Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: H. Godwineson on October 03, 2002, 10:46:00 AM
-
While exercising my thumb with the TV remote the other day, I ran across a news program discussing the tendency of U.S. colleges to hire mainly Democrats to faculty positions. One of the guests was an author of a book on this issue, who had visited more than 200 campuses across the nation, asking the faculty members which political party they belonged to.
His conservative presence was balanced by that of the program's host and two other guests, both of the liberal persuasion. Typically, it was one of those discussions where a speaker's statements were constantly being interrupted by the others. (Sorry that I do not remember the name of the program or the host. I am rapidly approaching seniorhood.)
Nevertheless, the discussion piqued my interest, and some questions popped to mind. I offer them up here for discussion:
1. In a society that is pretty evenly divided down the middle of the political spectrum, how can one political group so dominate the hiring of academics?
2. Could this be deliberate?
One of the guests on the program, a red-headed woman who was a faculty member at a California University, responded to the first question by stating the following: Republicans who have a college education are more interested in earning money than in applying for jobs in the academic community; Democrats were more interested in becoming educators. In other words, the superior virtue of the Democrats led them to serve the needs of our youth.
What do you think? How could such a disproportionate number of Democrats be hired "accidentally?"
Regards, Shuckins
-
and 80% of college student's are butterin wetawded... so I guess they balance each other out?
:)
-SW
-
Probably because democrats through some inexplicable coincidence generate much better impressions at job interviews...
Well, maybe not inexplicable.
-
Well it's obvious to me!
College professors, representing the most highly educated Americans, choose to be Democrats because they know better. duh!
-
it's very simple, the "good ol boy network" , liberals will hire liberals.
the dream of every liberal is to be a tenured collage prof.
easy "work", short hours,good pay,pleasant working conditions, can't be fired, good retirment.
-
Oh PUH-LEASE!
Come on guys, be SERIOUS!
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by john9001
it's very simple, the "good ol boy network" , liberals will hire liberals.
the dream of every liberal is to be a tenured collage prof.
easy "work", short hours,good pay,pleasant working conditions, can't be fired, good retirment.
Well those darned conservatives are snapping up all the hard work, long hours, bad pay, crappy working conditions, no retirement jobs.
What's a lib to do?
-
Do you guys actually have any idea how hiring in academia works? I'm not talking about the tenure process, but rather hiring for non-tenured assistant professor positions fresh out of graduate school? This is where you'll be picking up that 80/20 ratio unless there's some proof that Republicans and Democrats are evenly split at the assistant professor positions, but Republicans later fail to obtain tenure to a much greater degree than Democrats. I highly doubt that scenario.
I simply don't see how political affiliation plays a role in this process. I'm not really certain where such information would ever come up in the course of the process unless it was explicit in the applicant's work (which it usually isn't), and having witnessed the process and the deliberations among professors here, I know that political affiliation had no bearing on the hiring decision.
Seems like somebody's making a big to-do about nothing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Sure. The liberals believe it's their duty to indoctrinate the students to the right philosofy - not just teach them sciences. So they must keep conservatives away from the teaching positions.
Libarals are ideologues - at least much more so than conservatives because they are collectivists. Being individualists, the conservatives can hardly create any exclusive ideology.
How the heck do you act together as a group if you claim that treating people as groups is a fallacy? Who do you keep out?
Liberals have no such problem. They group first. Then they "temporarily" sacrifice any principles that hurt their unity - no problem in supporting racism in fight against racism or in supporting quotas and restrictions in a fight for diversity.
miko
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
College professors, representing the most highly educated Americans, ...
LOL
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Sure. The liberals believe it's their duty to indoctrinate the students to the right philosofy - not just teach them sciences. So they must keep conservatives away from the teaching positions.
Sure. The liberals are just a big leftist movement trying to ake over the world. I'm glad your voices warned you in time (well, you and McCarthy that is).
-
Let's go over the three most important elements in obtaining a tenure track assistant professor position at a university.
(1) Publications. The hiring committee looks at both the quantity of publications and also the quality of the refereed journals in which they're published. This is of primary importance. A body of work establishes in the minds of the hiring committee that the applicant has a proven research agenda. Nobody in any school is going to turn down a Republican who's published a half dozen articles in the top journals.
(2) Job talk. This can make or break a job candidate who's on the bubble. All job candidates make a thirty minute presentation of their research to members of the departmental faculty, after which they spend anywhere from thirty minutes to several hours answering questions and defending their work. AT NO POINT DOES POLITICAL AFFILIATION COME UP HERE, and asking a question along those lines would be considered entirely unprofessional.
