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

[ThatRobGuy]

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

I don't know if "afraid" is the right word.

But if a particular institution was all but captured by the opposing political team, would you be itching to drop thousands of dollars to send your kid there so that they could be in that bubble and come back in 4 years hating all of your values?

I don't think any parent would be too keen on that idea regardless of their political stripe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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?

The chart you posted is a bit messy. The middle decade seems to be largely different than either earlier or later. I wonder if the methodology changed. But, if you want to speculate, then I would speculate agreement with your speculation. The question is *what* puts off the moderates. (Perhaps I can be a case study as I was definitely a "moderate" when I finished BS, and was still calling myself a "moderate" when I finished grad school.)

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.

I don't think we discussed politics much at all in our grad student offices, mostly football, other sports, silly things like creationism and other pseudosciences. As for in the classroom, there was exactly *ZERO* discussion of politics in my graduate work at a public university not from the professors, nor from the TA (me). I did go from a satisfied member of the Church to one who was so dissatisfied I would leave after a few more months. IIRC PhD holders are significantly less religious. I suspect that phenomenon is related.

Here are things I have noticed that might be relevant:

1. Unlike BS/BA programs where most attend in their home state (as you and I did), most graduate students travel out of state for their degrees (as I did). That exposes you to other cultures (like evangelicalism in my case) and at the same time keeps you from tight maintenance of tight reinforcement of your home culture. (I went home once a month in undergrad and worked in my hometown in the summer. In gradschool I mostly went home at the end of each semester for a week or two and stayed on campus in the summer.)

2. It is a lot easier to complete a BS/BA with out acquiring reasoning skills than a masters degree and almost impossible in a PhD program.

3. Both religious positions and conservative ones tend to thrive in the "not questioning" anything mode of thinking. Being well traveled, living away from your home/culture, and developing strong reasoning skills are corrosive to maintenance of religious and conservative positions.

 

[iluvatar5150]

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.

You're conflating a bunch of different things. Do some people exhibit the sort of fandom you describe? Yes. Is it commonplace on university campuses? Not at all in my experience.

Again, I've seen it much more often with media personalities who have a clear financial incentive to cultivate this sort of personality cult. Trump is easily the most prominent example of this at the moment.

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?

You're putting words in our mouths.

In the 15 years since the ACA passed, Republicans haven't developed a health care plan of any sort. We're not even at the point of evaluating a plan to see if it's serious or not.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't know if "afraid" is the right word.

But if a particular institution was all but captured by the opposing political team, would you be itching to drop thousands of dollars to send your kid there so that they could be in that bubble and come back in 4 years hating all of your values?

I don't think any parent would be too keen on that idea regardless of their political stripe.

A kid who is that impressionable shouldn't be allowed in college, especially if his parents have filled him with crap about "opposite political teams."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think we discussed politics much at all in our grad student offices, mostly football, other sports, silly things like creationism and other pseudosciences. As for in the classroom, there was exactly *ZERO* discussion of politics in my graduate work at a public university not from the professors, nor from the TA (me). I did go from a satisfied member of the Church to one who was so dissatisfied I would leave after a few more months. IIRC PhD holders are significantly less religious. I suspect that phenomenon is related.

Here are things I have noticed that might be relevant:

1. Unlike BS/BA programs where most attend in their home state (as you and I did), most graduate students travel out of state for their degrees (as I did). That exposes you to other cultures (like evangelicalism in my case) and at the same time keeps you from tight maintenance of tight reinforcement of your home culture. (I went home once a month in undergrad and worked in my hometown in the summer. In gradschool I mostly went home at the end of each semester for a week or two and stayed on campus in the summer.)

2. It is a lot easier to complete a BS/BA with out acquiring reasoning skills than a masters degree and almost impossible in a PhD program.

3. Both religious positions and conservative ones tend to thrive in the "not questioning" anything mode of thinking. Being well traveled, living away from your home/culture, and developing strong reasoning skills are corrosive to maintenance of religious and conservative positions.

You're point on number 1 is interesting, and admittedly I hadn't initially considered that.

However, when you mention that there wasn't much political talk when you were in college, that was was my experience as well, but the polling I linked would indicate that the environment may have changed a bit.

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

Results like this:
When asked if they have professors who talk politics during class, 32% of respondents said that they have a few professors who do, 41% say they have some professors who do, and 13% say they have many professors who express their political opinions in class. Of these 85%, two-thirds say their professors occasionally (52%) or frequently (15%) express these ideas.

