The Political Orientation of College Faculty

<p>As to the Justice Department thing,if I am not mistaken it is not uncommon for presidents to try to place ppl who have views similar to them into positions of power, whether that be liberal or conservative. I mean it is just another attempt to attack president Bush.</p>

<p>Regarding stacking the justice department, the Bush administration has gone far beyond any previous administration in its attempt to appoint ideologues.</p>

<p>The Daily Kos has an interesting recent post...</p>

<p>Daily</a> Kos: Bush Justice Department politicizes absolutely everything</p>

<p>^at the policy level, maybe. it's very rare to have litmus tests applied to internships and entry-level positions. in fact, it's kind of crazy since there would be so little to base a decision on at that level.</p>

<p>Oh puhleeze. The Bush Administration is no different than all the previous Administrations. Clinton did more than stuff the government with his "friends and family", he moved top secret programs and contract negotiations away from the Defense Department and put them in the Commerce Department under Ron Brown. The result was the fracas over rocket technology being sold to China. Ron Brown then got fed up and was about to testify against Bill Clinton on a number of issues before he met an untimely death. Literally hundreds of Ron Brown's friends from his lobbyist firm were hired at Commerce which was the back door for getting stuff done that otherwise would have been thwarted by DOD. But I digress.</p>

<p>Presidents routinely stuff the government and judgeships with their like minded buddies.</p>

<p>^I'll be sure and remember that. :)</p>

<p>The title says it all. Now, there is no 'exact' way to measure intelligence, but lets say, if we could prove that smarter people are more likely to be liberal, then it would only make sense that more Professors are liberal because to be a Professor you have to be intelligent. Okay. Now, again, there is no 'exact' way to measure intelligence, but I would say that test scores certainly show us a slice of how intelligent a populace is and in fact tests like the SATs and PSATs have a strong correlation with intelligence or at least definitely college admission, which has an effect on whether or not a person can become a Professor. Thus, I decided to get the 2008 NMF cutoffs (roughly top 1% of scorers in each state) and ranked the states from highest to lowest cutoff and next to each state I noted how they voted in the 2004 Presidential election (Democrat or Republican). Again I'm taking a little more liberty because Democrat is not always Liberal and Republican is not always Conservative, but just humor me for now. The data I saw was well, interesting but not too surprising- here it is:</p>

<p>State/2008 PSAT Cutoff/2004 Election Vote
District of Columbia 223 Democrat
Massachusetts 223 Democrat
Maryland 221 Democrat
New Jersey 221 Democrat
Delaware 219 Democrat
New York 219 Democrat
California 218 Democrat
Connecticut 217 Democrat
Virginia 217 Republican
Vermont 216 Democrat
New Hampshire 215 Democrat
Texas 215 Republican
Washington 215 Democrat
Georgia 214 Republican
North Carolina 214 Republican
Pennsylvania 214 Democrat
Alaska 213 Republican
Colorado 213 Republican
Hawaii 213 Democrat
Illinois 213 Democrat
Indiana 213 Republican
Minnesota 213 Democrat
Oregon 213 Democrat
Tennessee 213 Republican
Florida 212 Republican
Kansas 212 Republican
Rhode Island 212 Democrat
Arizona 211 Republican
Maine 211 Democrat
Missouri 211 Republican
Ohio 211 Republican
South Carolina 210 Republican
Alabama 209 Republican
Iowa 209 Republican
Michigan 209 Democrat
Kentucky 208 Republican
Nevada 208 Republican
New Mexico 208 Republican
Wisconsin 208 Democrat
Montana 207 Republican
Nebraska 207 Republican
Oklahoma 207 Republican
Louisiana 206 Republican
Idaho 204 Republican
South Dakota 203 Republican
Mississippi 202 Republican
North Dakota 202 Republican
Utah 202 Republican
Arkansas 201 Republican
West Virginia 200 Republican
Wyoming 200 Republican</p>

<p>As it can be observed, the states with the highest cutoffs were almost all Democrat and the states with the lowest were all Republican. And in the middle, there was some trade-off between Democrat and Republican. Hmm...I wonder why that is? But of course, it must be the "liberal goons" in our education system who make the SATs hard for conservatives or some "vast liberal conspiracy" preventing the conservatives from acing this test. Or maybe, just maybe, conservatives are more anti-intellectual, thus it is no surprise that they are less represented in the academia. I think the answer is obvious.</p>

<p>While the broad faculty numbers are heavily slanted to liberals (and to Democrats), this varies by subject area. The same research from which the original data was drawn also provided the following breakdown:</p>

