The Political Orientation of College Faculty

College Search & Selection
81

<p>First, environmentalists took the lowest possible estimate of the ANWR's potential recoverable oil reserves -- about 5.7 billion barrels--and cut it by roughly 40 percent to around 3.4 billion barrels. Then they assumed that the oil would be produced at roughly 19 million barrels per day (b/d).</p>

<p>But the most likely estimate places the ANWR's recoverable reserves at an estimated 10.3 billion barrels -- more than three times the amount these environmentalists claim.</p>

<p>Moreover, any geologist would tell you that the notion of producing oil from the North Slope at a rate of 19 million b/d is sheer nonsense for at least two reasons.</p>

<p>First, when an oil field is brought into production, it takes time to reach its optimum output. After it does, it begins to decline as the resource is exhausted.</p>

<p>In the case of the ANWR, it is expected that production would build to 2 million b/d and then decline. In practice, this means the ANWR would produce for at least 25 years -- not six months.</p>

<p>Environmentalists</a> Play Slick With Statistics About ANWR Oil Reserves | Insight on the News | Find Articles at BNET</p>

82

<p>And on the issue of drilling...we may not have the luxury of saying "No" anymore. 30 years ago the chinese and people of India were riding rikshaws and bicycles. Today they are buying and driving cars....25,000 new cars a month I read. Inexpensive cars they can afford, but still consume gasoline. Their industry is fueled by petroleum. Plastics come from petroleum. In short, the Chinese and Indians are now our competitors for gasoline. The chinese have made world news with petroleum pacts in Canada and Iran. The Chinese government subsidizes the price of gasoline below 2.00 a gallon. </p>

<p>We have to drill, drill, drill and refine, refine, refine....at the same time as seeking alternative fuels. They can liquidate coal and make gasoline as well. We have OODLES of coal in this country.</p>

<p>At 10.00 a gallon our economy goes into cardiac arrest. And then the proverbial "stuff" hits the fan. Its ugly, folks.</p>

<p>this is not an academic argument about global warming. Its about survival. </p>

<p>Globalization has begotten an unquenchable thirst for oil. </p>

<p>And then there is the ridiculous congressional ban on importing soy bean flex fuel. Why? Lobbyists being protected. </p>

<p>WE better wake up and smell the coffee.</p>

<p>that is my soap box.</p>

83

<p>AppleJack- you're being sold a bill of goods by ideologists. Your first debate should be questioning your own beliefs and applying logic to them to see if they actually cut the mustard below the surface. Some of the people you I'm sure trust as authorities will no doubt lie or manipulate facts in the justification of progressing an agenda. Questioning your own core beliefes is part of the intellectual maturation and to do it honestly is quite frankly scary at first because some of your core beliefs will begin to bend, morph or perhaps even change. It is the process that college "should" be about, but sadly isn't present at most if not almost all campuses. </p>

<p>Anyhow, here is my source for Alaska drilling:</p>

<p>The USGS made the following estimates in 1998 of technically recoverable oil and natural gas liquids from the ANWR Coastal Plain:</p>

<p>There is a 95 percent probability (a 19 in 20 chance) that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.
There is a 5 percent probability (a 1 in 20 chance) that at least 16 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.
The mean (expected value) estimate is 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. </p>

<p>Potential</a> Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Updated Assessment</p>

84

<p>How about building some new refineries? Or rebuilding the many old crappy ones that populate this country's infrastructure?</p>

85

<p>It's not as bad as my original supposition. My belief is that, of the smartest people, some of which populate top schools, more of them lean liberal than conservative. This is true. The reason why I mentioned top schools was not because all the intelligent people are there (that's far from true), it is just that the vast majority of people at top schools are highly intelligent, thus we can observe at least from them, that the majority of highly intelligent people are liberal. While the fact that they may be outnumbered as Professors may dissuade some, I still think, to begin with, that of the people who had the ability to become Professors, more of them were liberal. If you don't believe me, look there's a survey on CC about how many of them identify as liberals and how many identify as conservatives. If we consider the majority of the kids on CC as a sample for the most part of intelligent people with the ability to become Professors, again my point is justified. (The majority of CCers identified as liberal)</p>

86

<p>As to who "taught" me this drivel:</p>

<p>Pensito</a> Review Neuroscience Study: Smart Brains Have Liberal Bias
?Proof</a>? that Liberals are Smart, Conservatives are Dumb The Proletarian</p>

