<p>Drilling for more oil in masses? How can something be described as "short-term" when there's complete dependence?</p>
<p>And what is inherently wrong with being completely dependent on our own natural resources in the short and intermediate term? guess what? We will ALWAYS be dependent on SOME source of energy. Better yet, what is YOUR practical answer for the next 20 years?</p>
<p>ALGORE-
I agree with you on almost every point, except SAT to IQ. SAT scores (at least before the re centered version in 1995) correlated as much with IQ as different versions of an IQ test. In fact so do the GRE, LSAT, and GMAT. Mensa still uses LSAT and GMAT scores for admissions and used SAT and GRE scores until recently.</p>
<p>The University of Colorado is historically liberal, but they are really trying to offer a conservative perspective. Last year they invited John Ashcroft to speak at the campus as part of this effort, but he was not very well received. He was overwhelmed with hecklers and nearly all of the people that stood in line to ask questions were strong liberals, not conservatives. So, I think part of the problem is that there are few students that are really yearning for conservatives. That may not be true across the board, but in Boulder, it is definitely true. Until this happens, I think it is going to be difficult for schools to foster conservative intellectualism.</p>
<p>To those who claim that conservatives are defined by their adherence to the status quo, IMO, it is clear that conservatives have no monopoly on actions for maintaining the status quo. In all of society there are few, if any, institutions that display greater resistance to change than educational institutions. The irony, of course, is that the liberals who are so committed to forcing change in other spheres of life tolerate so few dissonant voices in their own ranks. </p>
<p>I think it would be interesting to see a survey of MBA faculty and see how this compares to academia at large. Beyond the pragmatic nature of the material that they teach, they also teach a more experienced group of students who have the maturity and the personal business experience to counter incorrect portrayals by their faculty. This is rarely the case in undergraduate life where intellectual mismatches can occur and professors are free to expound in front of students who often don't have a clue what real post-graduate life is about. </p>
<p>Some of the best debates I have ever seen are between those in academia vs those in the for-profit world. That is truly an educational experience for the viewer….and often for the professors. Having a more balanced faculty might be more educational for all concerned.</p>
<p>^ Hawkette, that may have been done already in some form in the USNWR ranking of MBA programs...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Business Methodology</p>
<p>All 425 master's programs in business accredited by AACSB International were surveyed in fall 2007 and early 2008 (383 responded, of which 127 provided the data needed to calculate rankings based on a weighted average of the indicators described below). All 425 schools appear in the directory.</p>
<p>Quality Assessment (weighted by .40)
Peer Assessment Score (.25)In the fall of 2007, business school deans and directors of accredited master's programs in business were asked to rate programs on a scale from "marginal" (1) to "outstanding" (5). Those individuals who did not know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly were asked to mark "don't know." A school's score is the average of all the respondents who rated it. Responses of "don't know" counted neither for nor against a school. About 45 percent of those surveyed responded.</p>
<p>Recruiter Assessment Score (.15) In the fall of 2007, corporate recruiters and company contacts who hire from previously ranked programs were asked to rate programs on a scale from "marginal" (1) to "outstanding" (5). Those individuals who did not know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly were asked to mark "don't know." A school's score is the average of all the respondents who rated it. Responses of "don't know" counted neither for nor against a school. About 27 percent of those surveyed responded.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1 Harvard University Boston, MA Score 100<br>
1 Stanford University Stanford, CA Score 100<br>
3 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) Philadelphia, PA Score 95<br>
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan) Cambridge, MA Score 93<br>
4 Northwestern University (Kellogg) Evanston, IL Score 93<br>
4 University of Chicago Chicago, IL Score 93<br>
7 Dartmouth College (Tuck) Hanover, NH Score 89<br>
7 University of California--Berkeley (Haas) Berkeley, CA Score 89<br>
9 Columbia University New York, NY Score 88<br>