<p>% Liberal , % Moderate , % Conservative , Subject Area</p>

<p>45.2% , 47.0% , 7.8% , Physical & Biological Sciences
58.2% , 36.9% , 4.9% , Social Sciences
52.2% , 44.3% , 3.6% , Humanities
10.7% , 78.0% , 11.3% , Computer Science & Engineering
20.5% , 59.0% , 20.5% , Health Sciences
21.3% , 54.3% , 24.5% , Business
53.4% , 35.9% , 10.7% , Other</p>

<p>It looks like the liberal orthodoxy is strongest in the social sciences and teh humanities and weakest in the area of business which is where IMO the world of academia most strongly intersects the for-profit world.</p>

<p>10 characters</p>

<p>"Or maybe, just maybe, conservatives are more anti-intellectual, thus it is no surprise that they are less represented in the academia. I think the answer is obvious."</p>

<p>Funny, because I always thought the liberal BASE wasn't the intellectual "elite" you find going on to a PhD and teaching college. Seemed to me that that was a VERY small sub group of the liberal base and that most of the liberal base was made up of lower income, fractured families and under represented minorities who statistically do significantly WORSE on SAT type tests. I'm glad you aren't taking a thin slice at the top of the entire group and presenting that as representative of the group as a whole, because that would be anti-intellectual and boarder lining on a tactic of an inferior intellect, maybe even a conservative! I bet your statistics prof. at Stanford would agree with this method of data interpretation, too!</p>

<p>Thanks for setting me straight :)</p>

<p>Sometimes, it pays think in a nn linear fassion-</p>

<p>As far as liberals havng higher IQ's than conservatives, that is also in my opinion not a fair comparison. Much of the liberal BASE is made up of people who aren't in a position to take an IQ test therefore aren't factored into the averages.</p>

<p>except that we also know that such people tend to vote less often, if at all. So, it's kind of silly to include them as part of a political base.</p>

<p>For what it's worth - my own mother used to be staunchly conservative because she never thought much about the world. She just parroted the values with which she was raised. Then she started thinking and now she's a raging liberal.</p>

<p>Universities exist to progress society. Naturally, that mission is going to tend to draw people interested in progressive actions. Conservatives, by their nature, seek to maintain the status quo. Why spend your life designing new philosophies or new technologies if your core motivation is to protect the existing philosophies in which you were raised and protect the existing technologies that have sustained your lifestyle? For example, conservatives desire to keep relying on oil rather than utilizing the intellectual capital of our society to move us beyond any need for oil. If that is your desire, the technology exists. What's the point of research?</p>

<p>The only reason liberals got shackled to big government is because government is an easy way to try to fix problems and they got addicted to it. Social conservatives have done the same thing - using big government interference to control abortion, homosexuality, and science. It's just a logical centralized place to create influence. </p>

<p>I would, however, highly doubt there is an intelligence gap between political conservatives (big business solutions) and political liberals (big government solutions). Perhaps even the political conservatives have an advantage.</p>

<p>Regarding the above post -
I think the "urban poor" portion of the liberal base (and it is only a portion) that the above poster disparagingly referenced is offset by the "rural poor" conservative base (or at least conservative over the last 20 years. They used to be liberals). Neither are screaming up the SAT charts anytime soon, not necessarily due to innate intelligence but simply because they live in systems and situations that make it next to impossible for them to thrive intellectually. </p>

<p>I think the comparison is more socioeconomic apples to apples.</p>

<p>Perhaps the states that have the lower NMF cut-offs are all places where public education suffers massively.</p>

<p>"Conservatives, by their nature, seek to maintain the status quo"</p>

<p>Completely 100% disagree. Conservatives tend to migrate towards business where continual improvement, driving advancement in technology and changing things for the better and cheaper all equal the bottom line.</p>

<p>"For example, conservatives desire to keep relying on oil rather than utilizing the intellectual capital of our society to move us beyond any need for oil."</p>

<p>Drilling for more oil is the ONLY short and intermediate term fix to the energy crisis. I make the counter argument that liberals use "global warming" and fear mongering as an anti capitalist tool to keep the strongest economy in the world from taping its' own natural resources. For those of you who think the scientific community is in agreement as to whether global warming exists and whether we are the cause of it or not, think again. Plenty of credible scientists think it is a hoax. Reference the Sloan professor of meteorology at none other than MIT: </p>

<p>MIT's</a> inconvenient scientist - The Boston Globe</p>

<p>"He's smart. He's an effective debater. No wonder the Steve Schneiders and Al Gores of the world don't want you to hear from him. It's easier to call someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than to debate him on the merits."</p>

<p><a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The</a> real deal?</p>

<p>Two</a> New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural, Moderate | Center for Global Food Issues</p>

<p>There</a> IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 - Telegraph</p>

<p>[url=<a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/13196%5DMeteorologist:"&gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/13196]Meteorologist:&lt;/a> </p>