(3) Teaching experience. Though not as important as the other categories, departments will look at the range and quality of teaching assignments taken on by job candidates at the graduate level. This indicates their willingness and ability to handle tough teaching assignments as a professional academic.
Nowhere does political affiliation come into play here. And unless someone can prove to me that the weeding out of Republicans occurs in the tenure review stage (where, after seven years, the faculty probably knows one's political affiliation) rather than the initial assistant professor hiring stage, this whole thing is yet another uninformed squeakfest.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by john9001
the dream of every liberal is to be a tenured collage prof.
easy "work", short hours,good pay,pleasant working conditions, can't be fired, good retirment.
Easy work? Short hours? SHORT HOURS? ROFL.
The inability to be fired is offset in part by the fact that the "apprenticeship" stage of academia (the assistant professor, non-tenured position) lasts longer than any other discipline, and the review for tenure is the most rigorous and completely draining process that just about any professional will ever suffer through.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
An old saying comes to mind. Please remember that it is not true in all cases....
"Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach."
Sound like the situation that started this thread??? :)
Seriously, in my experiances in education, at least in the first 6 grades the teachres were predominately liberal. In one case I had a principal display a definate bias against military people in a conversation. In the university library where my wife works people who have a military background are openly shunned. I have seen it in action. Since those same people knew I was both military and police oriented they refuse to speak to me whenever we are together at a "social gathering" or I visit the library. Several of these folkls have never spoken to me in 4 years. My wife can't wait to retire and tell them to take a flying leap off the roof.
-
two words
Teachers Union
-
Dead Man Flying,
If the problem does not lie within the hiring process, as you contend, then how does such a discrepancy in numbers take place?
Determining the political views of an applicant based on research papers published in a scientific or math journal would be difficult. Papers published on topics in the fields of government, history, or law, would be a dfferent matter entirely. How could an applicant keep his views completely hidden from a review board?
I maintain that there is something wrong somewhere, for in a completely objective system, there should be little or no disparity in numbers. One might believe a 60 to 40 percent difference, but 80 to 20 is hard to swallow. Such a discrepancy in hiring involving ethnic groups has spawned numerous lawsuits in the past. Lawsuits, I might add, that have been successfully prosecuted.
Regards, Shuckins
-
If the problem does not lie within the hiring process, as you contend, then how does such a discrepancy in numbers take place?
Isn't it possible that the political affiliation of the pool of candidates is about 80-20?
If that being the case it would make sence, no?
It is kind of funny to think that any school/university would pass on more qualified individuals based on political affiliation.
Isn't there a teacher shortage going on?
If the program you saw showed the opposite numbers (80%Republican, 20% Democrat), would you have posted it?
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
If the problem does not lie within the hiring process, as you contend, then how does such a discrepancy in numbers take place?
What numbers?
Something that someone heard someone say on a talk show does not qualify.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well it's obvious to me!
College professors, representing the most highly educated Americans, choose to be Democrats because they know better. duh!
No...I'd say they can't face the real world so they hide in school.
Typical democrats.
Funny, but college is supposed to promote free thinking. I found out that it actually represents free thinking as long as it is based on liberal bleeding heart sentiments.
In my final exam in a political science class I was racing through the questions and feeling good. I knew I had nailed all of the questions and was heading for an A.
Then the last question got me angry. The school was a university in Canada and the question was along the lines of "How did this class help you to better understand the Francophone-Anglophone relationship in Canada.
My answer was quite clear...it didn't. I said that I was sick to death of the French whining and that frankly English Canada should pull all Federal money out of Quebec and build a Berlin (style)-Wall with razor wire along the top of it to surround the whole province. Then give them there own currency and be done with it.
I was accused of being a zenophobe by the professor who marked the exam and he gave me a failing grade on that question...brought my A down to a B.
Yup...free thinking alright...just as long as you think along the same lines as the professor.
-
affirmative action is needed for conservitive teachers
-
Um. I've got bad news for you guys.
If you look at the political breakdown of graduate schools, you'll find *horror*, that 80% of people working for their PhD are democratic.
Now, some of those numbers may be skewed. after all, people tend to vote with their self-interest in mind. Now, who among you believes that the Republican Party believes in giving US Universities as much funding as the Democratic Party does?
Oh my God, now someone's going to complain that oil company CEOs are overwhelmingly Republican! Give me a break!
And, hmmm, the other problem with recruiting reasonably intelligent right-wing profs is that the conservative think tanks offer more money and less work; and look at them! the idiots they hire are really "scraping the bottom of the barrel".
The money is there, the jobs are there; but the brains aren't.
My answer was quite clear...it didn't. I said that I was sick to death of the French whining and that frankly English Canada should pull all Federal money out of Quebec and build a Berlin (style)-Wall with razor wire along the top of it to surround the whole province. Then give them there own currency and be done with it.