I don't know that I could tell you any of the professors' politics from when I was in college (I mean, you can make guesses, but they never went out of their way to discuss it). Even in a Poli-Sci elective class, the instructor in that course obviously talked politics in a general educational sense, but I don't know that they ever overtly made clear which "side" they were on, on the various issues.

The fact 85% of students are reporting that their professors are "getting political" marks a shift away from the college environment you or I were in. (assuming that we were in college around the same time)

I would've been in that circled demographic, during the time where the biggest share of the pie was still the "mixed" category. (even among the post grads in 2004, the "mixed" group is still the biggest.

The only social catalyst I can think of during that time period would've perhaps been that Bush 2 was a bit of tumultuous presidency (although, people seem to see him as "one of the good ones" in retrospect), and I do recall in the mid-2000's, there was a certain "coolness" associated with being Anti-Bush among some of the younger crowd.

For those who remember these that came out in late-2004:

(and it was actually a pretty star-studded line-up on that)

But my time in college was drawing to a close for that period...so who knows, maybe 2006 would've been a very different environment on campus.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A kid who is that impressionable shouldn't be allowed in college, especially if his parents have filled him with crap about "opposite political teams."

Well... that would rule out most teenagers then lol.

Most people are a lot more impressionable from 17-21 than they are from 27-31.

Finding people in that age demo who both
A) not impressionable, and
B) didn't have parents with a vocal political preference at home

...is going to be a rarity.

 

[durangodawood]

......2. It is a lot easier to complete a BS/BA with out acquiring reasoning skills than a masters degree and almost impossible in a PhD program.

As a proud member of the BA degree set, I feel a need to speak up in defense of our thinking. We can do it! Some of us at least.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As a proud member of the BA degree set, I feel I need to speak up in defense of our thinking. We can do it! Some of us at least.

It could depend on the field of study... I could see where some would lean on it more, where others may perhaps more on just memorization.

But for what it's worth, per this OECD 2020 report, it's something of a recently growing problem that doesn't seem to be isolated by country, or level of degree attainment

Does Higher Education Teach Students to Think Critically?

There is a discernible and growing gap between the qualifications that a university degree certifies and the actual generic, 21st-century skills with which students graduate from higher education. By generic skills, it is meant literacy and critical thinking skills encompassing problem solving...

www.oecd.org

There is a discernible and growing gap between the qualifications that a university degree certifies and the actual generic, 21st-century skills with which students graduate from higher education. By generic skills, it is meant literacy and critical thinking skills encompassing problem solving, analytic reasoning and communications competency.

 

[durangodawood]

.....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?

For sure! ACA was exactly that. It was not single payer, and it explicitly accounted for:
-pre existing conditions
-preventative medicine
-many pharmaceutical payment issues
-lifetime maximums
-etc etc

It was very comprehensive. The people who devised it took the matter extremely seriously. By contrast the Rs have given us nothing more than "concepts of a plan" - which is being generous.

This is not to say ACA is working well long term. Medical inflation is obviously blowing it up. My point is just that its authors put in the work to devise a scheme that was fleshed out enough for the rest of us to properly analyze. They took the issue seriously.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

For sure! ACA was exactly that. It was not single payer, and it explicitly accounted for:
-pre existing conditions
-preventative medicine
-many pharmaceutical payment issues
-lifetime maximums
-etc etc

It was very comprehensive. The people who devised it took the matter extremely seriously. By contrast the Rs have given us nothing more than "concepts of a plan" - which is being generous.

This is not to say ACA is working well long term. Medical inflation is obviously blowing it up. My point is just that its authors put in the work to devise a scheme that was fleshed out enough for the rest of us to properly analyze. They took the issue seriously.

...but is your position on that the "orthodox" position on that?

Granted, It's possible my example wasn't the best to use on that.

I was speaking to the overall mindset of
"The evidence of how critically you've thought about a problem is measured by how much you agree with me, if you would've actually thought about it critically and correctly, you'd have come to the same conclusion as me"

For what it's worth, there actually is some research on it from San Diego State University.

Narcissism Increasing Among College Students | News | SDSU

New study indicates increase in narcissism is accelerating most among young women

www.sdsu.edu

The new study evaluated more than 20,000 college students between 2002 and 2007 and found a faster rate of increase in narcissistic traits overall than an earlier study which evaluated students between 1982 and 2006.

https://discover.hubpages.com/health/Increasing-Narcissism-in-College-Students

In a meta-analysis examining many studies together, Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell and Bushman (2008) showed that this narcissism appeared to be increasing even faster in college students compared to other age groups. By 2006, college students' scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) increased by 30% over the average scores obtained for those in the original sample who were evaluated from 1979 to 1985.