10 New York University (Stern) New York, NY Score 84<br>
11 University of California--Los Angeles (Anderson) Los Angeles, CA Score 83
12 University of Michigan--Ann Arbor (Ross) Ann Arbor, MI Score 82<br>
13 Yale University New Haven, CT Score 80<br>
14 Cornell University (Johnson) Ithaca, NY Score 79<br>
14 Duke University (Fuqua) Durham, NC Score 79<br>
14 University of Virginia (Darden) Charlottesville, VA Score 79<br>
17 Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper) Pittsburgh, PA Score 77<br>
18 University of Texas--Austin (McCombs) Austin, TX Score 74<br>
19 University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler) Chapel Hill, NC Score 72<br>
20 Indiana University--Bloomington (Kelley) Bloomington, IN Score 71<br>
21 University of Southern California (Marshall) Los Angeles, CA Score 70<br>
22 Arizona State University (Carey) Tempe, AZ Score 69<br>
22 Georgetown University (McDonough) Washington, DC Score 69<br>
24 Emory University (Goizueta) Atlanta, GA Score 68<br>
25 University of Rochester (Simon) Rochester, NY Score 66</p>
<p>ucb,
I meant it might be interesting to see a breakdown of how the MBA faculty self-identify, eg, liberal/moderage/conservative and Democrat/Republican. My suspicions are that the statistics for this subset of academia would be somewhat at odds with the broader group numbers.</p>
<p>"To those who claim that conservatives are defined by their adherence to the status quo, IMO, it is clear that conservatives have no monopoly on actions for maintaining the status quo. In all of society there are few, if any, institutions that display greater resistance to change than educational institutions. The irony, of course, is that the liberals who are so committed to forcing change in other spheres of life tolerate so few dissonant voices in their own ranks."</p>
<p>In fact, I'd say the complete opposite. The crux of an educational institution is research, creating new knowledge, changing what is taught. Even though it is not progress for progress sake, it is progress. "Liberal arts" (liberal meaning 'free' or 'changing') are called liberal for a reason. The term "Conservative" means to conserve or keep the same. If you want a practical demonstration of this, examine the demographics of colleges 50 years ago. Almost no one in college was not an upper class white male. Today, females outnumber males in colleges and minorities have access to college. In fact, there are a many female and (not as many) minority Professors. If you want to look at the institution which (although I have qualms with characterizing it as such) is a "conservative stronghold" business, there are still few, if any, female or minority CEOs just like 50 years ago. I'd say higher education is quite open to change.</p>
<p>cervantes,
Yes, I know the line of thinking that you are presenting, but the actual record in academia for embracing change within their own industry looks quite small. The pecking order is virtually unchanged over the last 30 years and the established schools are rarely willing to recognize and accept newcomers as peers. </p>
<p>As for your comments about gender, academia may have shown itself open to females and minorities...granted that they think the "right" way. Here is the gender breakdown by discipline, where in most cases the women are as or more liberal than their male peers.</p>
<p>Liberal , Moderate , Conservative , Subject Area</p>
<pre><code> Physical & Biological Sciences
</code></pre>
<p>25.7% , 74.3% , 0.0% , Female
53.8% , 35.0% , 11.3% , Male
Social Sciences
73.0% , 24.3% , 2.7% , Female
53.8% , 36.9% , 4.9% , Male
Humanities
51.6% , 46.0% , 2.4% , Female
52.6% , 41.5% , 5.8% , Male
Computer Science & Engineering
20.0% , 60.0% , 20.0% , Female
9.3% , 81.4% , 9.3% , Male
Health Sciences
21.7% , 58.0% , 20.3% , Female
14.3% , 64.3% , 21.4% , Male
Business
21.4% , 36.8% , 42.1% , Female
21.8% , 65.5% , 12.7% , Male
Other
53.7% , 36.8% , 9.6% , Female
53.5% , 35.5% , 11.0% , Male</p>
<p>"cervantes,
Yes, I know the line of thinking that you are presenting, but the actual record in academia for embracing change within their own industry looks quite small. The pecking order is virtually unchanged over the last 30 years and the established schools are rarely willing to recognize and accept newcomers as peers.</p>
<p>As for your comments about gender, academia may have shown itself open to females and minorities...granted that they think the "right" way. Here is the gender breakdown by discipline, where in most cases the women are as or more liberal than their male peers."</p>