Dude, that's an F-Worthy answer.
If you want to say that the class didn't help you improve your understanding, (which is a stupid way to phrase the question, I admit), you need toa rgue:
The class didn't help improve my understnading because I came in with fixed ideas and was unwilling to change my mind based on fact. For example, in the course, the argument of ..., failed to impress my position....
To get any sort of grade, first you need to answer the question, not pontificate on your opinion. Second, you need to refer to evidence, not assert what feels good. Finally, in making an argument, nobody cares how you feel. Surprise surprise, a professor who is a democrat doesn't give a damn about how you feel presonally on a poly sci paper. They're not there to say "awww, poor curval's sick to death of the naughty french canadians"; get your bellybutton out of the response and make a coherent argument based on evidence, not on your personal xenophobic reaction.
Then you can say "we should take all federal money out and fence in quebec". It's not about the conclusion; it's about how you reach the conclusions.
And if certain parties have serious logical problems, then the professors who teach such things aren't liable to be members of those parties, are they?
-
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
So professor jobs are kind of "self-selecting" for people who can't figure out how the real world works and want everybody to be as miserable as they are, i.e. Democrats.
-
Could it be that republicans dont want to teach. You know, something social, as opposed to opening dat bidness?
hardcase
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Dude, that's an F-Worthy answer.
If you want to say that the class didn't help you improve your understanding, (which is a stupid way to phrase the question, I admit), you need toa rgue:
The class didn't help improve my understnading because I came in with fixed ideas and was unwilling to change my mind based on fact. For example, in the course, the argument of ..., failed to impress my position....
To get any sort of grade, first you need to answer the question, not pontificate on your opinion. Second, you need to refer to evidence, not assert what feels good. Finally, in making an argument, nobody cares how you feel. Surprise surprise, a professor who is a democrat doesn't give a damn about how you feel presonally on a poly sci paper. They're not there to say "awww, poor curval's sick to death of the naughty french canadians"; get your bellybutton out of the response and make a coherent argument based on evidence, not on your personal xenophobic reaction.
Then you can say "we should take all federal money out and fence in quebec". It's not about the conclusion; it's about how you reach the conclusions.
And if certain parties have serious logical problems, then the professors who teach such things aren't liable to be members of those parties, are they?
I wasn't allowed to keep the paper, but I wish I had been able to because I would post it.
Your point is well taken...if what you take what I posted as being the major argument and ultimate conclusion of my answer in the exam.
I answered the specific question asked alright...even giving dates where the professor had disregarded my direct questions on points of fact during the classes...it wasn't hard to work out as we only had 4 lectures on the subject for the term (which only lasted about two and a half months).
But, he based my grade on much the same basis you did..which in your case is expected given that it was all I gave you to read. He had the whole thing...but focused only on the points I mentioned above.
My point was that he had HIS way of thinking about the issue and was expecting to hear it "parroted" back to him. He portrayed the French Canadians as the most exploited culture in the world. I disagreed with him and he hated that.
And, by the by...that happened many years ago. I don't need to hear how to get a grade in school anymore. I actually did quite well thanks. The school invited me to join their Masters program in Political Science but I decided to earn some money instead. While doing so I worked towards an accounting designation at night. This after 4 years of listening to puffed up liberal professors tell me what was wrong with the world.
-
Originally posted by Curval
The school invited me to join their Masters program in Political Science but I decided to earn some money instead.
wellllll how CONSERVATIVE of you. Why you should be executed you evil evil man. How dare you take care of yourself!!! Now what's the government supposed to do?!?!! It's a good thing you don't live in America! YOUR type aren't welcome here!!!!
Traitor!!!
:D
-
My older brother, recently retired from the military (Special Forces, pretty high-speed) decided to go into education. He is taking his first classes, and is now currently enrolled in a multiculturalism in education class. I asked him how things are going.
"Fine, but I need to find a rock to crawl under."
"Why?"
"My professor said that since I am white I am racist, and since I am male I am an oppressor, and there isn't a darn thing I can do about it."
"Pretty harsh."
"Tell me about it."
Yup, I hate to say it, but college academia has more than its share of brainwashers in it.
-
Ah, I understand completely, funked. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Therefore, teachers have no place in society. All they do is take away from the number of people doing, the lazy gits!
I think it may be possible to paraphrase DMF by saying that a large part of the process of becoming a professor in the first is proving that you indeed can.
I'd rather be taught before I have to do. Less likely to lose a hand, you know?
-
College professors are the people who couldn't make it in their respected fields.