<p>"The only reason liberals got shackled to big government is because government is an easy way to try to fix problems and they got addicted to it."</p>

<p>Here, we agree. Liberals want big government to fix problems and conservatives want smaller government and lower taxes, which means more freedoms all around, including the freedom to elevate socioeconomically.</p>

<p>"think the "urban poor" portion of the liberal base (and it is only a portion) that the above poster disparagingly referenced is offset by the "rural poor" conservative base (or at least conservative over the last 20 years"</p>

<p>First of all, here in lies a major difference- I presented information in a sterile manner. You submitter anecdotal evidence then you added the word "disparagingly" in order to shift the argument from logic to emotion. Maybe you didn't do it knowingly, but you did it. At least TRY to put your personal "PC" feelings aside and form an argument of reason and not emotion please. There was nothing untruthful about what I wrote, you just didn't like reading it.</p>

<p>Second, the proof is in the pudding. Enough of the poor subgroup of the liberal base votes that liberals pander to them with the promise of entitlements programs, allowing more government dependence and class warfare by promising to raise taxes on the "rich" to pay for it.</p>

<p>Conservatives don't "usually" pander to the poor fraction of their base. If this sub group did exist as a large voting block, the conservatives WOULD pander to them and thus become more liberal. For example, the Bush Medicare prescription bill was a blatant sell out of conservative principals, but a pander to a voting block.</p>

<p>Fine. Let's use your sterile, non-emotional language: much of the conservative base is likewise in no position to take an IQ test. So, the two groups cancel each other out.</p>

<p>The SAT/ACT exams are NOT IQ exams or EQ exams. There is new and ample evidence that SAT scores do NOT correlate to "success in college." Hence the new movement to make them optional. The success quotient has to do with maturity which is more to do with EQ than IQ. The writing score, according to the College Board which administers the SAT/ACT exams, is the best indicator of success in college. There are ample examples of people with high test scores who bomb out of college due to partying or an inability to adjust to college life. Ample examples of people with moderate SAT/ACT scores who thrive in college.</p>

<p>And age has something to do with it. People coming out of the military and going to college often do extremely well because of maturity and age differences. </p>

<p>And finally, it begs the question of the objective of the admissions offices: what is their goal in formulating/creating a class? Many of them could fill a class with kids scores above 2200, but they don't desire that. They want a mix of people from different backgrounds and experiences and test scores.</p>

<p>Yes, many colleges are very conscious of their rankings and avg test scores. But that is not the only factor.</p>

<p>And this argument that people with higher scores are democrats or liberals is so specious it doesnt even deserve a response. And for that matter, a lot of people who consider themselves "liberal" at age 18, often become quite conservative as they grow older, pay taxes, get married and have children and pay a mortgage. Go figure.</p>

<p>I was a liberal until I went into the military. I saw things that were life changing. People who spend their lives in academia often have no clue about "the real world". People who feel passionately about "give peace a chance" may be singing another tune 10 years later when they get into the business and professional world and away from academia. </p>

<p>I regard this change as a normal progression. I don't deride liberal views among the young. For that matter, there is strong evidence the human brain does not stop "growing" until age 25. (does that mean its all downhill from there, after age 25? lol.) </p>

<p>Academia has its place in society and human development. But its not the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the final answer, the only correct way to look at things and so forth. Its the commencement of life, not the end game. </p>

<p>I came out of the military somewhat hardened. College and graduate school softened my tone to some extent, but in the end the result was a moderate conservative view on many issues...the "realist" point of view, I call it. Not "pollyanna". Not "pie in the sky." Not "dreamland." </p>

<p>Just as the Humanities Departments in colleges serve often as a balancing act with the hard core sciences to offset their cold objectivism (and often atheism.) Not everything in life can be answered with scientific proof, or the purity of number crunching. We are not robots, thank goodness....though I note the Japanese are certainly trying to make robotics a part of everyday human life, even attempting to make robots look like, act like and speak like real human bengs.....something itself which begs ethical analysis.</p>

<p>There is a time and place for open discussion. But it should be more balanced than it appears at present. Liberals need to hear the conservative viewpoint as much as conservatives need to hear the liberal viewpoint. Consensus is not necessarily mush. </p>

<p>Pragmatism meets Idealism. </p>

<p>And the media tries to corral everyone into a simple Us vs. Them mentality. A third grade level of thinking. So they put people in media created party base camps. But its wrong. I challenge the notion of a true base of liberals who all agree on every issue and respond like North Koreans marching by on Victory Day Parades, or conservatives the same way. Nonsense. </p>

<p>People identify themselves as liberals or conservatives on a myriad of issues and for a myriad of reasons, some of which are emotionally charged and some of which are pragmatic. </p>