<p>Hm, this is thought provoking. Yes, the failure to accept other schools as their peers is an aspect of higher education. But, perhaps, this is because these new schools are not peers. A school doesn't become a powerhouse over night (which is akin to 30 years) in academics-however I will agree with you that there should be more "peer" schools of "top" schools. The other part however, is partially countered by the fact that, as mentioned earlier, in the earlier part of the 20th century, colleges went through the neo-conservative phase and intellectuals at that time were mainly conservative. However, you can argue then, that conservatives are open to change, because they did allow higher education to be slanted liberal, which I'll agree with you partially. I will say that, higher education itself, is quite open to change, but conservatives, as a group, are not as open to change as liberals, as a group. And the fact that females in the academia are more liberal than there male counterparts is to be expected, as females are more liberal than males overall.</p>
<p>Cervantes you are over analyzing and thinking the problem it seems to me and using statistics based on PSATs to prove your point. </p>
<p>The College Board recently stated, as referred to by Wake Forest University in its decision to go SAT optional, that the best indicator of success in the last three years since they revised the SAT exam and adding a section, was the writing score. I dont know how they determined that, but they did. Further, Wake Forest said in its public relations releases the past month that THEY determined that the SAT was NOT a fair indicator of success, that many kids with high SATs did not survive past the freshman year and that kids with more modest SAT's often excelled. There were apparently enough exceptions to the general rule followed by college admissions that THEY decided to drop the SAT as a requirement for admission to Wake Forest. So before you attack ME on this subject, you might wish to address your concerns with Dr. Nathan Hatch, President of Wake Forest University who made the decision to drop the SAT. He was the Provost at Notre Dame for many, many years before being named President of Wake Forest a few years ago. I think he knows what he is talking about.</p>
<p>Also, you mixed quotations from me and then somebody else, so please mark your quotes correctly. </p>
<p>I think anybody who suggests that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives is really beyond the pale. I think a lot of professors would agree with me....including most liberal professors. </p>
<p>I am old enough and wise enough to understand that neither side of the political fence holds an exclusive on intelligence, no matter how it is measured. I also note that the IQ test itself has been assailed as an imperfect methodology for "intelligence." I have known some absolutely BRILLIANT people with learning disabilities like dyslexia and ADHD. They scored MISERABLY on standardized exams but were absolutely positively brilliantly creative, sensitive (itself a measure of intelligence), etc.</p>
<p>I cant tell you the number admissions officers who told me that they could fill their entire freshman class with kids who were valedictorians or had SAT's above 2200. They dont...for good reason. They recognize that kids come in with all sorts of credentials and offer a panoply of creative thought, experiences and skills to make a university worthy of its name. Stanford among them.</p>
<p>And of all the qualities that make for "success" in life, humility is often the one most often overlooked. Which has nothing whatever to do with SAT scores or who is smarter than the next guy. I just make that observation.</p>
<p>Part of the problem with lopsided politics in academia may not even be entirely the university's fault.....there is much work to be done in convincing "conservatives" (however that is defined) to continue their studies to the PhD level or other terminal degree and return to academia to teach undergraduates. In other words: recruiting. But if the students feel like they would be ducks out of water or unwelcome additions to the faculty because of their political persuasions, then it is self defeating. And that is the crux of the argument here.</p>
<p>As for you personally, I suppose you would be challenged and indeed seek out the opinions of more conservative faculty. My own D loves a good academic (but civilized) argument with professors and thrives in that environment, so long as she is not blackballed or suffers the indignity of surreptitious grade deflation. Who wants a classroom full of students all nodding in agreement with the professor anyway? And who wants a class taught by a professor who uses the podium as a personal soapbox for his/her own agenda? How is THAT a learning experience?</p>
<p>Former Secretary of State George Schultz teaches (or taught) at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, as did Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Wouldnt you jump at the opportunity to be in their classes and argue/discuss the finer points of foreign policy? Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright teaches at Georgetown. As much as I disagreed with her, I would still jump at the chance to take a class from her if I was assured that my grade would not be affected by my personal opinions. </p>