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
If the problem does not lie within the hiring process, as you contend, then how does such a discrepancy in numbers take place?
[/B]
I'm not convinced there's a discrepancy in the first place. The author claims to have gone to 200 different colleges and universities? Did he draw a random sample of colleges and universities? Did he sample community colleges, public universities, private schools, religious and military institutions, etc? Which departments did he ask? Did he draw a random sample of those as well, or did he just ask certain departments?
The question of non-tenure vs. tenure hiring discrimination is incredibly easy to test statistically -- just do a means test between the average percentage who are Democratic and tenured vs. the average percentage who are Democratic and untenured. Did he do this? Why not? The data should be easy to come by given his "rigorous" collection practices.
If we really want to test this hypothesis, how about comparing the political affiliation of people in PhD programs to those employed as professors. Another difference of means test should tell us if things are out of sorts, or if in fact we have a self-selecting phenomenon going on. The fact that this author has failed to consider these possibilities, or to empirically test them tells me he's a roadkill shoveller preaching to a choir and nothing more.
Determining the political views of an applicant based on research papers published in a scientific or math journal would be difficult. Papers published on topics in the fields of government, history, or law, would be a dfferent matter entirely. How could an applicant keep his views completely hidden from a review board?
[/B]
My field is Political Science. How more "political" can you get than that? And yet, unless the author is frames things in a Marxist/classist ideology, it's extremely difficult to tell the political affiliation. I'd be happy to post some of my published articles for you so you can tell me what my political affiliation is based on them. Obviously, there are some academics who are very vocal and clear in their ideology, but usually this determines what they study rather than what they write or argue. There are exceptions to everything.
I maintain that there is something wrong somewhere, for in a completely objective system, there should be little or no disparity in numbers. One might believe a 60 to 40 percent difference, but 80 to 20 is hard to swallow. Such a discrepancy in hiring involving ethnic groups has spawned numerous lawsuits in the past. Lawsuits, I might add, that have been successfully prosecuted.
[/B]
Party affiliation is not ethnicity, and it's probably not accorded "protected" status. In any event, I find the notion of an 80/20 split ludicrous and poorly researched in the first place. Maybe the author would have done well to enter a PhD program to learn some research methodology.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Curval
My point was that he had HIS way of thinking about the issue and was expecting to hear it "parroted" back to him. He portrayed the French Canadians as the most exploited culture in the world. I disagreed with him and he hated that.
And I've never encountered this type of bias in many years at the undergraduate and graduate level. In fact, I used to challenge the professors I knew to be liberal-minded by giving answers that were contrary or problematic to their general framework. I was never once penalized for this, and in fact one of the professors I did this with wrote a recommendation letter for me for grad school.
Bad professors suck no matter what their political affiliation.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by fdiron
College professors are the people who couldn't make it in their respected fields.
Idiots are people who make sweeping generalizations based on an ignorant or incomplete understanding of how things actually work.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Well, I was brought up as a democrat. I was told by my mother that democrats help people by supporting better working conditions, health benefits, education, and support the blue collar worker. I was told that republicans cater to big business at the expense of the worker. Now I can tell you I don't agree with everything the democrats lobby for, and I disagree more with what the republicans lobby for. But both sides lobby for things that I stand for.The problem is there is no middle ground. Until there is a strong third party(that won't happen as long as the Dems and Repubs can help it), no middle ground can really be found. I disagree with the Dems as far as guns, disarm common people and let all the criminals have them? I disagree with the repubs, the pell grant for education is a great thing. We give immigrants cash and credit and other services, but we can't give a poor american a free community college education? I agree with the repubs on defense spending, I agree with the Dems on education spending. But in some states you are actually required to register as Dem or Repub, and have to vote along party lines. I believe the supreme court has an odd number of justices so there can be no tie and a decision can be made. It's time for third party to be truly recognized. The 80% dem professor thing, I have no idea. But to say it's a bunch of liberals colaborating,well, you sound like a paranoid anarchist.
-
College professors, representing the most highly educated Americans, ...
A professor is someone who is not employable in the normal work force, where skills are actually put to the test. If they where so skilled or smart, they would not be teaching, they would be producing.
Professors are failed at their own profession, LOL!
-
I think I'll side with DMF on this one.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
A professor is someone who is not employable in the normal work force, where skills are actually put to the test. If they where so skilled or smart, they would not be teaching, they would be producing.
[/B]
It's astounding how many in this thread show their ignorance of what exactly it is that professors do. While teaching is an important part of being a professor, just about every professor I know considers him or herself to be a researcher first and a teacher second.
Professors produce research that advances our understanding of the world.
Professors are failed at their own profession, LOL!