<p>Apparently the Nature Neuroscience Journal and a researcher at UC Berkeley agree with me. And if, people with a college degree are more likely to vote liberal, that would mean there are more liberals with college degrees, hence, more Professors would be liberal.</p>

87

<p>Cervantes, i think to look at the the top schools as a basis for implying that liberals are more intelligent based on representation is a HUGE error. Look as the geography of the top schools on this board, with the exception of Duke, Rice and Emory they are all located where? In liberal areas, not because liberals were smart and started them, but bc historically that is where they were located. I think ppl on this board forget the myraid of factors that go into ppl's decision of where to attend school.
Since i live in Texas i will use texas as an example. The university of Texas has the second largest number of national merit finalist in the entire nation, yet the school is 90 percent in state. Why? Bc a large number of ppl in texas tend to want to stay in texas. Since the elite schools are in liberal areas liberals, who live there do not face the same amount of strain traveling hundreds of miles away. Please smart ppl would know that when seeing a statistic you have to not only look to what it reveals, but the undercurrents as to why the statistics yield a certain way.</p>

88

<p>hahahahhahaha......too funny. I dont think more people with college degrees are liberal. More people with PhD's may in fact be liberal...just a hunch, but not "college degrees" as in B.A., B.S. etc. In fact, the vast majority of democrats fit the lower socio economic profile. A significant number of uber wealthy are democrat, but many of them are in the entertainment and infotainment (news) business. A significant number of conservatives are wealthy as well. A high percentage of middle class people vote republican on social issues and split the economic vote. </p>

<p>A UC-Berkeley researcher trying to prove his point that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives? Tee-hee. </p>

<p>Again, I fully concede that conservatives are in the minority in academia and particularly among young people....but there are many reasons for that and it would take a Master's Thesis to explain it so I wont do that here. But its part of the development of the human brain and a lot of liberal ideas sound good on paper and in theory but are really very impractical when the rubber meets the road. Too expensive, too cumbersome, trying to make all humans "equal" when it comes to abilities instead of just opportunities, etc....</p>

<p>I am resisting going down this road with you. Its just silly to say that liberals are smarter than conservatives. Period. And more liberals dont have more college degrees.....they may have more PhD's and go into teaching, but that is a different category altogether.</p>

<p>Its a matter of career choices not a matter of IQ test results.</p>

89

<p>As for political terms, i think we both need to establish that there are economic conservatives and liberals, and social conservatives and liberals. There is a often a huge disparity between the two. Economic liberals tend to under-educated bc they would recieve the benefits that the liberals want from a socialist system. Whereas economic conservatives are indicative of the wealthy who often are more intelligent bc they want lower taxes, and free market economics for businesss. Then there are social liberals, who tend to be more intelligent bc they view society as a collective that needs to be progressed to a higher point above differences, whereas social conservatives tend to be more insular and indicative of traditional views, perhaps bc of surroundings and lack of exposure to other ideas, and so may exhibit a lower intelligence.
But as a net, since few ppl in America actually go to college, and of those few not all are liberal, yet liberalism remains one of the dominant political ideologies in america then there has to be liberals who are within the lower class, otherwise there would be no voting block to support the liberal agenda.
The tag anti-intellicutualism, is only used as a perjorative for another opposing group with no basis in reality.</p>

90

<p>Yes, which makes me question the validity of some of these numbers. I would think that the first thing that comes to mind when most people say liberal/conservative -- are separate social/more prominent issues. </p>

<p>I also think it's a common fallacy to mistake a correlation between the intake of knowledge and an increase in liberalism. I think the correlation exists between knowledge and understanding, but to imply the former assumes that one choice is inherently better than the other.</p>

<p>Once again, with the current definitions of liberal/conservative that are prevalent and somewhat corrupted by media bias, current administration, other idiots -- this remains too delicate a topic and the amount of quantitative evidence supporting either conclusion just seems lacking in many respects. </p>