<p>BTW, one of my oldest and dearest friends is a former professor of mine in undergraduate school who is still teaching....and he is a bleeding heart liberal, and when we get together we love the banter back and forth and the depth of experience. He is a credit to his institution. He inspired me immensely. We are friends because of mutual respect which has NOTHING whatever to do with political viewpoints or who has the highest SAT score or highest IQ. In fact he disdains most statistical analysis as unwieldy and often shallow or easily manipulated to prove a particular point because its one dimensional thinking. </p>
<p>Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago was a Nobel Laureate in Economics. He was an avowed "fiscal conservative". If he was ABSOLUTELY correct in his work, then by definition it means everyone else (the MIT School, for example) is wrong. We both know that is a foolish conclusion. Economics is like a teeter-totter board.....wobbling back and forth between one perspective and another....both sides trying to outweight the other with statistical analysis. The board is balanced in the middle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I meant it might be interesting to see a breakdown of how the MBA faculty self-identify, eg, liberal/moderage/conservative and Democrat/Republican.
[/quote]
Don't you already see this breakdown in the stats you posted?</p>
<p>Business
Liberal , Moderate , Conservative
21.4% , 36.8% , 42.1% , Female
21.8% , 65.5% , 12.7% , Male</p>
<p>Business faculty usually teach MBA and undergraduates...and I doubt there would be any difference from these numbers if they happen to teach MBA courses only.</p>
<p>I've been around university faculties for a long time, and I've never been on one that had an ideological litmus test for hiring, tenure, or promotion decisions. I would make some qualifications to that statement, however. I have occasionally seen a kind of political "affirmative action" in favor of ideological conservatives, as other conservatives strenuously argue that they're an "underrepresented minority" who deserve special consideration in hiring on predominantly moderate-to-liberal faculties. And I have seen a few schools self-consciously attempt to style themselves as "conservative" schools, and make hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions accordingly; though these are certainly in the minority. On the other side of the equation, I have also seen faculties go out of their way to hire people who bring a certain kind of intellectual approach or perspective, sometimes carrying an ideological dimension: feminist scholars, for example, or certain kinds of post-modernists or "critical race" theorists who tend to be somewhere left-of-center politically---though simply characterizing them as "liberal" in the conventional electoral political sense badly misses the mark. On the other hand, many top law schools have gone out of their way to hire "law-and-economics" scholars, many of whom tend to be right-of-center politically. But the point of all this is that it's usually a particular intellectual approach or style that's desired, not a particular political orientation. Whether someone is "liberal" or "conservative" just doesn't come up in the ordinary course of affairs; academics are hired and promoted primarily on the basis of the productivity, quality, and impact of their scholarship, not because of their politics. </p>
<p>As for the occasional story about someone being denied tenure and claiming it was the result of a political blackball, I tend to be pretty skeptical. You hear these stories both on the left and the right. Sen. Paul Wellstone, the left-liberal firebrand from Minnesota, started out as a political science professor at Carleton and was fired by the trustees for devoting too much time to left-wing political activities, but the firing became a cause celebre on the Carlton campus, and a student strike forced the trustees to back down and give Wellstone tenure. Was he fired for his political beliefs? Probably not; more likely, he just had a hard time separating his political activism from his teaching and scholarly duties. </p>
<p>I don't mean to say tenure decisions are all high-minded and above-board; they're not. But the politics of tenure, to the extent it implicates other than purely professional issues, tends to be petty and personal, not ideological. Partisan and ideological considerations are just not that important to most faculty members, and even to the extent faculty do have strong partisan and ideological commitments of their own, those are generally seen not to be an appropriate factor in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions. </p>
