‘Go to Berkeley’: Ron DeSantis said students seeking ‘woke’ classes should study elsewhere

[keith99]

View attachment 373944


“If you want to do things like gender ideology, go to (the University of California) Berkeley,” DeSantis added. “There’s nothing wrong with that, per se, but for us with our tax dollars, we want to focus on the classical mission of what a university is supposed to be.”

“What this does is reorient our universities back to their traditional mission and part of that traditional mission is to treat people as individuals, not to try to divvy them up based on any type of superficial characteristics,” DeSantis said.

US Rank 2026	WUR Rank 2026	University	Overall	Teaching	Research Environment	Research Quality	Industry	International Outlook
1	2	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	97.7	99.2	95.3	99.6	100	91.9
2	=3	Princeton University	97.2	98.2	97.3	99	98	85.4
=3	=5	Harvard University	97.1	95.9	100	98.9	86.7	88.3
=3	=5	Stanford University	97.1	97.5	97.4	99.5	100	83.9
5	7	California Institute of Technology	96.3	96.4	97.4	96.8	100	87.9
6	9	University of California, Berkeley	94.4	87.3	99	98.9	99.5	83.9
7	10	Yale University	94.1	94.6	94.5	97.2	87.6	81.4

1) According to the TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS, the University of California (Berkeley) ranks 6th among US universities and 9th in the world!

2) Two other California universities actually rank ahead of Berkeley, the California Institute of Technology and Stan ford (tied with Harvard) rank 5th and 3rd for US universities - 7th and 6th worldwide!

3) A total of 9 universities in California were slotted ahead of the University of Florida (44th) - the highest ranked university in that state!

3rd - Stanford University (5th worldwide)
5th - California Institute of Technology (7th worldwide)
6th - University of California Berkeley (9th worldwide)
11th - University of California Los Angeles ranks (18th worldwide)
22nd - University of California San Diego ranks 22nd (47th worldwide)
25th - University of California Davis 25th (64th worldwide)28th - University of California Santa Barbara (72nd worldwide)
29th - University of Southern California (73rd worldwide)
35th - University of California Irvine (97th worldwide)

44th - University of Florida (134th worldwide)

4) Apparently Governor DeSantis has decided to start his 2028 Presidental Campaign early but he's finally learned the hard way not to renew his fight with Disney!

5) Now he's decided to take a page out of President Trump's playbook, he's picking a fight with the universities - threatening to establish his own accreditation board as a means of forcing Florida's institutions to comply!

6) Florida's Governor has assumed the role of determining what can/can't be taught in that state's institutions for the express purpose "to focus on the classical mission of what a university is supposed you be!"

7) Someone should inform the Governor that try as he might, he can't recapture his idyllic version of "THE GOOD OLD DAYS" and that the 1950's are not about to make a comeback anytime soon!

8) DeSantis' comments directed at Berkeley, that supposed "bastion of woke," are all the more misguided, given that the Governor has unintentionally issued an open invitation to compare Florida's public universities with those of California - a state where the Governor has made no attempt to impose his will on what is being taught!

9) As previously stated, the "Times Higher Education World University Rankings"
places the University of California Berkeley as the 6th best university in America and 9th in the World - in fact, California has currently placed 3 universities in the Top 10 in the world (2 public, 1 private)!

10) California also has 9 universities (7 public, 2 private) that rank in the Top 35 nationally and all are included within the Top 100 internationally!

11) Compare "woke" California where all 9 universities are ranked ahead of the highest placed university in Florida, where no institution of higher learning, public or private, managed to be included among the Top 100 worldwide!

44th - University of Florida (134th worldwide)
56th - University of Miami (private)(201-250 worldwide)
66th - Florida State University (301-350 worldwide)
74th - University of South Florida (351-400 worldwide)
80th - Florida International University (401-500 worldwide)

12) Many of Florida's universities, both private and public, are better known for their football program than academics!

13) In 2023, Governor DeSantis set aside $1 million in pubic funds to finance a Florida State University's (FSU) legal challenge directed at the College Football Playoff Committee when FSU wasn't included as one of the playoff teams that year!

Top Universities in the US 2026 - US College Rankings

Discover the best colleges in the US according to the Times Higher Education’s trusted World University Rankings. This list highlights the which universities in the US excel in teaching, research, and global influence. The Times Higher Education US college rankings are based on a trusted...

www.timeshighereducation.com

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Sets Aside $1 Million For FSU's Legal Battles Against CFP

The outrage in Tallahassee isn't limited to just supporters and fans of the program.

www.si.com

‘Go to Berkeley’: Ron DeSantis said students seeking ‘woke’ classes should study elsewhere

'We want to focus on the classical mission of what a university is supposed to be.'

floridapolitics.com

TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS, the University of California (Ber

“If you want to do things like gender ideology, go to (the University of California) Berkeley,” DeSantis added. “There’s nothing wrong with that, per se, but for us with our tax dollars, we want to focus on the classical mission of what a university is supposed to be.”