<p>Personally, I dislike being painted into a corner and being made to "pick sides" in an absolutist world of good vs. evil, black vs. white, pro vs. con, peacenik vs. war monger, big government vs. no government, tax based programs vs. cold libertarians, or what have you. I am neither. There are degrees of every issue depending on a matrix of circumstance. My answer? "It depends." I may be for some wars and opposed to others. I may be interventionist in one place and not in another. I may support higher taxes in one sphere and absolutely opposed in another. I may be religious but not a zealot. I may be tolerant but personally opposed to a lifestyle. On and on.</p>

<p>This thread was about finding balance in faculties across the United States and hopefully to foster good will and discussion, along with freedom of expression from BOTH sides of the fence without fear of recrimination. Not to mention employment without discrimination.</p>

<p>But its not about which political side has the smartest people or the most smart people or the richest and most successful people. </p>

<p>My two cents.</p>

<p>"The SAT/ACT exams are NOT IQ exams or EQ exams. There is new and ample evidence that SAT scores do NOT correlate to "success in college." Hence the new movement to make them optional. The success quotient has to do with maturity which is more to do with EQ than IQ. The writing score, according to the College Board which administers the SAT/ACT exams, is the best indicator of success in college. There are ample examples of people with high test scores who bomb out of college due to partying or an inability to adjust to college life. Ample examples of people with moderate SAT/ACT scores who thrive in college."</p>

<p>What does this mean, there are ample examples of people with high SAT scores who do well in college and ample examples of people with moderate scores who fail in college. In addition, if you look on collegeboard's website, they did rigorous academic study that displayed that the SAT was a good index of academic performance in college alongside GPA. Why do you think the vast majority of colleges make their decision with these two numbers? Or do you know something thousands of admissions officers don't know? If you do, I hope you can share it with me. In fact, I highly doubt that if we had an IQ test administered that we'd observe anything different. I'd even go far enough to say that you know that as well, but wouldn't admit to it becuase you know it will diminsh your arguement. Lastly, even if the SAT is not a direct predictor of intelligence when taken over an average it can be pretty good in telling how intellectualy competent a collective group is-why do you think colleges ask for a profile of your school (which has AVERAGE SAT scores). Clearly a kid right outside the top 20% at a school with an average SAT score of 1500/2400 would hardly be considered competitive for Ivies yet a kid right outside the top 20% at a school with an average SAT score of 2100/2400 (like TJHSST) would do just fine.</p>

<p>"And age has something to do with it. People coming out of the military and going to college often do extremely well because of maturity and age differences."</p>

<p>Yes, but this affects all states.</p>

<p>"And this argument that people with higher scores are democrats or liberals is so specious it doesnt even deserve a response. And for that matter, a lot of people who consider themselves "liberal" at age 18, often become quite conservative as they grow older, pay taxes, get married and have children and pay a mortgage. Go figure."</p>

<p>Oh, but it does deserve a response. And this has nothing to do with what 18 year olds (in fact mainly 16/17 year olds consider themselves who cant even vote) it has to do with what the voting population in each state considers themselves, and the intelligence of their youth. And since the PSAT cutoffs hardly change from year to year, and the youth is reflective of the general population, your comment is irrelevant.</p>

<p>"But its not about which political side has the smartest people or the most smart people"</p>

<p>But ultimately it is. Or it least it can be. The only way to prove that there isn't liberal bias in the college faculty is by arguing that in fact, such a political orientation occurs naturally. This can occur by several ways, one of which, which I believe, is that liberals are smarter than conservatives and since the vast majority of Professors are extremely smart, it is only natural that the political orientation of college faculty is as it is.</p>

<p>"Funny, because I always thought the liberal BASE wasn't the intellectual "elite" you find going on to a PhD and teaching college. Seemed to me that that was a VERY small sub group of the liberal base and that most of the liberal base was made up of lower income, fractured families and under represented minorities who statistically do significantly WORSE on SAT type tests. I'm glad you aren't taking a thin slice at the top of the entire group and presenting that as representative of the group as a whole, because that would be anti-intellectual and boarder lining on a tactic of an inferior intellect, maybe even a conservative! I bet your statistics prof. at Stanford would agree with this method of data interpretation, too!"</p>

<p>The conservative base isn't going on teach at college either. In fact, no party's base is smart enough nor has the desire to become a college Professor. However, the "smartest" people in each group has at least the ability to become college Professors, thus I displayed how smart the top (1%) of each state is, at least for the juniors. However, the numbers don't change significantly each year and the 16/17 year olds are generally a product of their environment. But my point still stands. Use pretty much any method that is accepted to display academic achievement (which is relevant because we are talking about Professors) and liberals will come out on top. I know it, and you know it although you certainly won't admit it. Oh, and it is "border line". :)</p>