<p>I have no reason to dispute the figures Hawkette cites concerning the overall political orientation of faculty members. But I do think it's by and large a self-selection process, not a question of discrimination against conservatives. The top entry-level faculty appointment candidates tend to come out of the top graduate programs at the top universities, which themselves tend to be pretty liberal (or moderate-to-liberal, which is what the data really suggest), especially in the humanities and social sciences. Those top graduate programs in turn attract graduate students who are comfortable in that intellectual milieu; that is, people with high intellectual aspirations who take their own professors as role models, and themselves tend to have moderate-to-liberal political orientations, not unlike those of their professors and the larger university environment of which they are a part. I'm not defending it; I'm just saying it is what it is. But to my mind it's not discrimination. </p>
<p>If you don't like it, there's an obvious market-based solution: build a better conservative university with a conservative faculty and a conservative political orientation, and produce top entry-level faculty appointments candidates who can compete with those coming out of HYPSM et al. If the academic quality is there, they'll get jobs. And it does happen already, in a few places. The University of Chicago economics department for many years has had the reputation of being more conservative than most, but it's produced a long string of budding academic stars who have had no difficulty going out and landing top teaching posts. I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that Chicago economists have been discriminated against in the academic job market because they're "conservative"; indeed, they're highly sought-after, even if they are in the minority on most economics faculties.</p>
<p>Those top graduate programs in turn attract graduate students who are comfortable in that intellectual milieu; that is, people with high intellectual aspirations who take their own professors as role models, and themselves tend to have moderate-to-liberal political orientations, not unlike those of their professors and the larger university environment of which they are a part. bclintonk</p>
<p>Well we are largely on the same page here "bill". That is my point. We need to do a better job of recruiting conservative scholars to continue to the terminal degree and then pursue a career in teaching, or hiring experienced private sector conservatives to join the ranks of teachers.</p>
<p>The other point I was making was the issue of discrimination against students who profess conservative viewpoints and the not so subtle grade deflation they suffer. Ask around Young Republican circles at any campus and it may surprise you what you will hear about this problem. </p>
<p>Its never going to be 50/50 nor do I expect it should be. Nor do I want "affirmative action" for conservatives. Just a healthy dose of genuine recruiting done for young conservative scholars along the road. </p>
<p>As for Sen. Wellstone, I admired him often and greatly, though I disagreed with his viewpoints almost all of the time. He used to be an extreme political activist when he was in graduate school at UNC-Chapel Hill, professing extreme hatred for then Sen. Jesse Helms. When he was elected to the Senate from Minnesota, Sen. Wellstone was surprised on his FIRST day in office to see Sen. Helms in his notorious handicap cart he used to get around the hallways of Capitol Hill waiting on him, to be the FIRST person to welcome him to "the Club." From that day forward they were friends. Sen. Helms was also one of the first persons to express publicly genuine grief and dismay in his condolences on hearing of Sen. Wellstone's untimely death in a tragic airplane accident. True story.</p>
<p>I dont know why Carleton had given him such a hard time. I wasnt very familiar with that problem then or now. Perhaps some particular outrageous comment prompted it. Sen. Wellstone wasnt exactly known for being a genteel wallflower in his days before entering the United States Senate!</p>
<p>alGorescousin, I agree with nearly all of what you said. My claim that Liberals are more intelligent than Conservatives was misplaced. What I meant to say, and should have been more clear with, were that students at top schools were mostly liberal and it would make sense that more Professors were liberal, thus it shouldn't have been a surprise most Professors are liberal. Of course I agree with you that I would like to learn from Conservative Professors. It would be eye-opening especially if we can hold reasonable debate, without effect on my grade. My only qualm was how hawkette and some other posters said that it was liberal bias preventing Professors from being hired. I don't think it can be debated whether or not Conservative ideology would be instrumental and extremely helpful to learn about from an expert, especially at a school where the majority of students are liberal. The only question is, why are there few Conservative Professors-especially in the humanities and social sciences when compared to Liberal Professors.</p>