“What this does is reorient our universities back to their traditional mission and part of that traditional mission is to treat people as individuals, not to try to divvy them up based on any type of superficial characteristics,” DeSantis said.

Notice that Cal Tech is the only truly small school on the list! There is a bias against small schools and an even greater bias against colleges where teaching rather than research is the emphasis. My guess is if smaller schools get looked at the contrast between California and Florida increases. Pomona and Harvey Mudd both are excellent, but small. Heck all the Clairmont Colleges are probably better than anything in Florida. Along with Occidental and a couple of San Diego area small colleges.

Cal Tech, undefeated in Football for the last 40 years!

 

[BCP1928]

While it may not interfere with someone learning STEM. It does interfere with "the normal college experience" for some of the students.

And while it may only be a minority who would actually light a dumpster on fire to prevent an Ann Coulter speech from taking place...

Overall, attitudes toward "squashing free speech that I don't like" are more than just a small minority.

UC Berkeley students, faculty evaluate campus free speech climate

While the topic of free speech is intertwined with UC Berkeley’s legacy, it has recently become a particular source of concern on campus and across the nation.

www.dailycal.org

UC Berkeley’s Free Speech Identity Crisis | Berkeley Political Review

“Speech is not violence. The Left conflates the two in order to justify its own violent reactions to differing points of view.” Michael Knowles “I go to UC Berkeley…” Usually, when a Berkeley student utters these words to those who aren’t lucky enough to attend our university, they are met with...

bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu

A campus culture of more than just a few outliers being intolerant of "anything but the most progressive viewpoint" was evidently enough of a problem, and some Senior faculty recognized it was something that needed to be addressed in the form of a brand new course called "Openness to Opposing Views"

It sounds like you think Universities should be citadels of some slate of "traditional American values" that you are imagining.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It sounds like you think Universities should be citadels of some slate of "traditional American values" that you are imagining.

No, I actually think they should aim to be either as balanced as possible (where every viewpoint gets a seat at the table for healthy debate) in the "soft sciences" & humanities, and as values-neutral as possible in the hard sciences.

There's been a noticeable shift on that between 1994 and present day.

And mind you, this was all pre-Trump in this chart. (because I've heard the rationale given that Academia has become more galvanized in progressivism as a response to Trump)

This big shift happened over the time period where Republicans were pretty vanilla. (Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were all about as provocative as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on white bread)

If both political viewpoints were getting equal time and equal access to the proverbial "town square", I would expect the results to look more like the 1994 results, and not like the 2015 results.

 

[iluvatar5150]

No, I actually think they should aim to be either as balanced as possible (where every viewpoint gets a seat at the table for healthy debate) in the "soft sciences" & humanities, and as values-neutral as possible in the hard sciences.

There's been a noticeable shift on that between 1994 and present day.
View attachment 373972

And mind you, this was all pre-Trump in this chart. (because I've heard the rationale given that Academia has become more galvanized in progressivism as a response to Trump)

This big shift happened over the time period where Republicans were pretty vanilla. (Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were all about as provocative as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on white bread)

If both political viewpoints were getting equal time and equal access to the proverbial "town square", I would expect the results to look more like the 1994 results, and not like the 2015 results.

Those charts show that the growth in liberal votes came predominantly from the ranks of the “mixed”. From 1994-2015, conservatives lost some ground among people with graduate degrees and a HS diploma, but stayed about the same with “some college” and college degrees.

Maybe there’s something about contemporary conservatism that turns off people who’d previously been moderates.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Those charts show that the growth in liberal votes came predominantly from the ranks of the “mixed”. From 1994-2015, conservatives lost some ground among people with graduate degrees and a HS diploma, but stayed about the same with “some college” and college degrees.

Maybe there’s something about contemporary conservatism that turns off people who’d previously been moderates.

Or they're only being given one viewpoint.

If it was purely case where something about conservatism was turning moderates off, then the pattern wouldn't be more pronounced the longer they stay in college, correct?

If there's something about conservativism that's off-putting to moderates, then I wouldn't expect having a PhD vs. a Bachelors to impact that the way the chart reflects.

I'd venture a guess and say that most college kids on the Master's and PhD path in public colleges aren't getting exposed to a whole lot of conservatism to begin with. However, they probably are getting exposed to a lot of "conservatives are evil" rhetoric while they're there.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Or they're only being given one viewpoint.