This surge toward narcissism appeared to be speeding up, with the years 2000-2006 showing an especially steep increase. Twenge and Campbell (2009) analyzed data gathered from college students in 2008-2009 on the NPI, which showed that a full third of college students sampled rated the majority of the questions in the narcissistic direction, with two-thirds scoring above average on narcissism traits. This compares with a fifth of students in 1994.

That does jive with the timelines from that original graph I posted earlier, interestingly enough.

 

[BCP1928]

Well... that would rule out most teenagers then lol.

Most people are a lot more impressionable from 17-21 than they are from 27-31.

Finding people in that age demo who both
A) not impressionable, and
B) didn't have parents with a vocal political preference at home

...is going to be a rarity.

Of course it's not an either/or, but if you are talking political preferences, the university is under no obligation to shield a student from political opinions unpopular with his parents. College kids are adults. If they are not prepared to face the scholarly world of ideas uncensored, then they are not prepared for college. That they might change their political opinions is not a reason to protect them.

 

[iluvatar5150]

...but is your position on that the "orthodox" position on that?

Granted, It's possible my example wasn't the best to use on that.

I was speaking to the overall mindset of
"The evidence of how critically you've thought about a problem is measured by how much you agree with me, if you would've actually thought about it critically and correctly, you'd have come to the same conclusion as me"

How many times do we have to say no, that's not what we're saying?

There are usually a bunch of different ways to tackle unsolved problems and reasonable people can disagree on the best approach. It's when somebody either doesn't try to address it at all or proposes a solution that has obvious problems or has already been demonstrated to not work (but still has political power) that it's clear that folks aren't trying to solve the issue.

There have been scant few issues over the last 10-15 years that Republicans have truly tried to address.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As a proud member of the BA degree set, I feel a need to speak up in defense of our thinking. We can do it! Some of us at least.

With a BA it is unlikely you were a CS or Eng. major, so that works in your favor.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're point on number 1 is interesting, and admittedly I hadn't initially considered that.

However, when you mention that there wasn't much political talk when you were in college,

Graduate school. I was writing about graduate school. The topic I commented on was the "more liberal with more education" and the shift over time from "moderate" to "liberal" among the graduate school attending cohort.

that was was my experience as well, but the polling I linked would indicate that the environment may have changed a bit.

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

That survey doesn't really seem to capture graduate students. 18% were in community college. all were 25 or younger. 20+% were in private 4-year colleges.

Results like this:
When asked if they have professors who talk politics during class, 32% of respondents said that they have a few professors who do, 41% say they have some professors who do, and 13% say they have many professors who express their political opinions in class. Of these 85%, two-thirds say their professors occasionally (52%) or frequently (15%) express these ideas.

I don't know that I could tell you any of the professors' politics from when I was in college (I mean, you can make guesses, but they never went out of their way to discuss it). Even in a Poli-Sci elective class, the instructor in that course obviously talked politics in a general educational sense, but I don't know that they ever overtly made clear which "side" they were on, on the various issues.

What we can't tell is what the surveyors or the respondents thought "getting political" meant. My freshman Eng. lit class professor discussed lesbian themes in the 19th century works we were reading in that part of the class. Is that political? I don't know, and we can't know if students taking the survey would think so. (I'm not sure if I had taken the survey at the time how I would have responded.)

The fact 85% of students are reporting that their professors are "getting political" marks a shift away from the college environment you or I were in. (assuming that we were in college around the same time)

View attachment 373990

I would've been in that circled demographic, during the time where the biggest share of the pie was still the "mixed" category. (even among the post grads in 2004, the "mixed" group is still the biggest.

I was supervising two graduate students in 2004, both were republicans and one was baffled that I was undecided on my vote a month before the election.

The only social catalyst I can think of during that time period would've perhaps been that Bush 2 was a bit of tumultuous presidency (although, people seem to see him as "one of the good ones" in retrospect), and I do recall in the mid-2000's, there was a certain "coolness" associated with being Anti-Bush among some of the younger crowd.

For those who remember these that came out in late-2004:
View attachment 373991View attachment 373992
(and it was actually a pretty star-studded line-up on that)

But my time in college was drawing to a close for that period...so who knows, maybe 2006 would've been a very different environment on campus.

Which has nothing to do with a claim of "professor political activity".