<p>Too many corrupting stats here.</p>

<p>Occam's razor peoples!</p>

91

<p>I am in fact a national security conservative, a moderate centrist leaning right on economics, a social conservative on SOME issues but not on others, and a supporter of reasonable environmental policy favoring green land-protection of forests and national parks, clean air and water...but NOT anti business by any stretch. I am NOT an Evangelical Christian. I am highly tolerant of others in theory but also expect civilized behavior in public respecting that OTHERS may not agree with your lifestyle nor wish their children or elderly parents to see public displays of affection, or in many cases risque dress in public. Respect must be mutual and that includes the respect that we may not agree. I despise belligerent anti social people. People who start demanding respect without respecting others, often by virtue of their crass language, loud voices, loud music, and obnoxious behavior. I support the military and their mission. I lean towards favoring enlisted service men and women and less so the privileged brass. I have empathy for hard working men and women in America, notably blue collar americans in manufacturing.....but I am not a big fan of unions. I am skeptical that the information age has done anything except make us work faster in a 'gotta have it yesterday' mentality, but not necessarily a better quality product....computers may have taken away more jobs than they provided. NAFTA is free trade....but its also killer trade...killing tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in this country. I have zero tolerance for accounting and investment shenanigans and think most of these criminals should be doing hard time. I think the Criminal Justice system is unjust...it favors the rich and famous who can hire lawyers and yet puts a petty criminal or petty drug user behind bars for a long time. I am very anti drug usage at the same time, I just have a different perspective on treatment. I am not a big fan of lawyers...either ambulance chasers or the defense bar who help their clients escape liability for clear wrong doing. I think ethics can be taught, but ultimately its up to the leadership of corporations and government to live by example....once society starts tolerating bad behavior (and some of that is promoted by lawyers through their defense of indefensible conduct) we are on a slippery slope towards a lawless society or law of the jungle.</p>

<p>I think standards of decency have fallen way too far in the last 20 years. Language, dress code, lack of courtesy, poor manners, excessive violence and sex on television and in movies, etc. </p>

<p>I am religious but not fanatical. I believe in a separation of Church and State, but its not completely black and white and there is some gray area in between.</p>

<p>I am anti taxes but also see the need for tax revenue by the government..so I pay my taxes and hope for a tax cut.</p>

<p>I am against affirmative action, but promote active recruiting of minorities to colleges and helping them get the scores needed to get admitted by early intervention in school, such that some day we wont even be discussing the issue...we will be race blind in admissions. </p>

<p>I think that needs blind scholarships in college are sometimes inequitable....as scholarships are ultimately a discounted price for tuition...and who needs the discount more? Middle class or Rich privileged kids who had all sorts of SAT help and private tutors in private prep schools? Not to punish the rich, but to be more equitable on who really needs the money. </p>

<p>I think too many kids and families are chasing too much prestige in college admissions. I would ideally like to see more knowledge sharing....spread the high SAT kids around the colleges more.</p>

<p>I favor small business over big business. I could go on.</p>

<p>Does that make me a right wing conservative? No. A moderate conservative? Likely.</p>

92

<p>I have two final questions (to alGorescousin), because it's pretty clear we won't agree on this issue, do you think that in the top 1%, 5%, 10% of academic intelligence, there is a statistically significant difference in political leaning in these groups? My point is, that becoming a Professor, like doing virtually anything in this world, is a combination of two major factors, ability and desire. While we do agree that it is more desirable for Liberals to become Professors than Conservatives (for some of the reasons you stated, but I also believe some other things are in play with respect to the desire, but I can't prove it) I think that not only is the difference in desire that we both acknowledge to blame for the rather spare representation of Conservatives in the academia, but there is also a difference in academic ability. Lastly, are you really Al Gore's cousin?</p>

93

<p>you sound more like a curmudgeon, actually.</p>

94

<p>From a voting standpoint, the votes of faculty have increased to the Democrat ticket over the past several decades. Here are the numbers going back to 1984:</p>

<p>Republican , Democrat , Other , Year</p>

<p>20.4% , 77.6% , 2.0% , 2004
23.5% , 66.6% , 9.9% , 2000
14.7% , 75.7% , 9.6% , 1996
17.2% , 76.6% , 6.2% , 1992
31.7% , 64.0% , 4.3% , 1988
32.0% , 64.4% , 3.6% , 1984</p>

95

<p>We readily acknowledge the benefit of having a diverse campus, in just about every sense of the word: geographically, racially, ethnically, financially, etc. And even though such diversity can be superficial (since many people will group with people similar to themselves anyway and thus negate any benefit of having such an heterogeneous campus), admissions departments, parents and students alike often place a premium on the make-up of the student body.</p>

<p>Why is it, then, that a lack of diversity where it is most crucial- the classroom- goes on with little outrage? I've read a few of the posts on this thread and was not surprised to hear some suggest that once you're in college, you're taking a class to hear what the professor has to say and so you've outgrown the need to hear both sides of an issue. But nothing could be more anti-intellectual. </p>

