Which schools are most liberal or most conservative?

College Search & Selection
101

<p>Several thoughts come to mind. First, the book "Choosing the RIGHT College" is written by and for right-wing conservatives and cannot be considered an objective source for college guidance, unless you or your kids only want to consider those conservative schools it promotes. The emphasis in the title on "RIGHT" is their's not mine, in the edition I've seen. Their ratings are purposely subjective, slanted, and pejorative in the way it deals with most "liberal" schools. Not that it won't be of help to some, but watch out for its bias; some people don't realize how stilted its viewpoint is and accept its findings as objective. It just ain't so!</p>

<p>Second, having had one child graduate from and another now attending schools that are always in the top-ten for "liberal", if not the top two, I can tell you my kids are getting and have received educations that are thought-provoking and don't simply ignore or discount the views of any extreme, any religion, or any political persuasion. These hot-beds of liberal thought have presented alternatives in thoughtful fashion and have introduced my kids to classical liberal thought and philosophical discussions that encompassed diverse beliefs and ideologies. I can't imagine a better education anywhere or a better foundation for smart kids going out to face a difficult world where they will have to be prepared to deal with those who don't agree with them, who wish them harm, and who aren't willing to accept new ideas as solutions to old problems. Money well-spent from a parental standpoint. We're leaving them a messed-up world. The least we can do is to help make them prepared for the mess we've left them. </p>

<p>And, third, to slap most schools with either a "liberal" or "conservative" label in a disparaging way is silly. In my helping my kids sort through the hundreds of excellent schools available to them, we determined that the schools that best fit their openness and tolerance were those with the smallest percentage of Greek Life, those most highest rated in their tolerance to gays and lesbians, and these are kids raised in the conservative South in a small town who are neither gay nor lesbian themselves. I suppose somehow they managed to grow up believing that everyone has something to offer this world and that brains are more important than the clothes people wear or the clubs they belong to. I'll take that blame. </p>

<p>And last, anyone who calls UVA "conservative" is dealing with old, tired stereotypes that haven't been accurate for well-over forty years. And anyone choosing UVA for that reason is in for a real shock: It's just like the rest of this country——it is diverse, vibrant, challenging, accepting, and the Greek Life does not overwhelm either the community or the social life at the school. It's one school I'd have been proud for my kids to have selected but, alas, they thought it just didn't fit them. And they were right. </p>

<p>So go in with your eyes open, listening to your heart, and take what most here say with a grain of salt. There are so many good schools out there, choose the one that fits you best, but be open to thoughts you may be uncomfortable with, too. That's what education, growing up, and life are all about. And good luck!</p>

102

<p>Regarding UChicago, there's a blog post up on The New Republic's "The Plank" blog that touches on the question of UC's conservatism.</p>

<p>The post is at: Chicago's</a> Libertarian Liberals - The Plank</p>

<p>Relevant section:</p>

<p>Lest we believe Hyde Park is economically and socially diverse enough to withstand charges of elitism, Ferguson then takes aim at the lone tempering agent—the University of Chicago’s legendary academic conservatism:</p>

<p>[T]he reputation for right-wingery is based on a simple if imprecise bit of data that shocks the delicate sensibilities of college professors: Of the tens of thousands of faculty who have taught at the University of Chicago over the past half-century, perhaps as many as 65 have, at some point in their lives, voted for a Republican. …[Allan] Bloom is dead. So is [Milton] Friedman. The Olin Center closed its doors in 2005. Their disciples and colleagues who remain at the university aren't getting any younger. It's unlikely that the school's wobbly reputation for conservatism, and the neighborhood's, will survive them.</p>

<p>This is plainly wrong. Setting aside the many conservatives who have populated the departments of economics, political science and law (the lionized Friedman, as well as staunch conservatives like Eric Posner, Michael McConnell, Richard Epstein, or Jack Goldsmith), the community's values system is totally empirical. Steven Levitt’s controversial study on the linkage between abortion jurisprudence and diminishing crime rates—while it prompted grumbling in Cambridge, Palo Alto and Morningside Heights—caused not one ripple of disapproval at Chicago.</p>

<p>Of course, the University has also offered positions to the radical feminist Katherine Mckinnon, demonstrating an intellectual range that is endemic to any prominent research university. One longtime faculty member tells me:</p>