Yet another remarkably ignorant statement. Einstein was a professor. Would you consider him a failure? So is John Nash. Most of the medical research in this country is done by professors of medicine who willingly give up the possibility of millions of dollars per year in the private sector in order to pursue a research agenda. Many of the Supreme Court justices at some point served as law professors at prestigious universities. Condoleza Rice? Professor.
Failures indeed.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Yet another remarkably ignorant statement. Einstein was a professor. Would you consider him a failure? So is John Nash. Most of the medical research in this country is done by professors of medicine who willingly give up the possibility of millions of dollars per year in the private sector in order to pursue a research agenda. Many of the Supreme Court justices at some point served as law professors at prestigious universities. Condoleza Rice? Professor.
Einstein was one of the most brilliant minds of the past few hundred years, but not because he was a professor.
John Nash produced his "Nash Equilibrium" when he was 21 years old........ I believe before he was a professor.
I'm pretty sure most of mankind's great achievments have come from the minds non-professors.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Einstein was one of the most brilliant minds of the past few hundred years, but not because he was a professor.
[/B]
You have your cause and effect screwed up. Einstein was a brilliant mind, and because of that he chose to become a professor. Why? Because this was the perfect avenue for researching the sorts of things at which he excelled and enjoyed. And as a result the world benefitted from his willingness to publish research and encourage radical rethinking of mathematics and physics.
John Nash produced his "Nash Equilibrium" when he was 21 years old........ I believe before he was a professor.
[/B]
He produced this while earning his PhD with the intention of becoming a professor and professional researcher. He's also provided many, many more innovations beyond the Nash Equilibrium. Graduate school is an apprenticeship toward professorship; what do you think Nash was doing producing the paper that introduced the Nash Equilibrium? He was practicing the things that professors do -- namely researching and publishing papers with the intention of advancing our knowledge.
I'm pretty sure most of mankind's great achievments have come from the minds non-professors.
As very few people are, in fact, professors, you're probably right. But this does not validate your point.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
those that can do,
those that can't teach.
First, that's a truism.
Second, well it is partly true for professors. Good professors are researchers. Lousy ones fall back on their teaching.
Now, as far as teaching goes, yeah, there are good teachers and bad teachers in US universities; just as there are good officers and bad officers in the US military. But good or bad, one group overwhelming votes democrat, and the other republican. I don't see any calls that we promote more democrats through the ranks, or that they're being discriminated acgainst.
And I dunno. From my experience teaching in a large state university, if someone's actually capable of formulating an argument and giving a damn about the material they're supposed to be studying, neither I nor my colleagues give a damn what their political affiliation is. But it is true that the folks with prior military service do show up differently on our course enrollment sheets -- for Uncle Sam wants regular progress reports on them. And, yeah, I can confirm that we left-wing commie-lovin' university types have a general stereotype of those people: we want more of them in our classes. For some reason those guys know why the hell they're at a university, and aren't afraid to think for themselves.
-
Dudes, I hate to come down hard on ya, but this time i gotta.
I am a bit weary of the black and white world that prevails on this message board. It's basically WWI. Both sides are entrenched, sitting in their positions taking pot shots at the enemy, or attempting to storm 'um, knowing it is futile.
You'll have side A make a claim, side B rush to deny it. Side A's claim is nothing but pure speculation, and side B's answer is a rethoric full of innuendos, half truths and assertions presented like facts.
Being a skeptic (religously, politically, you name it), I need more than this.
First, present the facts, or something as near as facts as you can get. Example: if you drop a stone from a building on earth under normal circumstances, it drops to the ground.
Then, present your hypothesis. "The stone drops because of gravity. Gravity can be observed through . This is far better than "your side says that's it's a giant Martian that pushes it down, which is ridiculous, since we know it's a guy from Jupiter.
Then accept the weaknesses in your case. Here, any weakness is considered a defeat. Arguments have weaknesses; they do not destroy the argument unless it is a weak one.
Applying all this to the current discussion:
1) The 80% number. Present it as a fact only if you can support it.
2) Explanations to this number. Come up with a feasible hypothesis, or present it as a possible answer. Give supporting evidence
3) Conclude based on the additional facts/theories and numbers.
I do not believe the majority of Americans see it all from a black/white entrenched position. You guys are better and smarter than this, so go on, impress us semi-lurkers :).
-
Yet another remarkably ignorant statement. Einstein was a professor. Would you consider him a failure? So is John Nash. Most of the medical research in this country is done by professors of medicine who willingly give up the possibility of millions of dollars per year in the private sector in order to pursue a research agenda. Many of the Supreme Court justices at some point served as law professors at prestigious universities. Condoleza Rice? Professor.