If it was purely case where something about conservatism was turning moderates off, then the pattern wouldn't be more pronounced the longer they stay in college, correct?

If there's something about conservativism that's off-putting to moderates, then I wouldn't expect having a PhD vs. a Bachelors to impact that the way the chart reflects.

Did you go to college? That sounds jerky, but I don't mean it that way. I ask, because the way you talk about college suggests that you haven't, or that maybe you got an Associates or tech degree and aren't around many people who went much farther than that. What you keep describing is sort of the right-wing media caricature of college, not the reality.

The driver of this educational sorting isn't folks only being given one viewpoint in school. College typically isn't that formative and by the time you're doing graduate work, you're doing a lot of independent study. The drivers are largely cultural - what I would describe as a culture of institutional professionalism.

What I mean by that is not as lofty as it might come off - what I mean is that the Dems have become the party that embodies how you're supposed to act in an office. Some of that is good (e.g. appreciation of data and meritocracy); some of it is bad (e.g. weak and out of touch leadership, gerontocracy, too accepting of bureaucracy); but it all maps cleanly onto "college educated." The Republicans, OTOH, have gone the other direction by appealing to a more instinct-driven, boorish, conspiratorial type that's really out of place in a big office, but a lot more common amongst the entrepreneurial, small business set. Yes, the longer you're in college, especially if you're pursuing a graduate degree, the more likely you are to become acculturated to this form of professionalism and expect it of leaders.

Your data may precede Trump, but it doesn't precede the cultural shifts that facilitated his ascension. He doesn't win a primary in a party that's not already primed to swallow a bunch of wackadoo garbage. What that graph says to me is that about 20% of the population is conservative to the core and will always vote that way. The group in the middle floats, but has, over time, moved left. I'm also noticing now that nearly all of the shift left came between 1994-2004. Between 2004-2015, the left only picked up a couple points, while the right picked up a lot from the "mixed." I'm kind of surprised at the timing of that shift given W's electoral successes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Did you go to college? That sounds jerky, but I don't mean it that way. I ask, because the way you talk about college suggests that you haven't, or that maybe you got an Associates or tech degree and aren't around many people who went much farther than that. What you keep describing is sort of the right-wing media caricature of college, not the reality.

Yes, I went to college, I have a Computer Science degree from a public university. I'm from Ohio, so obviously it's probably a far cry from present day UC campuses...but none the less.

Graduated in 2004.

If I came of age now instead of then, I would've just gone the certification route. But back then, the corporate culture was very much "if you want a white collar desk job (even in IT), gotta have that degree"

The driver of this educational sorting isn't folks only being given one viewpoint in school. College typically isn't that formative and by the time you're doing graduate work, you're doing a lot of independent study. The drivers are largely cultural - what I would describe as a culture of institutional professionalism.

I would disagree, there is that period of time where you put College instructors on a pedestal and feel like they're the "smartest people you've ever met", and that creates an inclination to want to mimic them in ways that aren't affiliated with their area of subject matter expertise.

Fun Fact: One of the instructors I had in a Java class (who I did look up to at one point) ended up being a co-worker who was a rung beneath me on the ladder) 8 years later. I was a Sr Dev at the time, they got hired in as an App Dev II. It sort of "pulled the curtain back" a bit. I didn't have to call them "Mr." anymore, and they had to come to me for guidance and info.

What I mean by that is not as lofty as it might come off - what I mean is that the Dems have become the party that embodies how you're supposed to act in an office. Some of that is good (e.g. appreciation of data and meritocracy); some of it is bad (e.g. weak and out of touch leadership, gerontocracy, too accepting of bureaucracy); but it all maps cleanly onto "college educated." The Republicans, OTOH, have gone the other direction by appealing to a more instinct-driven, boorish, conspiratorial type that's really out of place in a big office, but a lot more common amongst the entrepreneurial, small business set. Yes, the longer you're in college, especially if you're pursuing a graduate degree, the more likely you are to become acculturated to this form of professionalism and expect it of lead

To be more specific, Democrats have become the party that embodies the HR department of the office environment.

You go into meetings involving the top brass, there's some very cut-throat republican economic thinking, or have an environment where it's "just the boys", there's a lot of that "locker room talk" if you catch my drift.

Your data may precede Trump, but it doesn't precede the cultural shifts that facilitated his ascension. He doesn't win a primary in a party that's not already primed to swallow a bunch of wackadoo garbage. What that graph says to me is that about 20% of the population is conservative to the core and will always vote that way. The group in the middle floats, but has, over time, moved left. I'm also noticing now that nearly all of the shift left came between 1994-2004. Between 2004-2015, the left only picked up a couple points, while the right picked up a lot from the "mixed." I'm kind of surprised at the timing of that shift given W's electoral successes.