<p>To call this place a liberal place with a few conservatives is ridiculous. Conservative thinking is pervasive--it's pervasive among the students, it's pervasive among the faculty. At the law school, to defend a significant increase in the minimum wage is to expose yourself to vigorous conterarguments. To say that rent control is a good idea is to say things that sound crazy to most. To treat Ronald Reagan as a bad president, you must be prepared to defend yourself. </p>

<p>And one has only to read Naomi Klein’s recent distru****l essay on “Obama’s Chicago Boys” to know that if the university’s conservatism is waning, up-and-down liberals like Klein haven’t noticed.</p>

103

<p>thanks guys</p>

104

<p>liberal:
-hampshire
-marlboro
-oberlin
-brown</p>

<p>conservative:
-washington and lee
-ole miss/alabama/UGA/auburn</p>

105

<p>Prouddad, I wonder if you realize how derogatory your comments appear to a conservative. You seem to imply that conservative colleges aren't "thought provoking", but liberal ones are? And you consider UVA being called conservative as the equivalent of an "old tired stereotype"? And when you say your kids will have to deal with "those who don't agree with them, who wish them harm, and who aren't willing to accept new ideas as solutions to old problems", who are the "those" you are referring to--terrorists or conservatives? And when you say that "liberal" schools "don't simply ignore or discount the views of any extreme, any religion, or any political persuasion", are you suggesting that this is what conservative schools do, and do you include conservatism as an accepted viewpoint that liberal schools won't simply ignore or discount? It is because of comments such as yours that a conservative-minded student would wish to carefully consider the environment of a school before attending.</p>

106

<p>
[Quote]
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Texas A&M, very conservative.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Trust me, there are plenty of liberals at A&M as well.</p>

107

<p>Kentuckymom , we all have to face facts. Some schools are "conservative" or "right-wing" and some aren't. Some have a decided liberal bias and some don't. I'll take a wild stab and infer that you are a proponent of the Right, and I'll save you a lot of time and tell you I'm not. I watch Fox News (and listen to Rush and that Baby Jesus Hannity guy) only for the entertainment value and I continue to have to tell my 80-year-old mother that just because Fox news comes on an hour earlier than network news, doesn't make it right, accurate, or unbiased. Now let's leave our personal beliefs aside for a minute. Certainly I wouldn't be impressed by anyone touting a school as "conservative" and you'd not be likely to consider those leftist schools for your kids either. That's not the point. </p>

<p>I would hate for anyone to avoid UVA because they heard it was a conservative school. Nothing could be further from the truth. I doubt I'm going to deter any preppy neo-cons (I was one once, so I can use those terms) from applying there simply because of the school's highest ranking among state U's. But to use that label pejoratively to deter liberals from applying is a disservice to them and the school. Most U's have an ideological balance, at least in the student body, similar to the nation if not the world. The fact that Larry Sabato and Lawrence Eagleburger live in the UVA community doesn't paint us all as conservatives. Even Eagleburger had nice things to say to us Obama supporters while we worked the polls in a freezing drizzle during our Virginia primary. He called us dedicated. Most colleges and universities value diversity . . . and dedication. Any one worth attending certainly does! ;) </p>

<p>Now to your point about my saying my kids are receiving a "thought-provoking" education being derogatory to non-left-leaning schools: I never said schools known for their conservative bent (W&L comes to mind but ask my daughter about that one!) aren't capable of the same thing, but others here seem to imply a "liberal" school isn't capable of objectivity in their education process. That's just not true and is so antithetical to the vision of those schools that it moves me to try and lay that fear to rest, using my kids' own experiences to the contrary. I don't doubt that many "RIGHT" schools are capable of similar objectivity and we and our kids will pick and choose based on what's comfortable for them. I'm simply stating that my daughters' schools, even though they are continually slammed for being tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing "Liberals", as if that's a bad thing, have still provided an ecumenical approach to accepting diversity in political thought by teaching kids about theology, politics, government, and beliefs in an unbiased, universalist way. If you want to take that as a derogatory comment on some prized bastion of proselytized neo-con propaganda, so be it. That's your interpretation. I was only commenting in defense of the schools targeted by right-wing propaganda aimed at defaming left-leaning schools in such unabashedly conservative tomes as "Choosing the RIGHT College". Does that help you sleep better?</p>