Ok, so a hand full of professors were able to do something worth mentioning. Maybe in your magical fantasy land of a mind professors give up million dollar careers to share their knowledge with students, but thats not how it usually works. Every once in a while a University is able to snag somebody at the top of his field by funding his research (possibly in return for a teaching position).
Obviously since Einstein and Nash were accredited professors then everyone who teaches is brilliant. Something one of MY professors told me was to watch out for people who try to erroneously skew data in their favor.
-
Based on my experience in graduate school, I've got to agree with DMF. When our department was reviewing candidates, the most important things were the applicant's publications (and potential for future publications and obtaining research funding) and the impression that he or she made during the talk at which he or she presented his or her body of research to the department. Also, more than half of the students and faculty in my department were to the right of center on the political spectrum. That may have something to do with the fact that I was studying electrical engineering.
I suspect that if you survey the student body and faculty in a typical Philosophy, Political Science, or English department, you may find a quite different average political leaning. Also, in less objective fields of study (sorry for that sweeping generalization), one's political sway is more likely to manifest itself in one's writing and research. Thus, I believe that in those sorts of fields, it is more likely that candidates may be "filtered" based on where they lie on the political spectrum.
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by fdiron
Ok, so a hand full of professors were able to do something worth mentioning.
A handful? LOL
Galileo
René Descartes
Blaise Pascal
John Adams
Pierre and Marie Curie
Max Planck
Niels Bohr
Enrico Fermi
Alexander Fleming
Francis Crick
James Watson
Milton Friedman
Stephen Hawking
Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
Shall I continue?
-
Originally posted by myelo
A handful? LOL
Galileo
René Descartes
Blaise Pascal
John Adams
Pierre and Marie Curie
Max Planck
Niels Bohr
Enrico Fermi
Alexander Fleming
Francis Crick
James Watson
Milton Friedman
Stephen Hawking
Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
Shall I continue?
Myelo,
I am afraid you made the original statement about a "handfull" more reasonable by the use of the time frame your list spans. If you used names pertinant only to the last 20 years, your assertion would be more valid. By making such a short list span more than a couple of centuries you add validity to the handfull arguement rather than undermine it. ;)
I don't have a dog in that particular part of this thread, I just thought I'd point it out.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I am afraid you made the original statement about a "handfull" more reasonable by the use of the time frame your list spans. If you used names pertinant only to the last 20 years, your assertion would be more valid. By making such a short list span more than a couple of centuries you add validity to the handfull arguement rather than undermine it. ;)
The problem with asking someone to "list" names is that invariably we'll strive to provide names that are recognizable. The list of the most elite of the elite is always going to be short no matter profession. The fact is that a large number of professors have contributed immensely to society without making public names for themselves. A friend of mine's father is a Math professor at the University of Virginia, and his work on refraction/reflection dynamics has been used in the Hubble telescope and other land-based telescope systems.
Richard Neustadt in 1960 wrote a book on presidential power that has been required reading for all incoming administrations since Nixon. The fundamentals of power politics he lays out there have shaped the way presidential administrations conduct business.
Martha Joynt Kumar and Terry Sullivan, both political science professors, headed up a five year project to streamline the appointment process for presidential appointees. This effort resulted in Bush filling twice as many positions after the 2000 election as Clinton did after the 1992 election... in half the time.
I could go on, but why bother? It's ridiculous to think of any of these individuals as failures who produce nothing worthwhile, or who are professors because they are incompetent to do anything else.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Mav,
Point well made.
But as Todd indicated, when you consider the likely acumen of those that would make such a ridiculous statement that we are trying to refute in the first place, the challenge is to find names they will recognize. After all, rap singers, NASCAR point leaders, and the winner of Suvivor: Thailand are not really what we had in mind.
So I could have mentioned any number of contemporaries, such as Wolfgang Ketterle, Carl Weiman, Herbert Kroemer, Jack Kilby, Martinus Veltman, Gerardus ‘T Hooft, Arvid Carlsson, Paul Greengard, Eric Kandel, and Gunter Blobel… but I think you see the problem.
-
Todd,
Ummm who is it that makes that book "required reading" for all administrations since Nixon????? :confused:
Last I heard only sonmeone in a supervisory position OVER the employee could MAKE the employee perform a function like that. Your assertion indicates that the President, and the leaders of Congress and Senate have a boss other than the population of the United States. Just who might that be that assigns "required reading"??? :eek:
PS please don't use the hillary word. :p :p
-
This is the (air)coolest professor ever lived
inventor of the beetle (over 22 milion PRODUCED!!)
see link : http://www.schwab-kolb.com/porpr17.htm
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Ummm who is it that makes that book "required reading" for all administrations since Nixon????? :confused:
Don't be obtuse. :)
Nixon's chief of staff required new staff members who hadn't read the book to familiarize themselves with it (by his own admission to Neustadt). Though at this point, it's unlikely that any incoming staff members wouldn't have read Neustadt before joining a presidential administration.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
While DMF Mav and Myelo have a little intellectual mutual masterbation session let me just say that I don't think badly of all professors. I have only run across a few bad ones.
