<p>Huh........?</p>
<p>lol i have relatives like that</p>
<p>@pan: haha, yeah. We would hear mo end of creationism</p>
<p>Principalviola,
As you know, one of the criticisms that the far right makes of our educational system is that it has a liberal-elitist-east coast-urban orientation. That is why Sarah Palin was such an attractive candidate to them. The fact that she thought that Africa was a country made her seem more like them. Not an intellect. If you know that Africa is a continent or if you can point Iraq out on a map you must be a brain or some sort of a professor.</p>
<p>The whole debate is such a red herring.</p>
<p>The institutions themselves are huge forces of conservatism in that they reinforce a elite class structure, tend to revere tradition for its own sake, encourage the study of traditional topics, and stress personal ethics and character.</p>
<p>They also embody the liberal traditions of inclusivity and tolerance, encourage questioning of the social order, and stress social responsibility.</p>
<p>The idea above that Republican=rich=conservative is reductionist nonsense as is the idea that voting for Obama=liberal=Democrat.</p>
<p>What irritates me is they want to teach non scientific based nonsense in SCIENCE classes. I love religion classes, though I do not even know if I believe in god (not atheism, exactly... More like taking the spirituality of religion and stripping away the "Earth was created through the cosmic ocean", I am a Hindu, btw). I just find it incredulous that Palin, and those of her like, want to teach intelligent design (which has NO scientific evidence) in science classes. They want to tell us that the earth is 6k years old... </p>
<p>My Dad always tells me "fine if your republican when your old (though not really)", seeing young conservatives is painful. Your young only twenty years, you should be open minded, accepting. I cringe when people discriminate Gays. Conservatives preach that abortion is killing life, yet they happily uphold capital punishment</p>
<p>[/rant]</p>
<p>Edit@Grejuni: I agree, people vote too much based on political party. I actually support certain conservative ideals (though Obama is leagues squared above McCain), very few, but I still do. People need to assess what they want, as opposed to making reductionist nonsense, as you say, to vote for someone.</p>
<p>Grejuni,
Do you agree that our elite institutions strive to be MERITOCRATIC: privilege and leadership based on merit? They may not achieve it, but they nonetheless strive for it. Merit: not descent (aristocracy) not wealth (plutocracy).</p>
<p>yes! i have so many super-fundamentalist relatives. Religion class is fine, whether objective and required or optional. Like you, PPV, i tend to strip away the "facts" (methodist). but taking things ENTIRELY BASED ON A SPECIFIC RELIGION and teaching them as science is ludicrous. I read all sorts of books on religion (not just my own either). the Bible is great for teaching morality, but I'm not inclined to take it as solid scientific fact.</p>
<p>@ principalviola: I cringe when people discriminate others because they have faith.</p>
<p>A conservative (I'm neutral) could counter your statement with: Liberals think it's okay to kill babies who never got a chance at a good life, but want to spend our tax dollars paying for criminals who have practically given up their lives for their unthinkable deeds.</p>
<p>Just try to look at things from both sides....</p>
<p>They strive to be as meritocratic as possible, yet there is the element of both aristocracy and plutocracy in the system. Take Andover, for example. George Bush got in solely because his dear father pulled some strings... If Bush did not have such pedigree or wealthy, he would not have made it purely on merit.</p>
<p>Financial Aid helps every school to draw a large sample, in which it can base its decision solely on merit, yet such a feat is recent. I am sure in the 70s, schools like Andover would not pull those who cannot pay. So while private/elite education moves toward a more egalitarian and meritocratic system, the elements from its inception will remain. </p>
<p>I think the HEADS GCM schools are a small sample of schools which are able to provide much aid, thus drawing purely on merit, yet many private institutions do not give significant aid and as such are not purely meritocratic. Of course any school to which one must apply is meritocratic to a high degree but I think few schools are so purely meritocratic. </p>
<p>Even within elite colleges this would be the case... Exeter was created on the premise to educate the elite. What we define as elite? I do not know... At its inception, though, it would be patricians, not plebeians, (sorry to switch to Roman classes) who would go there.</p>
<p>Even education as an idea at inception was for the elite, now it has become for everyone.</p>
<p>Pan1956
I do agree with you that they (currently) strive to be meritocratic. We also have people talking on other CC threads about how prohibitively expensive BS is and how kids on FA should work for it, or be held to higher standards etc etc.</p>
<p>
I am not discriminating those who have faith... I have faith. In what? I am not sure... I am not discriminating against those who have faith. I am, however, angry with those who feel their faith is the best/only faith.</p>
<p>@Grejuni: I personally think FA kids should not be held to any higher standards. What I do disagree with, however, is that everyone can live the same lifestyle. Financial aid is meant to make something possible without serious lifestyle change, but everyone has to make sacrifices. Even for full pay students, the 36k is coming out of something and everyone does their part to make it possible.</p>
<p>@ principalviola: Though I am certainly not an avid supporter of George Bush, I think it was very judgmental of you to say that there was no way he would make it into Andover on merit. Do you know what went on in the admissions office 100% positively? Do you even know what Bush was like when he was 13-14? I think not, and therefore you have no grounds to make such assumptions.</p>
<p>How would you feel, having made it into Andover yourself, if you someday became somewhat of an unpopular figure and people stated that you did not make it in on merit, but because you got strings pulled for you? Exactly...</p>
<p>Also, the whole purpose of faith it to believe in it above anything else. It kind of defeats the purpose to believe that another faith (other than yours) is the truth. Personally, I believe that the Bible is the Truth. (Don't bite me!) I have thought a lot about whether or not it really is, but I have decided that even if it's not, it certainly has made me happy in life believing that it is. How can you have faith if you don't know what it is in?</p>
<p>The day you get me to believe that Bush made it anywhere on merit, will be the day.</p>
<p>Pinkheart, lets just forget he said GWB, and you can concede that Andover has taken some less deserving candidates based on connections. C'mon, we can all agree to that, can't we? Especially 40 years ago...</p>
<p>We all know that GB went to Andover because of family connetions and at a time when admissions were much less competitive. The institutions were ARISTOCRATIC rather than MERITOCRATIC. I think principalviola is just irritated that GB was such an antiintellectual, anticerebral figure. He acted from the gut, not from the brain. Look at where it got us.</p>
<p>I in now way approve of George Bush's presidency, but I don't think it's fair to judge anyone on assumptions.</p>
<p>When he went to Andover if you had the descent and/or money you were in.</p>
<p>That's not necessarily true. My dad's cousin went to Andover on full scholarship in the early 70's.</p>