One outside visitor to politics seminar classes I was taking on Chinese and Soviet politics at Oberlin back in the late '90s likened our class discussions to “verbal slugfests”. While it was heated and seemingly got over-the-top to outside observers, my classmates and I enjoyed them and felt they were very valuable in learning how to think on our feet and debate with difficult/challenging people.
Admittedly, one does need to have a willingness to accept not always being liked by every peer or being challenged. It also helped that I grew up in an environment where trying too hard to be likable/eager to please was looked upon as a “weakness”/liability in my old childhood NYC neighborhood…especially for boys/young men.
I say this as someone who tended to deliberately take a position in opposition to the Profs and majority of my classmates in each class to test my knowledge, expand my debating skills, and keep the classes interesting. And unlike my HS teachers, most college Profs actually appreciated that and responded with great grades and offers to write excellent LORs.
While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict wasn’t as front-and-center when I was there as it is now, the politics/sympathies of most students, including many Jewish classmates when I attended did tend to lean more towards the Palestinian side even back in the late '90s.
Part of that is due to perceptions among many Oberlin classmates I knew that mainstream US mass media and conventional opinion tended to be overwhelmingly pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian and much of the background history of that conflict tends to suppress factors which don’t support the pro-Israeli side.
Getting back to the quote, ironically the back-and-forth over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was one key reason why an Orthodox Jewish HS classmate quit his PhD program in Near-East Studies.
From what he and his friends told me, he felt the entire field has become saturated with Profs who feel inclined to shove their political positions on the conflict…whether pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian down the throats of grad students/academic conference attendees…even when the main topic of the course/conference panels had little/nothing to do with that conflict.
It was especially galling to him as his topic was on a topic which predated the Israeli-Palestinian dispute by several centuries(Archaeology of the Near-East in the 15th and 16th centuries) and his view that such open political editorializing belonged in political science…not Archaeology/Area studies.
After spending nearly a decade studying, J.P. Montepace opted to pursue a job that paid considerably less than other jobs he/she was qualified for. And J.P. knew that the difference between what his/her job pays and what the other jobs pay will grow larger and larger each year. The lower paying job J.P wanted gave him/her the opportunity to assist young people have better lives. J.P can spend time talking about the things J.P is interested in and can pursue making things that J.P. thinks are important. His/her job requires that he/she spend a considerable amount of time in service to the other employees at the job. J.P. would also have to spend hours each week developing proposals to solicit money to pay the expenses related to making the product he was expected to produce at company X. J.P knows that most of the proposals will fail and if at least some are not successful J.P. will lose his/her job. It is likely that J.P will have virtually no ability to get a new job once J.P is in his job for a decade. But, J.P will also be protected from being fired if J.P can be successful for the first 7 years. J.P will be stuck but will be employed.
J.P took the job.
Based only on what you know about J.P. and about attributes of individuals in different political parties, what political party does J.P. belong to, considering that she/he:
-chooses a job where finances are not favorable relative to other similar jobs
-prefers to discuss ideas rather than to make a lot of money
-chooses to spend time with young people, etc
-puts effort into tasks that will not make him/her wealthier but are donated as “service” to others
Ha! I’d say the original author of this little quiz was guilty of having ideological blinders on - in addition to having absorbed a lot of self-pity as well as self-regard.
They obviously think they are describing those who take the job of “college professor”.
But “clergy member” also fits the bill pretty nicely too.
It’s especially ironic to post this quiz today, which is Mother’s Day in the U.S. I’d say that most people who hold the job of “Mom”, particularly stay-at-home moms, fit all 4 of these criteria … they certainly discuss ideas … after all, they’re often the primary educators of our children for the first dozen years or so of their lives.
“Servicing military officer” also checks almost all the boxes. Admittedly discussing ideas doesn’t fit too well, but they get a really high score on the other rubric elements if you factor in that they’re willing to die in the line of duty.