He won the primary because they had a bunch of people up there and the "sanity" vote was split between a dozen other people.

Armed with the information that there's a solid 20-30% of people who will lock into the most zany option available, it serves a party well to make sure that the other 70% isn't split 12 ways.



Basically, what I think is happening is a cultural/ideological capture of what's perceived to be "intelligent", with regards to the modern college environment.

The people who hold the keys to knowledge can shape other people (and societal perceptions) by having a system in which people have to enter their preferred bubble/echo chamber for an extended period of time in order to be the benefactor of a "knowledge hand-off". And after a certain period of time, people start to associate that ideology with intelligence.

It's not unlike the early church. There was a time when the only access for learning to read, getting access to certain books, or attaining other forms of knowledge was isolated to those entering the seminary to become members of the clergy. That was no accident.

If "the smartest guy in the room" is (99% of the time) someone from a particular ideological framework, it's only a matter of time before large parts of the general public associates that ideology with intelligence, and gaining knowledge comes saddled with sitting through years of their overall sales pitch, and like with anything, there is a percentage of people who are susceptible to sales pitches.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Maybe there’s something about contemporary conservatism that turns off people who’d previously been moderates.

It is increasingly counter-factual.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I would disagree, there is that period of time where you put College instructors on a pedestal and feel like they're the "smartest people you've ever met", and that creates an inclination to want to mimic them in ways that aren't affiliated with their area of subject matter expertise.

I have never met anybody who felt that way, or at least who expressed it to me. Not in my multiple passes through school. Not among all my friends and co-workers who frequently talk about college (I've worked with a few different groups of people who went to school with each other). Not among my friends and neighbors who teach or otherwise work at universities. Not among my wife's faculty and grad students at her university jobs. Not among all the folks who've come through my different churches that have been within walking distance of elite universities. I've only ever seen that kind of thing on TV.

Actually, that's not true. I also see it among fans of certain media personalities. But I've never seen it directed at a professor. I'm sure it's happened, but IME, it's quite rare.

To be more specific, Democrats have become the party that embodies the HR department of the office environment.

You go into meetings involving the top brass, there's some very cut-throat republican economic thinking, or have an environment where it's "just the boys", there's a lot of that "locker room talk" if you catch my drift.

Not just the HR dept, though they're definitely included.

I, as a white collar professional, look at the Democratic party and I see something familiar. I see a range of people, mostly trying to accomplish certain things, mostly trying to figure out the right ways to do it, mostly trying to not be jerks about it, often shooting themselves in the foot in one way or another, but mostly well-meaning and trying to head in the right direction. They're largely mission-oriented, or at least they believe themselves to be.

Then I look at the Republicans and I'm genuinely puzzled. I don't even know why anybody finds their whole affect appealing. Romney, McCain, and the other old school guys, I get. I can even understand the appeal of a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul, even if I think they're full of it.
The whole MAGA culture, though, is about leaning hard into being a sycophantic jerk. Maybe that would fly in upper management, but among the rank and file, it's just bizarre.

For most people, college is only 4 years. That's a fairly small amount of time; and for that short amount of time, most folks are focused on getting through their major so they can get a job. Most people's perspective on the world isn't shaped entirely there. It's shaped while they're working, in jobs. Most of the people polled in that survey were not in college. If the survey was representative of the whole population, then they would have mostly been out of college for a long time.

Republican culture, especially MAGA culture doesn't fly at all in jobs that require a college degree. I think that's the bigger driver in why college educated folks have turned away from them.

He won the primary because they had a bunch of people up there and the "sanity" vote was split between a dozen other people.

That's not really true - or at least, it's certainly not a given. Trump did very well from the beginning. Cruz and Rubio were the #2 and #3 for most of the race, with the lion's share of the remaining votes; and there were a number of states where he beat their combined tally. And even in the states where he didn't beat their combined score, there were a bunch where he wasn't that far back. They'd often get something like 45-50% while he got 35-40%. If Rubio had dropped out, Cruz would've picked up some of his voters, but not all of them. He might have been able to squeak out a win, but it would've been close. After Rubio dropped out, Cruz did well in a handful of mid-western and mountain states, but then got stomped the rest of the way.

2016 Republican Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically, what I think is happening is a cultural/ideological capture of what's perceived to be "intelligent", with regards to the modern college environment.

The people who hold the keys to knowledge can shape other people (and societal perceptions) by having a system in which people have to enter their preferred bubble/echo chamber for an extended period of time in order to be the benefactor of a "knowledge hand-off". And after a certain period of time, people start to associate that ideology with intelligence.