Even so most of 'em are still bleeding heart liberals.
:p
-
Originally posted by Curval
While DMF Mav and Myelo have a little intellectual mutual masterbation session let me just say that I don't think badly of all professors. I have only run across a few bad ones.
Even so most of 'em are still bleeding heart liberals.
:p
So you're saying mostly the smart, open-minded people are professors? ;) hehe
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
So you're saying mostly the smart, open-minded people are professors? ;) hehe
You are not trying to say that liberals are smart and open-minded, are you?
-
Originally posted by mietla
You are not trying to say that liberals are smart and open-minded, are you?
You're trying to say they aren't? ;)
Actually I have found most professors to be intelligent in their fields. Some actually are quite open-minded, allowing for debate/arguement counter to their ideas, allowing one to try to disprove their theory. I don't see them falling for the silly name-calling that I see go on in these boards. LOL, I find those that resort to using 'labels' and to namecalling far from 'open-minded' and intelligent. IMHO
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
But in some states you are actually required to register as Dem or Repub, and have to vote along party lines.
...s'cuse me? Please elaborate.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Einstein was a professor.....
-- Todd/Leviathn
:rolleyes: Everyone know's it was Einstiens wife who did all the work... sheesh :D
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Don't be obtuse. :)
Nixon's chief of staff required new staff members who hadn't read the book to familiarize themselves with it (by his own admission to Neustadt). Though at this point, it's unlikely that any incoming staff members wouldn't have read Neustadt before joining a presidential administration.
-- Todd/Leviathn
I am not being obtuse. I am just pointing out a falacy in your statement. here it is again if you have forgotten.
Richard Neustadt in 1960 wrote a book on presidential power that has been required reading for all incoming administrations since Nixon. The fundamentals of power politics he lays out there have shaped the way presidential administrations conduct business
This statement indicates you have exclusive knowledge of what reading material is "required" for ALL administrations since the Nixon era. I am still waiting for you to reveal just who it is that is "requiring" all administrations since Nixon read that book. I am very interested in who is able to mastermind this conspiracy to influence all these administrations. This implies a very great power. It is up to you, nay you are ethically obligated, to reveal this powerful figure / group! Share the knowledge that we all may be enlightened by your vast intimate knowledge of all these administrations.
-
Curvall,
How long have you had this obsession with masturbation? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Curvall,
How long have you had this obsession with masturbation? :rolleyes:
Since I was about fourteen...wait a minute, my name isn't Curval!
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I am not being obtuse. I am just pointing out a falacy in your statement. here it is again if you have forgotten.
Your inability to distinguish between a general statement of fact versus a specific one points to your obtuseness. When I say that Neustadt is "required reading," I'm pointing to the importance of his work in general, not to some specific conspiracy to require reading his work. LOL. And he's probably the first required reading on any list of books in a course on the presidency, so most people in any administration are already familiar with him.
Neustadt lays out a very specific framework for when to use presidential power, how it manifests itself, how to use it properly, and how to increase long-term power. The fact that this framework ostensibly works has endeared it to administrations. Obviously some administrations are better at this than others for a variety of reasons.
But I digress... this has little or nothing to do with the original thread, and it's some silly sidenote you've endeavored to create out of nothing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Without reading this whole thread (maybe this has been mentioned) it's worth looking at the classes offered at many universities.
I can tell you at OSU (Oregon State University) the Engineering department faculty is probably mostly Republican. (Both in the political leanings of the students and professors.) I'd venture a guess that the Physics department is the same. Most of the other departments are dominated by Democrats.
(LOL, I actually had to take a class on environmental issues where the professor called Dick Cheney "the most despicable man on the planet." :D )
-
Todd,
I'm still waiting for the source of your statement. I just have to know who is really running the country. I haven't gotten the experiance in conspiracies you know. :p :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Todd,
I'm still waiting for the source of your statement. I just have to know who is really running the country. I haven't gotten the experiance in conspiracies you know.
LOL See, the fact that you'd take what I'd written to mean some form of conspiracy shows just how completely obtuse you're being. :P
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I am not being obtuse. I am just pointing out a falacy in your statement. here it is again if you have forgotten.
