Diversity on University
-
European universities face similar problems[^]. Monopolizing value system and shaping curriculum so that Marxism takes more hours then Enlightment. Well, social democrats love it. It's the consequential gap between industry and academia that we all hate, because it makes us less competitive. :( Tomaž
-
European universities face similar problems[^]. Monopolizing value system and shaping curriculum so that Marxism takes more hours then Enlightment. Well, social democrats love it. It's the consequential gap between industry and academia that we all hate, because it makes us less competitive. :( Tomaž
The prevelance of liberalisim on campuses is trivialy easy to explain. University profeessors are well-euducated and intelligent. This is not arrogance, facetiousness, or a joke: it's plain fact.
-
The prevelance of liberalisim on campuses is trivialy easy to explain. University profeessors are well-euducated and intelligent. This is not arrogance, facetiousness, or a joke: it's plain fact.
You should also mention the total lack of contact with outside world, and the hardship of having the "wrong" opinion in the academia. Scientists have idealized view of the world because they don't know it well. Scientific world is mostly cooperative, liberal fantasy land where the only enemy is the funding commitey. Developing conservative views in such environment is rare, like liberals in the army.
-
The prevelance of liberalisim on campuses is trivialy easy to explain. University profeessors are well-euducated and intelligent. This is not arrogance, facetiousness, or a joke: it's plain fact.
...or that liberals simply feel more comfortable in environments (such as government controlled educational institutions) which validate their preconceived world view, or that most university environments openly discriminate against people of other political persuasions and drive them out of their postions, or that liberals, such as youself, are merely biased and believe that "intelligent" and "liberal" mean the same thing and therefore make hireing decisions according to that particular type of bigotry. (I'm willing to bet that you also belive that the preponderance of homosexuals in the arts is proof that homosexuals are simply more creative than heterosexuals. :laugh:)
-
You should also mention the total lack of contact with outside world, and the hardship of having the "wrong" opinion in the academia. Scientists have idealized view of the world because they don't know it well. Scientific world is mostly cooperative, liberal fantasy land where the only enemy is the funding commitey. Developing conservative views in such environment is rare, like liberals in the army.
Felix Gartsman wrote: Scientists have idealized view of the world because they don't know it well. That statement is the mark of a true ignoramus; one who glorifies ignorance over knowledge. What group of people do you think has _given_ us our enhanced understanding of the world? Felix Gartsman wrote: Scientific world is mostly cooperative, liberal fantasy land where the only enemy is the funding commitey. There's more of your attitude exposed for the world to ridicule. Cooperation is a bad thing? Having enemies is something we should strive for? (That's implied in the "boogieman around every corner" attitude most conservatives have these days - sorry if I'm painting you with the wrong brush.) It's funny that this topic came up; I just read two letters in my local paper about that subject this morning. The contents of both boiled down to what I said, though in more detail: Educated people tend to question things more, especially authority; they (hell, we :') tend to see issues with a broader perspective, etc. This also explains the so-called "liberal bias" among rank-and-file journalists: They have more knowledge about what's going on in the world than the average person.
-
The prevelance of liberalisim on campuses is trivialy easy to explain. University profeessors are well-euducated and intelligent. This is not arrogance, facetiousness, or a joke: it's plain fact.
How about - for every natural science student there are more then ten humanism, art history, sociology, politology, communicology, antropology, you-name-it-ology students that'll depend on goverment sector and who have little or no contact with the real world. So people who have contact with the real world and who know budgets, schedules and binary work results (i.e. engineers of all sorts, economists, etc.) are minority - hence... Tomaž
-
How about - for every natural science student there are more then ten humanism, art history, sociology, politology, communicology, antropology, you-name-it-ology students that'll depend on goverment sector and who have little or no contact with the real world. So people who have contact with the real world and who know budgets, schedules and binary work results (i.e. engineers of all sorts, economists, etc.) are minority - hence... Tomaž
-
You should also mention the total lack of contact with outside world, and the hardship of having the "wrong" opinion in the academia. Scientists have idealized view of the world because they don't know it well. Scientific world is mostly cooperative, liberal fantasy land where the only enemy is the funding commitey. Developing conservative views in such environment is rare, like liberals in the army.
