Quote:
|
Sebby, There are very, very few conservatives who go into academics, with the exception of a few disciplines that tend to be homes to a lot of them, like economics. And this makes sense: most of them would prefer to get rich, and subscribe to a philosophy where getting rich is an innate good, where teaching youngsters is for suckers.
|
This is terrifically biased horseshit. The caricature of all business people as philistines is below even your tribal generalizations.
Quote:
|
For every seat that opens in a history department, there will be four Marxist applications, a half dozen traditional liberals, a couple Democratic socialists, a few applicants from abroad, and, every blue moon, a conservative. So, yes, there are many fewer idiots in tenure track positions on the left in academe (at least proportionately) because they have to compete for seats, where a conservative with half a pulse will find a seat.
|
This is interesting math. I'd assume with that many ardent liberals and Marxists, few if any of whom have any real world experience (ever met a pure academic who's made a payroll?), the chance of filling the slots near exclusively with idiots rises considerably.
Quote:
|
Indeed, if you go looking for, say, American history books by conservatives in the last three quarters of a century, you don't find very many good ones (probably the highest quality works are by Eugene Genovese and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, both Marxists who turned to conservatism later in life under the influence of conservative Catholicism).
|
I wouldn't disagree with this. As a corollary, I'd add there are very few good history books written in the last 3/4 of the century, period, as most have been written by scholars with a bias.
That's not to say if conservatives wrote the books, the books would be any better. They'd likely just be biased in a different direction. If you hear a person openly describe himself as a liberal, conservative, progressive, etc., you should be suspect of what he authors. It's like journalism by a pundit. No matter how hard they try for objectivity, it eludes them. The only question is, how biased is the narrative? Within acceptable borders -- easily discovered and discounted from the book's actual facts? Or flatly revisionist?
Quote:
|
By the way, conservatives are also highly favored in undergrad admissions. The next time you write a recommendation, throw in a line about the kids conservative politics, see how fast he or she gets accepted to a reach school.
|
YMMV, but I've found being able to pay full tuition is the most compelling factor for universities today. Those darling academics run their organizations like General Motors in the 80s. The fact that we not only allow, but encourage, young kids to borrow hundreds of thousands to spend at universities run by academics (most of whom could bankrupt a lemonade stand) is mind-bending. We give the least sophisticated borrowers cart blanche to fatten the wallets of people who have no concept of value or budgeting, and who see the student loan system as an endless, bottomless cash cow. It's criminally stupid. But that's another discussion, for another day.