108

<p>Oh my goodness....a former neo-con bashing neo-conservatives as if that is some sort of pejorative label? Hmmmm......</p>

<p>Now lets be honest here, and I would never say that UVa is a conservative school, only that a high percentage of students are very conservative there and in comparison to say UNC-Chapel Hill, it is more right of center or centrist even, than Chapel Hill. </p>

<p>Liberal thought, in my purview, is not evil per se or worthy of derogatory commentary. Its only problematic when it becomes a pervasive way of thinking among the intelligentsia at colleges in the United States and makes it very uncomfortable for conservatives, neo-conservatives, libertarians, and evangelicals-social conservatives to voice their opinions without being subjected to scorn and even grade deflation. It happens. It happens a LOT. </p>

<p>My D was a summer scholar at W & L and engaged a very liberal leaning professor there (she did extremely well by the way, but ultimately is not at W & L) who was educated at UVa but teaches in Lexington. He was a perfect example of a gentleman scholar who engaged her, encouraged her and brought out the best in her WITHOUT degrading her or devaluing her work. But in my experience, he is an exception to the rule. Many conservatives (of all stripes) continue to believe they have to keep their mouths shut and their pens curtailed for fear of recrimination. Closet conservatives. And that is a darned shame. </p>

<p>You can wear Birkenstocks all you want (though there is some connection with that company and some controversial "views") and I could care less. But of someone wore cowboy boots into class what happens? Laughter and ridicule? </p>

<p>As for tree huggers, well....I support a lot of environmental movements with REASON. I would much rather see business and urban sprawl clean up ghettos and refurbish those areas than expand into green areas or farmland. Someone would have to find an equitable way to help out displaced persons in the ghettos....but I am sure a creative way could be conceived, such as "profit sharing" with the landowner in the case of delapidated apartments that are sold to a developer for demolition and rebuilding something new. I dont know. What did they do in Harlem to turn it around? Now Harlem is very trendy and rather expensive to live there. </p>

<p>I think some of your commentary is a bit derogatory towards right wing and neo-con thinking. Fair and balanced should mean just that.</p>

<p>I dont listen to FoxNews or Rush, by the way. I mostly watch MSNBC in the evenings and Meet the Press on Sundays.</p>

<p>Finally, its a known fact that a huge percentage, upwards of 80 % or more, of faculty at any given university is left leaning and registered Democrat. I dont know why that is really, other than most conservatives perhaps prefer the business world to continuing in academia. Just a guess.</p>

<p>And that book, Choosing the Right School, is a valuable resource. It helps people take a gander at the overall campus political meter without stepping on campus. The authors could be right or wrong, and one has to certainly take that into consideration. But for people who would prefer not to be in a certain environment it can be very helpful. On the other hand, I know conservatives heading to Chapel Hill this fall with a sense of "Damn the Torpedoes!" So good for them. </p>

<p>I fully support a balanced student body, or if that is not entirely possible at least an air of tolerance, mutual respect and friendly debate and banter. I stated earlier I would avoid any school that is extremist on one side or the other and there are plenty of examples of those. UVa or even W & L are not in that camp. Nor is Furman, Wake Forest, Duke, Davidson or Vanderbilt. All have a healthy balance....it may be 65-35 or 60-40 in the student body...I dont know really...but its not an oppressive atmosphere for anyone. But how would a conservative feel at Smith or Wellesley or Swarthmore? </p>

<p>Just my friendly two cents.</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
Now let's leave our personal beliefs aside for a minute.

[/quote]

Starting when?</p>

110

<p>Prouddad, I had such trouble sleeping last night that I read again the commentaries and introductions to the book "Choosing the Right College." The authors and contributors of this book (who by the way attended or teach at some of the very universities that you say are defamed within it), discuss at length the intentions of the book in its introduction. Nowhere did I see that it presented itself as a political guide, or was full of "propaganda aimed at defaming left-leaning schools". It contains detailed evaluations of the top 40 most selective national universities and the top 35 most selective liberal arts colleges (according to USNWR), and 59 additional schools, with its main focus on whether the school has a strong (and required) liberal arts core curriculum and whether, regardless of the political leanings of the professors, a balanced and open atmosphere is present. They even say: "We have an agenda, and it's laid out right here in these introductory pages--our view of what constitutes a good education" and they go on to discuss the importance of a strong core in history, english, humanities, languages, etc. An additional note--on my copy, the 2008-9 edition, the word "Right" is in the same font and color as the rest of the title and is a slightly smaller size than the word "College", making it appear to me that the word "right" was used as opposed to "wrong" in making a choice, and not "left" in the political sense.</p>

