Please don't vote...

Originally posted by Stratos: Academics are part of the real world just like anybody else. Sure, there are some real fanatics out there hellbent on proving their ideology, but those are not limited to academia.

Actually no they are not. In many ways Academia shields one from what is the real world, you live or work in small usually sheltered communities and students are to some degree sheltered from the real world presures and realities...as a person who has lived in both worlds and am now as an adult back in school part time...I can assure you...the kids who are in college now DO NOT experience the real world the same as those who have to go out and make it "the real world" Students always argue about how experienced and traveled they are...but untill they shed the protections of "The System" they are not experienced....and that will be my final answer on this issue as I know we are about to get flooded with studi who are going to argue how experienced and wise and mature they are [img]smile.gif[/img]


[ 10-19-2004, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[VulcanRider]

Originally posted by Lucern: by "Political Ideology" http://web.utk.edu/~dhouston/psc101/opintab2.pdf by "Highest Degree" http://web.utk.edu/~dhouston/psc101/opintab4.pdf

Hmmm. Thanks for the links. I've only scanned a couple but I see some interesting reading ahead. One thing I noticed, if you look at "opintab5.pdf" the questions are broken down by income level, and as income increases, answers become more conservative. That supports my personal feelings that when people become more knowledgeable about how social programs are paid for, and see what results they're (not!) getting from the 30, 40, or 50% of their income taken as tax dollars, they're less inclined to have more & more of that $$ taken from them, and they start voting against those programs. I'd assumed that since higher education generally leads to higher income, "opintab4 -- by degree" would show the same result.

[Dirty Meg]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Stratos: Academics are part of the real world just like anybody else. Sure, there are some real fanatics out there hellbent on proving their ideology, but those are not limited to academia.

Actually no they are not. In many ways Academia shields one from what is the real world, you live or work in small usually sheltered communities and students are to some degree sheltered from the real world presures and realities...as a person who has lived in both worlds and am now as an adult back in school part time...I can assure you...the kids who are in college now DO NOT experience the real world the same as those who have to go out and make it "the real world" Students always argue about how experienced and traveled they are...but untill they shed the protections of "The System" they are not experienced....and that will be my final answer on this issue as I know we are about to get flooded with studi who are going to argue how experienced and wise and mature they are [img]smile.gif[/img]
[/QUOTE]Obviously, somebody who goes straight from school into higher education is going to have different experiences of the world than someone who started working at 16, but it is no less 'real' than the world of getting a job and mortgage. It is extraordinarilly arrogant to believe you hold a monopoly on reality. Whether you work or are in full-time education, you are still part of "The System" (whatever that is).
I'm not a student, but I'm not sure what you have against them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by MagiK: That would be very true...IF the people teaching in higer education venues were not already biased [img]smile.gif[/img] they have already fallen and succumbed to liberalism...in general theirs is knowledge with no real experience in life...too many educators have never been anything else, have never experienced anything other than academia. It's kind of like that snake that keeps eating it's tail. Edit: note: I did admit that this is a generalization.

That's quite amusing.

I know several professors whom I love dearly and who I know I can go to for advice. People come to me for advice, mind you, so I know who to go to for advice. Some of the wisest and smartest people I know are professors. I wouldn't go to some recluse who's never "lived" for advice.

And guess what? They happen to be liberal.

As for "succumbed to liberalsim" and the other language used here... Do you need to be such a prick? It is NOT your place to deride the beliefs of others. There's been a lot of liberal bashing here lately, and I'm really sick of it.

[Aerich]

Most of the professors I know (and respect) actually have quite a wide variety of life experiences, above and beyond the Ivory Tower. And they tend to be very intelligent people who can analyse and cut through much of the bull that is out there, on any issue under the sun.

I've noted elsewhere that "liberalism" seems to mean different things in the USA (and possibly in academic vs. "real world" circles) than it does elsewhere in the world. Many of the virtues of conservatism that you trumpet, MagiK, are direct descendents of the classical liberal tradition; individualism and merit-based opportunity being two of them. So you have 18th and 19th century liberal academics to thank for certain aspects of your worldview.

I don't contest that there are many wierdos out there with doctorate degrees. Academia can be a haven for people whose grip on the real world is rather tenuous. However, to discount the enormous reserve of experience and intelligence in the academic world and insinuate that all (or most) of the people teaching higher education have "fallen into the trap" does them a great disservice. One might think that you are accusing professors of not being able to think for themselves, draw real conclusions, or observe and experience life as you know it. Isn't it possible that they may have discovered something that you haven't?

