far fetched; adcoms are interested in creating a lively, diverse, interesting class (all the while balancing the books). They aren't going to give much credibility to an alum blackballing an applicant for divergent political views. I didn't suggest that the "politics of one interviewer" spoke for the school. I just meant that the interviewer, who presumably knew the school well, could talk knowledgeably about clubs, faculty specialties, students' academic interests, sports, assessment of the health service, or whatever the applicant wanted to know. I think we're narrowing the notion of "politics" way more than necessary. Does the college provide confidential health care, including reproductive health? That's "political," but also extremely practical. Are there, for example, Socialists on the faculty? Intelligent Design proponents? What's the proportion of men and women in the math/science faculty, and what about distribution of tenure? Are vegans going to die of protein deficiency before winter break?
Gosh, I don't personally know any of the interviewer alums at William and Mary, but I'm guessing they're a pretty savvy lot.</p>
<p>I applied to seven schools with alumni interviews.</p>
<p>I'm a conservative, and the extra curricular activites on my application were evident of my political leaning.</p>
<p>All of the interviewers I had, incidentally, were liberals. At a point in the interviews, all of them got to politics. I remember my Yale interview:</p>
<p>"You are a bright young man, how can you honestly support Bush, "</p>
<p>I took the opportunity to blow him away and show him that there is a basis to my beliefs I just don't mimic daddy in the voting booths. </p>
<p>All of my interviews went great. I would hope that an alumni of a prestigious school is openminded enough to respect you, regardless of your beliefs, if they are well thought and sincere.</p>
<p>I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most interviewers will be liberals. Remember, we conservatives don't care about education. Instead of interviewing loser 17-year-olds, we are off clubbing baby seals, causing global warming, exploiting third world country farmers, and killing innocent civilians worldwide. And finding tax loopholes. Duh.</p>
<p>Fratastic said:
[quote]
Women make poor employees. Women who are hired, get pregnant, and get paid for doing nothing. "Equal-opportunity" employing is flawed. I would recommend other similarly qualified candidates over a young married female if I were an employer.
<p>
[quote]
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most interviewers will be liberals. Remember, we conservatives don't care about education. Instead of interviewing loser 17-year-olds, we are off clubbing baby seals, causing global warming, exploiting third world country farmers, and killing innocent civilians worldwide. And finding tax loopholes. Duh.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It was a joke.</p>
<p>
Women make poor employees. Women who are hired, get pregnant, and get paid for doing nothing. "Equal-opportunity" employing is flawed. I would recommend other similarly qualified candidates over a young married female if I were an employer.
</p>
<p>Yup, I'm blown away.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My chauvinism and my conservativism are not one in the same. I'm going to guess your girlfriends wear the pants in your relationships?</p>