<p>While I acknowledge that in many cases room for debate is minimal, in many other subjects where various legitimate opinions exist, the student should hear all sides and come to a decision himself. I have a feeling that if the majority of college professors were conservatives or Republicans, many on this thread would be decrying the indoctrination of students in American universities.</p>

96

<p>Wesley, assuming you were addressing me and if by "curmudgeon" you mean someone who values integrity, family values, supports our military, hard work, being a decent honest person, tries to be tolerant but has limits based upon centuries old rules about mutual respect and common decency, then I am guilty as charged. I make no apologies for any of that. </p>

<p>As to Cervantes: you are talking in circles my friend. My position is that there is likely a pretty even balance in academic intelligence of human beings of whatever political stripe you suggest.....and that human intelligence is not a static measurement...we grow and change and its also not one dimensional either, its a kaleidoscope of knowledge, wit, sensitivity, awareness, alertness, creativity, humor, depth, perspective, judgment, development, age, wisdom etc.....most of which the SAT does not even attempt to measure and if they did, they would likely be miserable at it. You continue to attempt to get me to argue this silly statistical analysis game with you. I reject it, sorry.</p>

<p>Second, intelligence and teaching ability are likely two different things. Having a PhD does not suggest ability to teach either. Nor is being liberal or conservative have anything to do with ability to teach. Teaching is both art and science. </p>

<p>And NO, I dont agree its better for liberals to become Professors. Where on earth did you get the notion I even came close to suggesting that? I simply want more balance on faculties, and more faculty members to protect the academic integrity of their schools and classes by ensuring that all students are treated on an equal footing regardless of race, sex, orientation, or political leanings. </p>

<p>I am more interested in the INTEGRITY of the system and learning environment than I am in determining the political party of a particular faculty member.</p>

97

<p>^^^ hawkette, I assume these numbers reflect how faculty voted in presidential elections? What's your source on this? And what's the universe of "faculty" being measured here? Elite colleges and universities? All four-year colleges and universities? Including graduate and professional schools, or not? All colleges and universities, including 2-year schools?</p>

<p>I'm not surprised by the presidential voting patterns, or by the decline in support for Republican presidential candidates. My impression is that most college and university faculty are quite liberal on social issues---ardently pro-free speech (with perhaps some support for restrictions on perceived "hate speech"), strongly supportive of gay rights, pro-choice, dubious about gun rights, dead set against creationism in any of its guises, etc--but somewhat more moderate on economic issues. As the national Republican party and its presidential candidates have increasingly embraced the social agenda of the Christian Right over the past several election cycles, they've driven away a lot of socially liberal but economically moderate voters, including many college and university faculty who might have self-identified as "independents" or even "moderate Republicans" in the past. That doesn't make them all Democrats. Indeed, the substantial and rising support for "other" parties through the 2000 election cycle suggests that as a group, college and university faculty are not monolithically and reliably Democratic voters. But apparently the 2000 result, with the Nader vote effectively throwing the election to Bush, chastened a lot of the strays into voting Democratic in 2004, a huge 10% jump over 2000.</p>

<p>My guess is the 2008 election will see yet another spike in college and university faculty voting for the Democratic presidential nominee. Obama is, after all, one of their own, very cerebral in style, blue chip academic credentials, holder of an academic position himself at UChicago, and of course with the liberal posture on social issues that appeals to academics. Throughout the primaries, his three strongest pillars of support have been African-Americans, young voters (especially collegians and the college-educated young), and the most highly educated, with college and university faculty at the head of the pack in that last group.</p>

98

<p>AGC - Yea, I guess I was addressing you. What you're describing, however, could really apply to lots of liberals, myself included. You and I are just two people with strong opinions. So what? Doesn't qualify us to teach at Harvard.</p>

99

<p>The numbers for all of my posts in this thread have come from the same source mentioned in the OP (the research report done by some folks from Harvard and George Mason). </p>

<p>I was most surprised by the 32% support to the Republicans for Reagan's second term. If anyone has the numbers, I'd be curious to see how the voting patterns of college faculty changed from 1976 (Carter) to 1980 (Reagan's first term).</p>

100

<p>at my eastern prep boarding school, a teacher survey in which all participated showed that ONE faculty member out of nearly 200 would vote republican. ONE! so much for diversity.</p>