It's not unlike the early church. There was a time when the only access for learning to read, getting access to certain books, or attaining other forms of knowledge was isolated to those entering the seminary to become members of the clergy. That was no accident.

If "the smartest guy in the room" is (99% of the time) someone from a particular ideological framework, it's only a matter of time before large parts of the general public associates that ideology with intelligence, and gaining knowledge comes saddled with sitting through years of their overall sales pitch, and like with anything, there is a percentage of people who are susceptible to sales pitches.

I agree that there's a capture of the perception of intelligence. I disagree on why/how.

Frankly, what you described is, IME, how dumb people treat intelligence. That "keys to knowledge" phenomenon is what I witnessed in fans of certain media personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Dave Ramsey. I'm sure it applies to some younger streamers now, but I don't keep up with them. I don't see intelligent people seeing a single person or group of people as having the keys to anything. Intelligent people might have preferred sources or commentators, but they don't treat these folks as some sort of oracle on whose every word they hang.

If college taught us anything, it wasn't that "the smartest guy in the room" was always a lib. What it taught us was the process for learning and discovering knowledge. How to find and evaluate information; how to construct an argument; how to develop a plan to achieve a goal; etc. And for the last decade+, the only party that has embraced that ethos at all has been the Dems.

Dems have captured the "intelligence" vote because the Republicans have abandoned it.

What was the last real policy idea developed by Republicans? Ignoring the wars, W had No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D. Those may have had mixed results, but I'll give him an A for effort. Since then, what? (I'm ignoring both parties' responses to crises like the 2008 crash and COVID, since they weren't planned) They were almost exclusively obstructionist throughout Obama's presidency; didn't do anything during Trump1 except tax cuts based on an economic idea that had debunked for ages. They were mostly obstructionist again during Biden; and now in Trump2, they've turned into a personality cult that appoints incompetent drunkards and sycophants to cabinet positions.

If they'd wanted to appeal to the intelligence vote, they would've done something like come up with a health care plan. Modified the transition to electrification so that things could actually get built. Done something about the explosion of tuition costs. Tried to appoint people with expertise. Instead, they just keep leaning on tired old stuff that the "intelligent" people know isn't going to fix anything, like more tax cuts, more fossil fuel extraction, and hiring your drunk buddies. Oh, and tariffs, too. They've destroyed a bunch of stuff without so much as a concept of a plan to rebuild it. Including the East Wing.

There is a way to do stronger border enforcement that would appeal to "intelligent" people. There were ways to handle trans issues that would appeal to "intelligent" people. But they're not doing that. Instead, they're blatantly disregarding the rule of law and being as hateful and as cruel as they can get away with. They're leaning into all the bad things that people used to think about them. That's not how you attract intelligent people.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes, I went to college, I have a Computer Science degree from a public university. I'm from Ohio, so obviously it's probably a far cry from present day UC campuses...but none the less.

Graduated in 2004.

If I came of age now instead of then, I would've just gone the certification route. But back then, the corporate culture was very much "if you want a white collar desk job (even in IT), gotta have that degree"

Graduated in 1964 for the same reason. Worked in a white collar for a few years and then got disgusted with it and went back to the shop. Have you ever read any Eric Hoffer? You might find it encouraging.

I would disagree, there is that period of time where you put College instructors on a pedestal and feel like they're the "smartest people you've ever met", and that creates an inclination to want to mimic them in ways that aren't affiliated with their area of subject matter expertise.

An authentic liberal arts education teaches you that instructors have to earn their place on that pedestal. It turns your BS detector to high gain.

What you seem to be talking about is the "job college" approach to higher ed.

Fun Fact: One of the instructors I had in a Java class (who I did look up to at one point) ended up being a co-worker who was a rung beneath me on the ladder) 8 years later. I was a Sr Dev at the time, they got hired in as an App Dev II. It sort of "pulled the curtain back" a bit. I didn't have to call them "Mr." anymore, and they had to come to me for guidance and info.

To be more specific, Democrats have become the party that embodies the HR department of the office environment.

You go into meetings involving the top brass, there's some very cut-throat republican economic thinking, or have an environment where it's "just the boys", there's a lot of that "locker room talk" if you catch my drift.

He won the primary because they had a bunch of people up there and the "sanity" vote was split between a dozen other people.

Armed with the information that there's a solid 20-30% of people who will lock into the most zany option available, it serves a party well to make sure that the other 70% isn't split 12 ways.



Basically, what I think is happening is a cultural/ideological capture of what's perceived to be "intelligent", with regards to the modern college environment.