Richard Neustadt in 1960 wrote a book on presidential power that has been required reading for all incoming administrations since Nixon. The fundamentals of power politics he lays out there have shaped the way presidential administrations conduct business
This statement indicates you have exclusive knowledge of what reading material is "required" for ALL administrations since the Nixon era. I am still waiting for you to reveal just who it is that is "requiring" all administrations since Nixon read that book. I am very interested in who is able to mastermind this conspiracy to influence all these administrations. This implies a very great power. It is up to you, nay you are ethically obligated, to reveal this powerful figure / group! Share the knowledge that we all may be enlightened by your vast intimate knowledge of all these administrations. [/B]
Here it is again for ya Todd. Your statement, accurately quoted I might add, certainly indicates that there is
1. A required reading list, or book to be specific.
2. All administrations since Nixon have had this requirement
3. All administrations since Nixon have complied witrh the books advice on how to perform governmental functions.
I am , and have been, asking for the source of this power you implied is present in the country to enforce the 3 statements you made in that paragraph.
Or you could just admit that you spoke "off the cuff" without any real knowledge in this matter at all. :rolleyes:
BTW your sidestepping and latter statements are certainly worthy of a career politician. When transfixed in a spotlight, simply attack the light or the one asking the questions. :p
-
ok ok , i admit i'm obtuse, but i'm going to start working out and i'm on a diet.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Here it is again for ya Todd. Your statement, accurately quoted I might add, certainly indicates that there is
1. A required reading list, or book to be specific.
2. All administrations since Nixon have had this requirement
3. All administrations since Nixon have complied witrh the books advice on how to perform governmental functions.
I am , and have been, asking for the source of this power you implied is present in the country to enforce the 3 statements you made in that paragraph.
[/B]
And yet again, you're confusing a general statement of fact with a specific one. Your conclusions here are based on a faulty premise that is due to a flaw in your logic.
The statement "required reading" was stated in general terms to accentuate the importance of this work. It does not mean that some teacher assigns reading assignments to the chief of staff as soon as he takes over.
The rest of your faulty conclusions fall apart when you consider that this was a general statement and not a specific one. Neustadt is important because his observations and suggestions ostensibly work. He suggests, for instance, that since most presidential "power" manifests itself as persuasion and not coercion, it is important for presidents to engage in activities that increase their political prestigue among other political actors inside the beltline. This is done by generating long-term political capital through initial, non-trivial legislative successes. The first six months of any administration are the most important part for determining power for the rest of the term.
Administrations since Nixon have followed this advice to varying degrees. Nixon's chief of staff overtly stated as much. George W. Bush's staff worked with Neustadt on planning the transition. Reagan is a case study in Neustadt-inspired political behavior.
Oh, and since Neustadt doesn't talk about how to undergo "government functions," your third point is also invalid.
Or you could just admit that you spoke "off the cuff" without any real knowledge in this matter at all.
[/B]
Or, conversely, I know quite a bit about what I'm talking about while you are moronically still trying to pick apart something by persistantly misunderstanding it. Are you intentionally being dense, or is this no act?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Todd,
You spoke in absolutes when you made that rather sophomoric statement. The fact that you do nothing but attack me personaly instead of the actual argument simply confirms you did not know what you were talking about. You did state required reading. You did state for every administration since Nixon. Please note I do not cast aspersions on your author, just your statements. Your last statements were written to indicate there is some "proof" to your claims but then you got "general" in stating your proof.
Those were not generalities. Since you are unwilling to see your own posts we are done. Have the last word if you want, it is immaterial. I "got your number" already. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Those were not generalities. Since you are unwilling to see your own posts we are done. Have the last word if you want, it is immaterial. I "got your number" already. :rolleyes:
Righto, Mr. Rolly Eyes (might wanna get that eye condition checked BTW).
I'd be happy to give you sources of the statement. They range from Neustadt himself (APSA Conference 1999 in Atlanta) to Martha Joynt Kumar (who led a panel discussion with every chief of staff since Nixon except Dick Cheney circa 2000; C-SPAN aired portions of it) to interviews with staff and chiefs of staff via the White House 2001 Project.
Again, that you even believed this was about "getting my number" in the first place proves irrefutably my observations as to your obtuseness and nitpicking. Grow up.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by bloom25
I can tell you at OSU (Oregon State University) the Engineering department faculty is probably mostly Republican. (Both in the political leanings of the students and professors.) I'd venture a guess that the Physics department is the same. Most of the other departments are dominated by Democrats.
Does the Engineering Dept mine the perimeter??
-
Seems to me it must kind of go like this:
Q: Have your ever smoked pot?
A: Yes, but I never inhaled....
Congratulations, your hired!
Q: Have your ever smoked pot?
A: No, and I never intend to.
Next, Please....