College professors obviously strongly skew toward the democratic party. However, the rest of these groups skew republican, and they generally make even less money to boot.
I was just watching a Sunday political talk/news show and one of the speakers had been ‘Disinvited’ by the university to speak. He wrote a NY Times article about it and was reinvited. He agreed to speak if the school issued a public apology and it was issued. It is his opinion that the schools only reinvite if they are shamed into it, as Va Tech was.
Another panelist said he has ‘disinvite envy’ as now the first panelist can attend the NY ‘disinvited speakers dinner.’ Yes, a real thing
Only a few school names were mentioned in this entire thread. It would be helpful for others if people would divulge the names of the schools where various events occurred. Thank you.
Jason Riley was the disinvited speaker at Virginia Tech. He is a black republican conservative.
Notre Dame considered not asking Obama to speak at the first commencement after he became president. Not exactly a disinvite, but it is traditional for the president to speak at commencement and ND considered not inviting him. In the end, they did invite him, he did speak, and neither side mentioned abortion.
Common knowledge that people tend to gravitate toward others with like interests and appearance. Doesn’t mean we can’t relate to others in a variety of ways.
On the other hand, insecurities can flub all sorts of interactions.
One key point missing from those occupations that was covered in the initial post was the “spending nearly a decade studying” as a minimum requirement which if one’s referring to a college Prof could be nearly a decade of graduate education in the form of a PhD program AFTER UNDERGRAD. And if one wants a viable chance at getting that very job in many fields…the PhD program better be in the top 8-10 for the field/subfield.
I don’t see the same length or degree of competitiveness in the other named occupations.
Last I checked, there’s no official minimum educational requirement for SAHPs.
Minimum educational requirements for clergy vary all over the map depending on denomination/religion…and could be as little as a few weeks/months of bible/religious “college” acceptable to the particular religion/denomination*.
And military officers? Last I checked, the minimum educational requirements for being a commissioned officer in the US armed forces was a 4 year undergrad degree with a possible exception of 90 college credit hours if one was going to OCS as prior-enlisted. NOT UNDERGRAD DEGREE PLUS 10 MORE YEARS OF graduate education.
Moreover, many other countries including Nato Allies like the UK don’t actually require their commissioned officers to have undergrad degrees to be commissioned or to have a career. Prince Harry is the most prominent example and from what I’ve heard from several UK friends who served in the British armed forces, it’s not an exception reserved for royalty, aristocrats, or the well-connected.
An uncle who died fighting the Japanese as a senior field commander in the Nationalist Chinese Army during WWII was a college dropout before reporting to Whampoa in the '20s. That military academy length/curriculum was far closer to the 12-14 week OCS programs the US armed forces provides to prior enlisted who have 90 credit hours or more or college grads who didn’t attend FSAs/ROTC.
Some Fundamentalist evangelical churches I know of in some rural areas of the south/midwest
@momofthreeboys, Hillsdale hosts debates between their liberal and conservative professors? If so, that’s cool. I’d like a balanced school for my kids.
Or, these schools are just more honest about the ideology that pervades their schools and try not to pretend otherwise.
I do not think many extremely liberal schools even acknowledge the fact they are liberal, until you look at the political donations and political party sign up of the professors and students, the pervasive left-wing list of speakers invited to campus, and the riding the bandwagon of students calling anything they do not like hate speech. Actions speak louder than if they keep quiet about what they really believe and pretend to be unbiased.
I rather schools like Oberlin and Hillsdale, which are upfront about their ideology. And you will never hear anything stupid like hate speech at Hillsdale because of a different idea being expressed and no silly safe spaces either from words one does not like to hear either.
However, Bob Jones is not a good choice though because it is a religious school; a religious school has no pretense of being unbiased in its viewpoints, whether religious or political. Religious schools goal have a goal-directed purpose, and students go there for that purpose.
Well, this thread has officially gone way off the rails. Deleting several posts that are wayyyy off topic, but I can’t do them all. Strange stuff. Closing.