The people who hold the keys to knowledge can shape other people (and societal perceptions) by having a system in which people have to enter their preferred bubble/echo chamber for an extended period of time in order to be the benefactor of a "knowledge hand-off". And after a certain period of time, people start to associate that ideology with intelligence.

It's not unlike the early church. There was a time when the only access for learning to read, getting access to certain books, or attaining other forms of knowledge was isolated to those entering the seminary to become members of the clergy. That was no accident.

If "the smartest guy in the room" is (99% of the time) someone from a particular ideological framework, it's only a matter of time before large parts of the general public associates that ideology with intelligence, and gaining knowledge comes saddled with sitting through years of their overall sales pitch, and like with anything, there is a percentage of people who are susceptible to sales pitches.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Graduated in 1964 for the same reason. Worked in a white collar for a few years and then got disgusted with it and went back to the shop. Have you ever read any Eric Hoffer? You might find it encouraging.

An authentic liberal arts education teaches you that instructors have to earn their place on that pedestal. It turns your BS detector to high gain.

What you seem to be talking about is the "job college" approach to higher ed.

It would be one thing if Liberal Arts were still treated for what their original intent was, but that disappeared a while ago.

I believe you and I have even discussed that before, where the original intent wasn't supposed to be for career advancement, but rather, pursuits of leisure and knowledge "worthy of a free man".

But that's not what it is anymore, so I think we have to discuss it through the lens of what it actually is, and not what it was originally intended to be.

"You have to take at least 3 of these electives, even if it doesn't really interest you, if you want us to give you that piece of paper that will get you a job" wasn't ever the intent.

 

[BCP1928]

It would be one thing if Liberal Arts were still treated for what their original intent was, but that disappeared a while ago.

I believe you and I have even discussed that before, where the original intent wasn't supposed to be for career advancement, but rather, pursuits of leisure and knowledge "worthy of a free man".

Not just leisure, but all aspects of life. I didn't go to UC Berkeley and study engineering like I was expected to, I went to a private liberal arts college and studied math--and became an engineer anyway.

But that's not what it is anymore, so I think we have to discuss it through the lens of what it actually is, and not what it was originally intended to be.

"You have to take at least 3 of these electives, even if it doesn't really interest you, if you want us to give you that piece of paper that will get you a job" wasn't ever the intent.

You also might enjoy Babbitt by Sincair Lewis.

 

[BCP1928]

It would be one thing if Liberal Arts were still treated for what their original intent was, but that disappeared a while ago.

I believe you and I have even discussed that before, where the original intent wasn't supposed to be for career advancement, but rather, pursuits of leisure and knowledge "worthy of a free man".

But that's not what it is anymore, so I think we have to discuss it through the lens of what it actually is, and not what it was originally intended to be.

"You have to take at least 3 of these electives, even if it doesn't really interest you, if you want us to give you that piece of paper that will get you a job" wasn't ever the intent.

But it's what you deserve for going to college to get that piece of paper that will get you the job.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But it's what you deserve for going to college to get that piece of paper that will get you the job.

I'm just thankful it was much cheaper when I had to go. At least the experience didn't also include having to take out a loan that was more than a new Lexus SUV.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I agree that there's a capture of the perception of intelligence. I disagree on why/how.

Frankly, what you described is, IME, how dumb people treat intelligence. That "keys to knowledge" phenomenon is what I witnessed in fans of certain media personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Dave Ramsey. I'm sure it applies to some younger streamers now, but I don't keep up with them. I don't see intelligent people seeing a single person or group of people as having the keys to anything. Intelligent people might have preferred sources or commentators, but they don't treat these folks as some sort of oracle on whose every word they hang.

While the phenomenon may not exist to the degree it did in example I gave of the early church...

I think you're underestimating the degree it does exist.

Close to three in four students (72%) say that they believe their professors have influenced students’ political viewpoints.
26% say a professor has changed their opinion on a political or social issue.
49% say they have participated in social activism due to a professor.

72% of College Students Believe Professors Influence Political Views - Intelligent

54% of students say some or many of their professors express their political views in class

www.intelligent.com

There's still a certain level of reverence there.

If college taught us anything, it wasn't that "the smartest guy in the room" was always a lib. What it taught us was the process for learning and discovering knowledge. How to find and evaluate information; how to construct an argument; how to develop a plan to achieve a goal; etc. And for the last decade+, the only party that has embraced that ethos at all has been the Dems.

Dems have captured the "intelligence" vote because the Republicans have abandoned it.

But which factors played the roles of cause and effect?

Did conservatives abandon it first? (leaving it to become a more liberal echo chamber after all of the conservatives bailed)
Or did the universities take a sharp left turn first that alienated conservatives from wanting to participate in that system?