Don't you see the other side of their "fantasy land"? That it is us, the realists living in the real world who have it all wrong? That while they can co-operate, we cannot. That our belief in our cynicism keeps the cycle going. Just a thought. regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project
-
The prevelance of liberalisim on campuses is trivialy easy to explain. University profeessors are well-euducated and intelligent. This is not arrogance, facetiousness, or a joke: it's plain fact.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: The prevelance of liberalisim on campuses is trivialy easy to explain. There are two ways to look at it (chicken or the egg). Does working on a college campus or in the news media (one of your other posts) lead a person to become a liberal? Or do liberals choose to go into those professions for some other reason? I think that it is the later. I think that liberals choose those professions in order to influence others to their point of view. Jim A. Johnson wrote: University profeessors are well-euducated and intelligent. In light of the sentence topic, you may want to consider editing it. :) Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
...or that liberals simply feel more comfortable in environments (such as government controlled educational institutions) which validate their preconceived world view, or that most university environments openly discriminate against people of other political persuasions and drive them out of their postions, or that liberals, such as youself, are merely biased and believe that "intelligent" and "liberal" mean the same thing and therefore make hireing decisions according to that particular type of bigotry. (I'm willing to bet that you also belive that the preponderance of homosexuals in the arts is proof that homosexuals are simply more creative than heterosexuals. :laugh:)
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm willing to bet that you also belive that the preponderance of homosexuals in the arts is proof that homosexuals are simply more creative than heterosexuals Not at all! It's art that makes us gay! That's why people are against the National Endowment for the Arts. It's Federally funded homosexuality! :rolleyes: BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
The prevelance of liberalisim on campuses is trivialy easy to explain. University profeessors are well-euducated and intelligent. This is not arrogance, facetiousness, or a joke: it's plain fact.
While it may be a fact that professors are intelligent, I don't think it explains their liberal tendancies one bit. Universities tend towards experimentation on a number of levels, including challenging traditional social norms. While this rethinking of why and how we do things is healthy for a society it doesn't mean all the ideas are better. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
Felix Gartsman wrote: Scientists have idealized view of the world because they don't know it well. That statement is the mark of a true ignoramus; one who glorifies ignorance over knowledge. What group of people do you think has _given_ us our enhanced understanding of the world? Felix Gartsman wrote: Scientific world is mostly cooperative, liberal fantasy land where the only enemy is the funding commitey. There's more of your attitude exposed for the world to ridicule. Cooperation is a bad thing? Having enemies is something we should strive for? (That's implied in the "boogieman around every corner" attitude most conservatives have these days - sorry if I'm painting you with the wrong brush.) It's funny that this topic came up; I just read two letters in my local paper about that subject this morning. The contents of both boiled down to what I said, though in more detail: Educated people tend to question things more, especially authority; they (hell, we :') tend to see issues with a broader perspective, etc. This also explains the so-called "liberal bias" among rank-and-file journalists: They have more knowledge about what's going on in the world than the average person.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: That statement is the mark of a true ignoramus; one who glorifies ignorance over knowledge. Knowledge of what? Knowing DNA of a camel or solving DEs is irrelevant to "world knowledge" I meant. Scientists lack interaction with diverse people, this limits their perspective. Jim A. Johnson wrote: Cooperation is a bad thing? Having enemies is something we should strive for? No and no. But when you live closed lives you fail to picture other possibilities. Jim A. Johnson wrote: Educated people tend to question things more, especially authority; they (hell, we :') tend to see issues with a broader perspective, etc. To a certain point, afterwards you blend into the PC crowd. Liberals need a dosage of FOX to stay sharp:)
-
Don't you see the other side of their "fantasy land"? That it is us, the realists living in the real world who have it all wrong? That while they can co-operate, we cannot. That our belief in our cynicism keeps the cycle going. Just a thought. regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project
Don't you see the other side of their "fantasy land"? That it is us, the realists living in the real world who have it all wrong? That while they can co-operate, we cannot. That our belief in our cynicism keeps the cycle going. It is probably because real-life is harder than scientific one...
-
You should also mention the total lack of contact with outside world, and the hardship of having the "wrong" opinion in the academia. Scientists have idealized view of the world because they don't know it well. Scientific world is mostly cooperative, liberal fantasy land where the only enemy is the funding commitey. Developing conservative views in such environment is rare, like liberals in the army.
Felix Gartsman wrote: Scientists have idealized view of the world because they don't know it well. Scientific world is mostly cooperative, liberal fantasy land where the only enemy is the funding commitey. Not only are you dumb, but you are actually dumber than I suspected. I can say with 100% certainty (as a practicing and professional scientist) that your remarks are complete drivel and bunk. I will also expect that you know significantly less than nothing of the way funding and cooperation work in the scientific community. In fact, it's people like you that continue to elevate myself and my peers to a higher level of dignity and respect. Thanks for being an idiot - I'm a better person for it today. John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]