Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
[DeSantis] simply rejects certain avenues of inquiry on ideological grounds.
I havent yet proposed "my logic" about whether the full value of various arenas of study tracks solely to job market prospects. My sense is a good education includes various studies that dont in themselves show salary returns upon graduation, but instead advance that old fashioned notion of the well rounded citizen whos learned how to look at issues from various perspectives.
But the issue here is not ideology, it is the fact that things like "Gender Studies" aren't part of the liberal arts at all. It's the fact that these "special interest" degrees are ideology, lol. All DeSantis is trying to do is get rid of the ideology in education, and this is badly needed.But Id hate to see those departments eliminated as we make universities into glorified vocational programs. Here's to the age old idea of a liberal education!
According to the article it is the idea that tax dollars should not fund things which are unrelated to "the classical mission of what a university is supposed to be."Are the courses to which the governor objects elective or required? I can understand that mandatory coursework in the failings of American society--especially-as regards race; ethnicity; religion, family background, sex/gender roles, socio-economic status, and other personal qualities could be very problematic But elective study should be left to the university.
Well if we use the rankings of the colleges in the 2 states it is no contest. By this set:FL vs CA! ......its on! Im sure we'll have no trouble at all determining who are the "best members of society" and how the presence of a gender studies program etc in their states U system forged them - or didnt - into who they are. At any rate I was responding to the specific idea presented to me there in the text I was responding to and I wasnt going to fix the obvious disharmony with the back reference - He could have bought it back on track if we he felt he'd misdirected me from his own intent.
Also note, I edited my post above above to address my "other failure".
(Yes I see now that Desantis didnt mention an experiment)
Since I've been so sloppy I'll spell it out (link):You stated my premise wrong by omitting half of it, and then flat out claiming I didnt say the omitted half, when you critiqued it.
Yes, I should go to bed as well. Good night.Its my bedtime. Good night Zippy!
What does a Gender Studies degree involve?I think there's a difference between "taking a gender studies class" (on the journey to getting a degree in something more practical, just to get a little variety in there) is different than paying $70k for a graduate degree in Gender Studies.
If that's something that's important to someone, there's plenty of private colleges that I'm sure will still offer degrees in those programs. However, with regards to institutions that are funded in part by state level taxes, those are supposed to be something of an investment for everyone who's chipping in.
One can make a strong practical argument for saying we need nurses, we need teachers, we need engineers, we need doctors & lawyers, accountants, etc... It'd be a little harder to make similar justifications for someone who's graduating with a degree in a niche field with a sub-par job placement rate that doesn't really offer any sort of public good.
And given the subject matter taught in some of those courses, I can understand why conservative parents in Florida may not be crazy about funding those programs. From their perspective, it's "I'm paying money, involuntarily, to help fund programs that are teaching the next generation that I'm terrible"
And the same would be true for the inverse... if there were California publicly funded colleges teaching courses in "Traditional Marriage Studies" or courses glorifying Supply-side economics, I would totally understand why liberal parents in California would object to having to chip in for that.
The example I was providing there was how some liberal parents would likely be upset if their state taxes were going towards ""Traditional Marriage Studies" or courses glorifying Supply-side economics" (both things that are associated with conservative values) as a way to provide an inverse analogy.Why would "liberal parents in California" be opposed to those subjects receiving public money?
If the worded simply meant "informed/aware/educated" in it's popular usage, then progressives wouldn't be trying to distance themselves from the word.It's odd that red states don't want kids, teens and grown-ups to be educated. Also, DeSantis wants to be president and force this on everyone. Woke is nothing but true education, that right wing people are trying to scare people with.
Remember Berkeley law prof John "torture memos" Yoo from the GWBush era? There were many liberal parents who were unhappy with him...for good reason I might add.The example I was providing there was how some liberal parents would likely be upset if their state taxes were going towards ""Traditional Marriage Studies" or courses glorifying Supply-side economics" (both things that are associated with conservative values) as a way to provide an inverse analogy.
The name sounds familiar, is he the one who basically was trying to say that waterboarding was okay?Remember Berkeley law prof John "torture memos" Yoo from the GWBush era? There were many liberal parents who were unhappy with him...for good reason I might add.