<p>Algorescousin, thanks for your comments.</p>

111

<p>Kentuckymom, I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, the book's authors have an agenda. The fact that they've softened the pitch over the years (eg. they no longer hi-light "Right" in the book's title on the cover) only shows they've gotten into subtle, rather than in-your-face, tactics. However, anyone who thinks the book is objective should read the credo of the organization that publishes it: The</a> Intercollegiate Studies Institute and judge for themselves. Just to give an idea of the basis of the organization's methods and goals, here's an excerpt from a speech their president gave to The Heritage Foundation back in 1989:


</p>

<p>Yep, they sure have an agenda alright. And they don't hide it in most of their publications. But they do get sneaky in their college guide, which was my original point. It's not objective, and I don't care how they couch their agenda with curriculum suggestions. For goodness' sake, the list of critics quoted in praising the book is lead by Dr. Laura Schlessinger. And, apparently, the worst sin a school can commit is having co-ed dorms, not to mention co-ed bathrooms and dorm rooms. For shame. If you want a forum that will consensually validate Ayn Rand's work, they've got one for you on the ISI site. They also offer a "supplement" to their Choosing the Right College<a href="their%20words,%20not%20mine">/i</a> entitled *All-American Colleges: Top Schools for Conservatives, Old-Fashioned Liberals, and People of Faith. I don't question that some find these books useful but objectivity is not their goal. </p>

<p>Not that Wikipedia is an infallible source, but their link to the Institute offers some valid links for those who want to know what they're really all about, in their own words: Intercollegiate</a> Studies Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>Vive la difference!</p>

<p>And, oh yeah, here's a link to the cover of the 2006 version showing "Right" in red:
Amazon.com:</a> Choosing the Right College 2006: The Whole Truth about America's Top Schools (Choosing the Right College): John P. Zmirak: Books Be sure to read all the reviews!</p>

112

<p>I wont EVER apologize to ANYONE for being Conservative, Republican and Religious. I dont have to defend that to anyone. So when Liberals like Proud Dad go on the attack and attempt to put us on our heels and defend ourselves, I just chuckle and say it underscores the very point he is trying to suggest liberals arent doing in colleges. </p>

<p>Make no apologies, Kentuckywoman! </p>

<p>As for the so called reviews on Amazon.com.....just chuckle at those as well. They are just more liberals bashing a book that calls out the truth.</p>

<p>These people are not interested in mutual respect and balance. And they get very upset when they are called out on the carpet about it.</p>

<p>Oh well.</p>

113

<p>And I am not an Ayn Rand supporter or devotee either. Never liked her works and I read them in college more than 35 years ago. By the way, she was Alan Greenspan's lover. Fact.</p>

114

<p>And I am not an Ayn Rand supporter or devotee either. Never liked her works and I read them in college more than 35 years ago. I am not a Libertarian. By the way, she was Alan Greenspan's lover. Fact.</p>

115

<p>"Fair and Balanced"</p>

<p>Always the claim of those who don't live by those words. Very close to "Smoke and Mirrors". I'll let the facts speak. I wasn't bashing conservatives, just pointing out that THAT book is NOT objective. </p>

<p>Methinks he doth protest too much! ;)</p>

116

<p>Prouddad, I am so glad you referred me to the link to ISI's website. What an awesome organization--their primary goal (or, as you call it their "sneaky agenda") is to "convey to successive generations of college youth a better understanding of the values and institutions that sustain a free and virtuous society" and to "enhance the rising generation's knowledge of our nation's founding principles — limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, the rule of law, market economy, and moral norms"! Bravo! I plan to become a donor right away.</p>