What was the last real policy idea developed by Republicans? Ignoring the wars, W had No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D. Those may have had mixed results, but I'll give him an A for effort. Since then, what? (I'm ignoring both parties' responses to crises like the 2008 crash and COVID, since they weren't planned) They were almost exclusively obstructionist throughout Obama's presidency; didn't do anything during Trump1 except tax cuts based on an economic idea that had debunked for ages. They were mostly obstructionist again during Biden; and now in Trump2, they've turned into a personality cult that appoints incompetent drunkards and sycophants to cabinet positions.

Warp speed for covid was, at least in part, an endeavor of the Trump administration was it not?
"No Tax on Tips" was something from the Trump admin
The First Step Act

I think those were all decent ideas (and had some bipartisan support)

So to say they've done nothing and have been purely obstructionist isn't entirely fair.

If they'd wanted to appeal to the intelligence vote, they would've done something like come up with a health care plan. Modified the transition to electrification so that things could actually get built. Done something about the explosion of tuition costs. Tried to appoint people with expertise. Instead, they just keep leaning on tired old stuff that the "intelligent" people know isn't going to fix anything, like more tax cuts, more fossil fuel extraction, and hiring your drunk buddies. Oh, and tariffs, too. They've destroyed a bunch of stuff without so much as a concept of a plan to rebuild it. Including the East Wing.

Doesn't that drift a bit into that very same "tone of elitism" that can put some people off?

"If they wanted to appeal to intelligence, they would've focused on the things my people think are important"

 

[iluvatar5150]

While the phenomenon may not exist to the degree it did in example I gave of the early church...

I think you're underestimating the degree it does exist.

Close to three in four students (72%) say that they believe their professors have influenced students’ political viewpoints.
26% say a professor has changed their opinion on a political or social issue.
49% say they have participated in social activism due to a professor.

72% of College Students Believe Professors Influence Political Views - Intelligent

54% of students say some or many of their professors express their political views in class

www.intelligent.com

There's still a certain level of reverence there.

"Influence" is a far lower bar than what you described earlier:

"I would disagree, there is that period of time where you put College instructors on a pedestal and feel like they're the "smartest people you've ever met", and that creates an inclination to want to mimic them in ways that aren't affiliated with their area of subject matter expertise."


Of course they're going to influence their students; that's why they're there.

But which factors played the roles of cause and effect?

Did conservatives abandon it first? (leaving it to become a more liberal echo chamber after all of the conservatives bailed)
Or did the universities take a sharp left turn first that alienated conservatives from wanting to participate in that system?

You're conflating academia with "the 'intelligence' vote."

If you're talking about academia, sure, there's probably some amount of a feedback loop / chicken-and-egg thing. But that's not "the 'intelligence' vote," which is more a set of ideas, policies, and processes through which you execute your work. Regarding the latter, conservatives absolutely abandoned it.

American conservatism has had an anti-intellectual wing for at least a century and its prominence within the broader right has waxed and waned over time. At some point in the early 90's, technology and legislation converged to make it financially lucrative and politically expedient to continually stoke and exploit the anger smoldering within this wing. Over time, the "intelligent" leadership in the party failed to deliver what the growing populist base wanted, so they were eventually voted out and replaced with a cadre of elected officials who, if not part of the populist anti-intellectual wing themselves, are at least willing to pander to it.

The right did this to themselves.

You can take a look at the right-wing media ecosphere and see the same sort of thing. I like using the Ad Fontes Media Bias chart to illustrate this. Look at the difference in distribution between outlets that skew left and those that skew right. If you zoom in on the yellow box near the top, which is outlets that focus on fact reporting and/or fact-dense analysis with modest-or-less levels of bias, the right side is almost empty, whereas the left side is packed with all of your big, establishment media names. The right side is skewed much more heavily towards the bottom corner, which is where the lower quality, more inflammatory and biased op-eds go.

There's more than enough money on the right to create high-quality, fact-focused media outlets; but they don't, because there's no market for it.

Warp speed for covid was, at least in part, an endeavor of the Trump administration was it not?
"No Tax on Tips" was something from the Trump admin
The First Step Act

I think those were all decent ideas (and had some bipartisan support)

I said I was leaving out crisis responses because they weren't planned for ahead of time. They also tend to be handled a bit differently by both sides, with more bipartisanship and less polemicism.

That shows me that the parties are capable of such work; they just find it advantageous to not do it in normal circumstances.

The First Step Act was good, but as far as I'm aware, was pretty bipartisan in its origin. It wasn't a big "Republican" idea. When it passed, there weren't many No votes, but they all came from Republicans. (and it originated from Congress, not Trump)

No Tax on Tips is just a tax cut, which has been Republican orthodoxy for 45 years. That's not a new idea.