<p>were that students at top schools were mostly liberal and it would make sense that more Professors were liberal, thus it shouldn't have been a surprise most Professors are liberal. Cervantes.</p>
<p>What? That is just as bad if not worse than your original supposition. My goodness, where on earth did you get these notions? Who taught you this drivvle?</p>
<p>The reason there are not more conservatives in the Liberal Arts is because, as already explained, a great number of conservatives who were Liberal Arts undergraduates often go onto MBA school, or Law School, or Medical School, or just enter the working world and leave academia behind. The very FEW people (in comparison to the total number of graduates) who go on for a PhD or terminal degree in a Liberal Arts faculty, such as History or English, are by and large the very people most inclined to those subjects: liberals, which has nothing to do with who among a particular college's graduating class is the smartest. Its a career choice, that is all. But I suggested that even a handful of conservatives in History, Political Science, Economics, or English etc who could be convinced to continue on for a PhD in their subject, are dissuaded when they look around and see the landscape...as the VAST majority of PhD's in the liberal arts are left with ONE pragmatic career choice: teaching. (Science PhD's have research careers, medical school, engineering careers etc). And when they see a SEA OF LIBERAL FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS they say, "no way....I am not venturing into that pit of vipers." I know. I was one.</p>
<p>tomslawsky -</p>
<p>You're making a pretty straight-line ideological argument. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who just holds a single party line, so I won't.</p>
<p>I'll just say that, regarding your off-topic question about energy, at the rate of oil use drilling everything out of both ANWR and offshore would provide us with hardly a few years of oil and it wouldn't come for at least 5 years. Best estimates say we would get a 2 cent decrease in gas costs. It's not a solution. We've passed peak oil by most accords. We need innovation. </p>
<p>Businesses, while lauded by people like yourself as pushing the frontier of innovation, are ultimately just fighting to maintain the status quo to maximize profits for as many quarters as possible. </p>
<p>If we had the motivation, we have the technology now to never need another drop of oil within twenty years. That's the solution that "liberals" are pushing for when they resist oil independence.</p>
<p>I wonder what the definitions of being "conservative" entail? </p>
<p>Economic conservatism? Or social conservatism?</p>
<p>AppleJack-"You're making a pretty straight-line ideological argument. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who just holds a single party line, so I won't"</p>
<p>Um, if you're incinuating that I'm a hard line republican, I'm not. I vote issues and even voted for Bill Nelson for Senate. I wouldnt do it again, but at the time, he was the best man for the job. Oh, and I've voted for Ralph Nader, George Bush and Ross Perot. </p>
<p>What you mean to say is you can't debate me on merits, so you'll try to save face. Drilling for oil will add supply and decrease price. Simple economics. A serious anouncement of an intent to drill for oil with will drop oil prices almost imedietally, it's called signling-basic finance. </p>
<p>OK, my answer is a COMPREHENSIVE plan of drilling, tapping our god given resources COUPLED with innovation. Your plan is to cut the spighot and hope something comes along before our economy comes to a grinding halt and people go hungry.</p>
<p>Please supply sources for your "best estimate" oil supply. Ive seen far greater, once I can dig up the sources, I'll post them.</p>
<p>Bourne:</p>
<p>That is part of my point. Its silly to let the main stream media and political parties define US in simpleton terms and thus most people have various views on different issues. </p>
<p>I repeat that I strongly oppose being pigeonholed into one category and that I must repeat the mantra of someone else's definition of what is or isnt conservative. (or liberal for that matter).</p>
<p>Nor do I shrug away from the intellectual honesty to admit that I am generally most often aligned with "conservative" viewpoints on issues.</p>