117

<p>Proud Dad....no...not protesting and I dont usually use fair and balanced in my lingo...I was just tossing it back in your lap since you seemed to have a thorn in your sides about conservatives....by the way, I am not altogether buying your "I wasnt bashing conservatives" as you threw another screwball at home plate with that "smoke and mirrors" pitch. Perhaps that book is not objective in your parlance. But I dont think it was intended to attract liberals and be entirely scientifically objective....it was intended to be a resource for people who are concerned about leftist, socialist, antireligious, unstructured babble that is so often served up at major universities (some of them VERY prestigious). If you prefer the left leaning or "liberal" perspective, no problem....there is an abundance of schools out there for you to recommend. Its just that a certain percentage of liberals I know often seem to think that they are morally and socially superior and that conservative thought is an oxymoron and needs to be stamped out, eliminated, thwarted, exiled, ridiculed, condescended. That the very notion of a conservative perspective in higher education is unacceptable to a civilized society. And THOSE are the people who so often are espousing the Bill of Rights and empowering "minorities" (not necessarily racial minorities....all kinds of minorities...except of course the conservative base of political minorities). Its very humorous and hypocritical. </p>

<p>I am a very centrist to right of center person with an occasional flirtation with some issues that supposedly belong to the left of center crowd, like conservation of national forests and clean water and such. I dont listen to most (as in 99%) of radio talk show hosts, including Rush. I dont watch FoxNews EVER. (I dont like their presentation and production style or talking heads). I dont even watch Bill O Reilly. I prefer to watch Keith Olberman on MSNBC and throw things at the television in jest...stuffed animals or whiffle balls. </p>

<p>I always thought Karl Rove was a blowhard and up to no good. Never trusted him, frankly. Just my hunch.</p>

<p>Then again, I mistrust most politicians and a lot of what lawyers say, particularly when they appear on the courthouse steps the day after their client has been arrested or indicted and start blathering about "he is totally innocent and will fight these charges!" </p>

<p>I think DNA is a GODSEND to the criminal justice system because juries OFTEN make egregious errors. </p>

<p>So I am not about smoke and mirrors..what you see is what you get. I call em as I see em.....good, bad, ugly, or indifferent. </p>

<p>But I will defend the general cause of conservative political thought (particularly on national security issues) when it is attacked or picked upon. Or for that matter when a book (which has been acclaimed and been a Godsend for a LOT of people) is ridiculed in support of "our cause."</p>

<p>You can write a book that supports the liberal anti neo-con point of view and recommend some colleges and red flag some others. It wont hurt my feelings. I would probably use it to tell my kids...."here are the liberal schools....enter at your own risk."</p>

<p>And finally, I always marvel and cajole with my spouse about how the media is so often more wrong than the local weatherman on political polls.....they all talk like, act like and cheer like the country is largely very liberal and agrees with them....well.....they aren't. The country is in fact quite conservative...and I am not talking about country club conservatives either. Just ordinary working class Americans with conservative values like Kentuckymom listed above. And often very religious. </p>

<p>But no harm in bantering with you.</p>

118

<p>


It took a long way-round to get there but I see we now all agree with my original premise that THAT book Choosing the **Right **College, does in fact have a conservative agenda. That's really all was saying, if you read my original post in this thread. Thanks for (finally) confirming the point I was trying to get across. </p>

<p>We also agree on Keith Olberman! ;)</p>

<p>I'll leave you all now to continue the conservative love-fest that is CC.</p>

119

<p>LOL.....well.....you took a long time to get around to that simple point, laden with anti neo con syllogisms. But all is fun in love and war. That book is a conservative book and nobody, not even the author would deny that. It was written for that very purpose. The use of the term "right" was a play on words in the title. Tongue in cheek, as I took it.</p>

<p>As for Olberman, I am delighted you agree. More to the point, I was watching Hardball last night and Matthew's stand in was Mike Barnicle, formerly of the New York Times and Boston Globe. Barnicle is an unavowed liberal. But he is such a pleasure to watch most of the time because he lets his guests finish their statements and he doesnt embarrass them or humiliate them or ridicule them. Can he be over the top sometimes and get his clothing in a wad? Yep. Seen it many times. But when he guest hosts this show he does a better job than Matthews who irritates the heck out of me with his interruptions and volcanic narcissism.</p>

<p>As for CC being a conservative love fest, I will take that in good jest. Its not, obviously.</p>

120

<p>


Well, actually it was the first line of my first post in this thread, about twenty posts back. But what's a little hyperbole among friends? Y'all have fun now.</p>