Doesn't that drift a bit into that very same "tone of elitism" that can put some people off?

We're talking about appealing to the "intelligence vote". How do you talk about that without giving off some tone of elitism? Of course you're going to come off as elitist when you describe somebody else's way of doing things as stupid.

"If they wanted to appeal to intelligence, they would've focused on the things my people think are important"

No, those aren't pet issues that only matter to a handful of activists. They're large, widespread issues that affect and are cared about by large segments of the population.

Regardless, my comment was less about specific policies and more about process. "Intelligent" people try to idenfity problems, analyze them, and come up with solutions. They don't fall back on tired, rehashed tropes the way that Republicans and especially MAGA have been doing for a long time.

 

[BCP1928]

While the phenomenon may not exist to the degree it did in example I gave of the early church...

I think you're underestimating the degree it does exist.

Close to three in four students (72%) say that they believe their professors have influenced students’ political viewpoints.
26% say a professor has changed their opinion on a political or social issue.
49% say they have participated in social activism due to a professor.

That is absolutely outstanding. No wonder the Right is afraid of Unversities.

 

[durangodawood]

While the phenomenon may not exist to the degree it did in example I gave of the early church...

I think you're underestimating the degree it does exist.

Close to three in four students (72%) say that they believe their professors have influenced students’ political viewpoints.
26% say a professor has changed their opinion on a political or social issue.
49% say they have participated in social activism due to a professor.

72% of College Students Believe Professors Influence Political Views - Intelligent

54% of students say some or many of their professors express their political views in class

www.intelligent.com

There's still a certain level of reverence there.

Influenced =/= reverence. Of course youre influenced by learning things. Thats how humans work. "Reverence" is just a cheap shot implying something cultish. Before you task AI with digging up the few actual cult of personality profs out there, lets keep in mind we're talking about typical experiences here.

Warp speed for covid was, at least in part, an endeavor of the Trump administration was it not?
"No Tax on Tips" was something from the Trump admin
The First Step Act+

Warp speed was what every president ever would have done given the challenge of that moment (except perhaps a president RFK).
No tax on tips is a terrible idea.
First step act sounds good overall, but small time compared to the major challenges we face.

So, pretty weak in the face of the tsunami of major issues facing the country:
Health care
Natural disasters and insurance
Consumer debt
National debt
Housing
Climate change effects
Declining economic competitiveness
Neglected infrastructure
Authoritarianism and corruption abroad (and at home)
The next pandemic

"If they wanted to appeal to intelligence, they would've focused on the things my people think are important"

Did I just learn from you that health care affordability is a pet issue for the lefty elite? Who knew.

 

[durangodawood]

.....Regardless, my comment was less about specific policies and more about process. "Intelligent" people try to idenfity problems, analyze them, and come up with solutions. They don't fall back on tired, rehashed tropes the way that Republicans and especially MAGA have been doing for a long time.

Contemporary "conservatism" is mainly about accumulating power by appealing to a population thats understandably scared and bewildered by larger forces that have knocked them off a pedestal personally, and globally press down upon the USA as a whole. They do this by amplifying the fear and disconnecting people from reality.

But this isnt really conservatism in the classical sense. The right wing has left that behind for now.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Influenced =/= reverence. Of course youre influenced by learning things. Thats how humans work. "Reverence" is just a cheap shot implying something cultish. Before you task AI with digging up the few actual cult of personality profs out there, lets keep in mind we're talking about typical experiences here.

Right, but that influence (under normal circumstances) is one that's usually confined to a person's area of expertise or aptitudes.

For example, if someone loves the guitar playing of Eric Clapton so much that they want to style their own playing after it and be able to sound like him, that would be what I would consider typical influence.

If someone looks up to Eric Clapton so much, that in addition to being able to play like him, they also want to adopt his views and positions on a variety of other subjects outside of music, that would be something more than just typical influence.

And in some cases, it's not even a professor in particular on an individual level, it's the appeal to credentialism as a whole in the soft sciences in ways that don't present themselves as much in the hard sciences.

Where, because someone has a certain title or academic credential, even in a subjective topic that may not be even directly in their wheelhouse, their opinion is given more weight.

No, those aren't pet issues that only matter to a handful of activists. They're large, widespread issues that affect and are cared about by large segments of the population.

Did I just learn from you that health care affordability is a pet issue for the lefty elite? Who knew.

It's not a pet issue, but it's one where the perception of "taking the issue seriously" is often packaged in such a way that they make it synonymous with "going with the approach we want"


For example: In your opinion, is there any way a person can perceived as having taken that issue seriously without landing on the conclusion of some sort of single-payer/state run/medicaid for all type of solution?