I don't understand your anecdote.As someone who spends the vast majority of her time in public in a wheelchair I am here to tell you that ramp does NOT equal accessible learned that a LONG time ago to the point I would almost whether a place out right tell me a place is not accessible than get there and realize that it is not and be very disappointed because I really wanted to do something at that particular place.
Good post. Not that I agree with all of it. But theres something to think about.But the issue here is not ideology, it is the fact that things like "Gender Studies" aren't part of the liberal arts at all. It's the fact that these "special interest" degrees are ideology, lol. All DeSantis is trying to do is get rid of the ideology in education, and this is badly needed.
Jonathan Haidt--who is historically liberal--writes a fair bit on this problem through his Heterodox Academy, but also elsewhere. I am pulling from memory, but his basic distinction is that some universities are about truth and some are about change. The classical, liberal arts model, is about truth. The "critical studies" degrees are about change.* Their express purpose is to bring about a particular change in the world, and this is where Rob's point becomes particularly salient. Why should taxpayers fund public institutions which exist to promote changes they feel to be undesirable? That's a great question. Another is, "Why is public money being spent for the sake of (ideological) change at all?"
The "Gender Studies" department of a university is essentially a political special interest group, or a partisan think tank. In the American scheme such institutions are necessarily private, and this is because public funding aims to further things which are non-partisan. And we do have private colleges and universities which devote themselves entirely to critical studies or women's studies, and that's fine. They are functioning as a sort of private think tank and special interest group. The problem is when the government itself begins endorsing and funding such partisan initiatives.
* Think of Marx's famous quote, "The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Just because there is a ramp that I can get into the place does not mean it is accessible once I get in there. A ramp may get me IN the building, but that does not mean that once I get IN the building I can access the services. Merely entering a building does not give one access to the services. Say you walked in a store, restaurant or really any other business does the fact that you are in the building mean you will buy anything or use any of the services they provide just by walking in? no, likewise a ramp that may allow me to access a building without much issue does not mean that once I get in there I have access to the same services as the able-bodied peopleI don't understand your anecdote.
My argument is that a good, functioning ramp will allow you to access buildings and thereby create equality.
To counter that argument, you say that ramps DO NOT equal access because you're frustrated by places that don't have accessibility ramps.
But that's MY point. Ramps give you access.....
Sorry, I'm confused.
I really have to contest this truth / change dichotomy. If people are using Berkeley as emblematic of a "change" U, they have to ignore all its stellar programs in sciences, engineering, math, heck even a lot of its rigorous humanities programs where lots of basic ideology neutral research gets done. Honestly its absurd. Reality seems more like typical state U's are 90% truth and 10% change. Maybe Berkeley is 80/20 instead, The change side gets exaggerated because its culture wars fodder and get better ratings than some discovery about insect morphology or whatever.
sometimes truth is partisan
Ok. Totally fair point. But my initial point is that services like a ramp are meant to provide equitable opportunity; not that a ramp ALONE is going to do it.Just because there is a ramp that I can get into the place does not mean it is accessible once I get in there. A ramp may get me IN the building, but that does not mean that once I get IN the building I can access the services. Merely entering a building does not give one access to the services. Say you walked in a store, restaurant or really any other business does the fact that you are in the building mean you will buy anything or use any of the services they provide just by walking in? no, likewise a ramp that may allow me to access a building without much issue does not mean that once I get in there I have access to the same services as the able-bodied people
that is part of the reason that quite frankly if a business tells me up front they are not very accessible I do not mind that; because I do realize if you are on a budget and 95% of your base does not need something it makes more sense to spend money on the 95% than the 5%. What I do not like is when I want to do something and cannot and I was looking forward to it. Same thing with even a school private schools are not required to provide the same access to education ( special needs wise as public schools) yet, I support school choice because the public schools are not for everyone and I would whether a school tell me look we cannot provide the services you need as opposed being forced under the law to do so and failing badly. I have aged out of the secondary school, but still even as someone who needs accessible services I am OK with them not being provided as long as I have warning I would whether a business not HAVE to do it and tell people on front we cannot handle your needs as opposed to being forced to meet a minimum requirement that frankly is really not a whole heck of a lot.Ok. Totally fair point. But my initial point is that services like a ramp are meant to provide equitable opportunity; not that a ramp ALONE is going to do it.