Further, we've run into another language problem here. There is such a range of opinion encapsulated in the word "liberal" that it is a crime to simplify it all down to one word. There are as many or more different degrees and shades of political opinion within academic circles as there are outside of it.

[Lucern]

Hmmm. Thanks for the links. I've only scanned a couple but I see some interesting reading ahead. One thing I noticed, if you look at "opintab5.pdf" the questions are broken down by income level, and as income increases, answers become more conservative. That supports my personal feelings that when people become more knowledgeable about how social programs are paid for, and see what results they're (not!) getting from the 30, 40, or 50% of their income taken as tax dollars, they're less inclined to have more & more of that $$ taken from them, and they start voting against those programs. I'd assumed that since higher education generally leads to higher income, "opintab4 -- by degree" would show the same result.

Well said VulcanRider. I'm glad you checked out 5, as I intended to mention it. As income grows, you find increasing support for conservative viewpoints, particularly economic ones vs social ones (though that's there to some degree as there is on the other side). Statistically, one begins to favor one's income over policy, and who can blame 'em? That 'opintab4.pdf' is different, I'd say is a function of years of education having a positive (quantitatively, not qualitatively) liberalizing** effect. We should also consider that education does have an effect on an individual's income over the course of a lifetime, BUT the vast majority of wealth, and I mean class defining wealth, comes from 1) Marriage, and 2) Inheritance, according to sociology classes I've had.* Thus it's possible to have money and little education, as it's possible to have lots of education and little money hehe.

There's so many things going on here, and it's cool once you do the "multivariate analysis" that gives you an equation for a data set that lets you see the effect of income, gender, education, age, etc on something like political ideology. Each variable has a coefficient of effect, and each statistic like gender or income has one coefficient. That's right: it's boiled down to a number. If we're calculating chance of liberal support in a population: age, income, and male genders generally have a decreasing effect (like my grandpa's motor-home community lol), whereas female gender, years of education, and minority status have a liberalizing effect.

It can be complicated/convoluted, but it's worth it, or at least reading the works of others who've done it if you have any interest in this stuff. As for all of this real life vs isolated academics, I should just mention (as a social science major) that there is way more out there in 'the real world' that isn't obvious simply by living in it. Take the first footnote for example.

*That is to say, it's a commonly held American myth that the norm is to work up to great wealth: to pull yourself up from your bootstraps. That happens, don't get me wrong! We have plenty of examples of that - but note that we do take the time to notice stories like that. It happens every day on the stock market, but they're nothing more than a statistical abnormality when we look at the whole of society. For every lottery winner, member of a Board of a corporation, and success story on the cover of Forbes, there are scores of people who simply inherit it or marry into it. For each of those, there are hundreds that inherit or marry into their current socialeconomic standings. Doesn't hurt to try though right? lol

**good point about the relative term Liberal (and unmentioned: Conservative). This is determined by self-appointment in the links I believe.

[ 10-20-2004, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

[Stratos]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Stratos: Academics are part of the real world just like anybody else. Sure, there are some real fanatics out there hellbent on proving their ideology, but those are not limited to academia.

Actually no they are not. In many ways Academia shields one from what is the real world, you live or work in small usually sheltered communities and students are to some degree sheltered from the real world presures and realities...as a person who has lived in both worlds and am now as an adult back in school part time...I can assure you...the kids who are in college now DO NOT experience the real world the same as those who have to go out and make it "the real world" Students always argue about how experienced and traveled they are...but untill they shed the protections of "The System" they are not experienced....and that will be my final answer on this issue as I know we are about to get flooded with studi who are going to argue how experienced and wise and mature they are [img]smile.gif[/img]
[/QUOTE]Exactly what is the 'real world', and how are academics somehow seperated from it? Is, say, a carpenter, cleaner or a lawyer closer to the real world? What are the 'real world pressures'? Bills, debts and traffic jams? Don't we all suffer those?

Any seperation from the 'real world' is self-imposed, both for academics and for everyone else.