I was in a rock n roll band with a dude in a wheelchair and it was very eye opening listening to him talk about his struggles.
That was also my friends problem. He found street level venues would say they were accessible because they tossed up a bar in a stall in the bathroom.... and then the bar is 5ft away from the toilet.that is part of the reason that quite frankly if a business tells me up front they are not very accessible I do not mind that; because I do realize if you are on a budget and 95% of your base does not need something it makes more sense to spend money on the 95% than the 5%. What I do not like is when I want to do something and cannot and I was looking forward to it. Same thing with even a school private schools are not required to provide the same access to education ( special needs wise as public schools) yet, I support school choice because the public schools are not for everyone and I would whether a school tell me look we cannot provide the services you need as opposed being forced under the law to do so and failing badly. I have aged out of the secondary school, but still even as someone who needs accessible services I am OK with them not being provided as long as I have warning I would whether a business not HAVE to do it and tell people on front we cannot handle your needs as opposed to being forced to meet a minimum requirement that frankly is really not a whole heck of a lot.
What do you think of new buildings that meet all the ADA guidelines? Are they generally "accessible" from your pov? (Not that I expect anyone to know what the guidelines are - but if you do...)that is part of the reason that quite frankly if a business tells me up front they are not very accessible I do not mind that; because I do realize if you are on a budget and 95% of your base does not need something it makes more sense to spend money on the 95% than the 5%. What I do not like is when I want to do something and cannot and I was looking forward to it. Same thing with even a school private schools are not required to provide the same access to education ( special needs wise as public schools) yet, I support school choice because the public schools are not for everyone and I would whether a school tell me look we cannot provide the services you need as opposed being forced under the law to do so and failing badly. I have aged out of the secondary school, but still even as someone who needs accessible services I am OK with them not being provided as long as I have warning I would whether a business not HAVE to do it and tell people on front we cannot handle your needs as opposed to being forced to meet a minimum requirement that frankly is really not a whole heck of a lot.
Those guidelines are usually well wrong. For the most part the only require one accessible bathroom ( which is fine for small/medium businesses, but when you have say 200 people in the business at any one time one could argue that that is should not meet the guidelines. More than that though ( as the bathroom is a small part of the business/ people's experenice with them those guidelines usually only require that you can ACCESS the building as in get in that does not mean that I have to be able to access all the services, nor does it mean that there needs to be space between say racks for my chair to fit. I also HATE it when ( and I do understand this sort of fits in the budget part, but when businesses do not enforce handicap parking and people use it without need. There are TWO not one, but TWO different handicap tags one that is meant to go on your window and one that is on the tag, so if you have neither of those then you do not need to park in a handicap place there are laws that impose both fines and/or incarceration including towing for people who fail to follow those laws, but businesses in general do not enforce them and some people may or may not rat on others. Some do not see the point in it.What do you think of new buildings that meet all the ADA guidelines? Are they generally "accessible" from your pov? (Not that I expect anyone to know what the guidelines are - but if you do...)
Some people are not interested in their personal understanding of the world being challenged (and some within that group had parents who misinformed their understanding). Some groups of people are not interested in being called a poster child for Dunning Kruger and are happy to listen and learn from experts.This isn't meant to be snarky, this is an honest question. If universities are really the 90/10...
What do you think would be the driving factors behind these trends?
View attachment 331224
(and it's an even more of a stark shift when you look at it just for people who were already democrat-leaning going in)
View attachment 331226
If not for the subject matter itself, then what would be the driver behind this?
lol. WATCH OUT! The philosophy majors are socialists. They're gonna take over the world as soon as they get their head out of the clouds!This is something I acknowledged back in my previous post where I cited the first graph. The example I used was climate change. That's a subject that's polarized, but one where the evidence and facts definitively back up one side's position.
But I don't think that's the case for every issue. For instance, economic issues.
Almost 80 Percent of Philosophy Majors Favor Socialism, Poll Finds
Accounting and finance majors were least likely to view socialism favorably.www.newsweek.com
When compared to the baseline numbers, certain college education programs are producing quite a jump in favoring certain left-leaning economic systems over others.
Philosophy majors: nearly 80% support socialism
English majors: 58%
Music majors: 57%
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?