LOL hehehe as I predicted

Edit: Just to clear up a misconception...I did not say I had anything against people in school., I didn't say I didn't like my profs. I didn't say anyone was a less valuable member of society. And while I was generalizing that always compels people to try and come up with exceptions to the generalization....try to do an apples to apples comparison [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh and someone mentioned about people going straight from highschool into college...well yeah, thats who I am talking about as these are the vast majority of the people who live in the world of academia. And for every professor you point to who had a "Varried and wide ranging life" I can show you ten others who have never done anything but teach, or write books.....or both.
Nothing wrong with that mind you...but it does limit the scope and depth of a balanced life...they tend to focus soley on their field of expertise.


[ 10-20-2004, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: As for "succumbed to liberalsim" and the other language used here... Do you need to be such a prick? It is NOT your place to deride the beliefs of others. There's been a lot of liberal bashing here lately, and I'm really sick of it.

Welcome to the club, Illumina. Ever since the Iraq War, there has been a butt-load of "conservative-bashing" on this forum. It finally got to the point that I had to take a self-imposed leave for about 3 months cause I just couldn't stomach it anymore.

I respect your opinion, but forgive me if I don't exhibit a lot of sympathy for the supposed "liberal bashing" going on. But (just for kicks and giggles) would you care to point out some specific examples of to back up your case? (aside from the one you responded to)

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Stratos: Exactly what is the 'real world', and how are academics somehow seperated from it? Is, say, a carpenter, cleaner or a lawyer closer to the real world? What are the 'real world pressures'? Bills, debts and traffic jams? Don't we all suffer those? Any seperation from the 'real world' is self-imposed, both for academics and for everyone else.

Not necessarily, Stratos. I agree that Magik has a point - to a certain degree.

First of all, there is a HUGE difference between being a college student and being out in the "real world" humping it every day. The average college student is NOT paying their own grocery bills, car payment, insurance, utility bills or mortgage payment. The parents have to pay all those regular bills AND find the several thousand extra dollars necessary to send their kid to school. Many students DO work jobs in school, but very few are earning more than spending money - and the parents usually send extra spending money to help with that. Grants and financial aid help a lot and some students (such as myself) do Work Study where part of our financial aid is "earned" by working a job on campus. I did ALL of that. I had Work Study, financial aid and I worked at McD's during my entire college career. But I still had no clue how much money it cost to actually survive once I was on my own.

Professors are also somewhat "insulated" against the real world. Regardless of whether we have a recession or not, thier jobs and pay scale are still going to be relatively secure. The only effect a recession has on them are the prices they pay for goods and how well or poorly their stocks do (I was a Marketing/Financial Planning major and ALL of my profs invested heavily in stocks). The fact is that - unless a prof makes a REALLY egregious error (such as failing a student for not sleeping with them) OR they have a very LONG litany of complaints filed against them year after year, they are NOT going to be fired from their jobs. One of the profs I had was a young Iranian who had a penchant for dating several of the girls in his class. He finally got in hot water when he started criticizing those that would NOT go out with him in front of the entire class (but he still didn't lose his job). Another prof had several complaints filed against him by students on their Evaluation forms and some taken directly to the Administer of Business Education because of his highly subjective grading curve (90% of the class ended up with averages 1 point below the next grade up - coincidence? I don't THINK so). Still, it took well over 5 years of continuous complaints before he was finally canned by the school.

As for healthcare, university employees almost always qualify for the State Health benefits and these are almost ALWAYS the most affordable programs with the best benefits.

Professors (to a large degree) share the same type of garuanteed job security as doctors. First of all, it takes a LOT to get them "fired" in the first place (especially if they have gained tenure). Secondly, even if they do lose a position at one facility, there are literally hundreds of others where they can go and be working again in very short notice. Economics professors may pontificate on the effects of the recession, but very few of them actually have to worry about losing their jobs due to the university "downsizing" or exporting their job overseas.

I will disagree with the esteemed Magik Man in that most of the profs I studied under HAD actually worked out in the "real world". The Head of the Econ/Finance Dept was a successful stockbroker. The Head of the Management Department had spent many years in the private sector and even worked overseas for one of his companies. Most others had similar experiences in Corporate America or the private sector before entering the world of Academia. And I think even THEY would agree that one of the primary bonuses of BEING a professor is that it provides a somewhat unique "job security" and it DOES insulate them from the full effects of the social and economic policies and climates.

Whether the stock market is up or down, whether Saddam stays in power or we run him out, whether the economy enters a big recession or is booming - Professors are GOING to have a job paying a pretty good wage and providing excellent benefits. So, yeah, to a point, they ARE protected from the "real world" more than the average working Joe.