Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Perhaps, unlike you, he wasn't a blind idealogue and didn't let sad partisanship get in the way of a good idea?
☭proletarian☭;2199331 said:Perhaps, unlike you, he wasn't a blind idealogue and didn't let sad partisanship get in the way of a good idea?☭proletarian☭;2199267 said:
That would explain why it was pushed by that big socialist Ben Franklin.
The Republic cannot exist without an educated populace. An educated populace cannot be guaranteed without public access to educational materials. This is the reasoning for both formal public education and informal access to other education materials (the primary purpose of the public library).
Most of those countries do have better education systems...because they spend more on education. Are you suggesting we do the same?Actually a very hefty percentage of "American" scientists were trained elsewhere, like Germany, India and China. So we can thank their education systems. They're here of course because all thsoe greedy businessmen pay very well so they come here.
I guess you can thank a CEO next time you find yourself shining his shoes for all those great inventions. Does it hurt yet?
No they do not spend more on education. Do you have some proof for your assertion?
Most of those countries do have better education systems...because they spend more on education. Are you suggesting we do the same?Actually a very hefty percentage of "American" scientists were trained elsewhere, like Germany, India and China. So we can thank their education systems. They're here of course because all thsoe greedy businessmen pay very well so they come here.
I guess you can thank a CEO next time you find yourself shining his shoes for all those great inventions. Does it hurt yet?
No they do not spend more on education. Do you have some proof for your assertion?
Most of those countries do have better education systems...because they spend more on education. Are you suggesting we do the same?
No they do not spend more on education. Do you have some proof for your assertion?
Could you imagine if conservatives were in charge of university level education? The mess we would be in?
Noah's Ark taught as a "real historical event".
All the dozens and dozens of new college courses based on evolution gone.
Paleontology, biology, physiology, botany, astronomy, and probably a number of other sciences gone.
Considering that so few Republicans are scientists, you would probably have to get rid of high level math and physics.
It would be the end of American culture. Dumbass would reign. How long before the violence started? I shudder to think of conservatards taking over our educational system. That's why Texas scares the bejesus out of me.
Well, when conservatives WERE in charge of the universities and public education, we were turning out engineers and scientists that could compete anywhere and our manufacturing base was second to none. Our public school kids too could do math and science and languages and geography on a par with any kids anywhere in the world.
Now look at it after the liberals have had it for a few decades.
I don't think we would have a darn thing to lose putting the conservatives back in charge of education for awhile. Make that forever.
Well, when conservatives WERE in charge of the universities and public education, we were turning out engineers and scientists that could compete anywhere and our manufacturing base was second to none. Our public school kids too could do math and science and languages and geography on a par with any kids anywhere in the world.
Now look at it after the liberals have had it for a few decades.
I don't think we would have a darn thing to lose putting the conservatives back in charge of education for awhile. Make that forever.
What are you? The Republican version of Rdean?
When exactly did the "nasty Liberals" take over public education and universities? And where is a credible source for this?
I don't want Conservatives to be in charge of education. Hell, I don't want Liberals to be in charge of education. I want people who are teachers and give a shit about teaching the kids rather than trying to indoctrinate them with political beliefs like you are.
Diversity of Everything but Thought
by George Will
OH, well, if studies say so. The great secret is out: liberals dominate campuses. Coming soon: "Moon Implicated in Tides, Studies Find."
One study of 1,000 professors finds that Democrats outnumber Republicans at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. That imbalance, more than double what it was three decades ago, is intensifying because younger professors are more uniformly liberal than the older cohort that is retiring.
Another study, of voter-registration records, including those of professors in engineering and the hard sciences, found nine Democrats for every Republican at Berkeley and Stanford. Among younger profs, there were 183 Democrats, six Republicans.
But we essentially knew this even before The American Enterprise magazine reported in 2002 of examinations of voting records in various college communities. Some findings about professors registered with the two major parties or with liberal or conservative minor parties:
Cornell: 166 liberals, 6 conservatives.
Stanford: 151 liberals, 17 conservatives.
Colorado: 116 liberals, 5 conservatives.
The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that in 2004 the top two institutions in terms of employee per-capita contributions to presidential candidates were the University of California system and Harvard, both of which gave about 19 times more money to John Kerry than to George Bush.
But George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at Berkeley, denies that academic institutions are biased against conservatives. The disparity in hiring, he explains, occurs because conservatives are not as interested as liberals in academic careers. Why does he think liberals are like that? "Unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good and social justice."
That clears that up.
A filtering process, from graduate-school admissions through tenure decisions, tends to exclude conservatives from what Mark Bauerlein calls academia's "sheltered habitat." In a dazzling essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Bauerlein, professor of English at Emory University and director of research at the National Endowment for the Arts, notes that the "first protocol" of academic society is the "common assumption" — that, at professional gatherings, all the strangers in the room are liberals.
It is a reasonable assumption, given that in order to enter the profession, your work must be deemed, by the criteria of the prevailing culture, "relevant." Bauerlein says various academic fields now have regnant premises that embed political orientations in their very definitions of scholarship:
"Schools of education, for instance, take constructivist theories of learning as definitive, excluding realists (in matters of knowledge) on principle, while the quasi-Marxist outlook of cultural studies rules out those who espouse capitalism. If you disapprove of affirmative action, forget pursuing a degree in African-American studies. If you think that the nuclear family proves the best unit of social well-being, stay away from women's studies."
This gives rise to what Bauerlein calls the "false consensus effect": Due to institutional provincialism, "people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population."
There also is what Cass Sunstein of University of Chicago, calls "the law of group polarization." Bauerlein explains: "When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs." They become tone-deaf to the way they sound to others outside their closed circle of belief.
When John Kennedy brought to Washington such academics as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, McGeorge and William Bundy and Walt Rostow, it was said that the Charles River was flowing into the Potomac.
Academics, such as the next secretary of state, still decorate Washington, but academia is less listened to than it was. It has marginalized itself, partly by political shrillness and silliness that have something to do with the parochialism produced by what George Orwell called "smelly little orthodoxies."
Many campuses are intellectual versions of one-party nations — except such nations usually have the merit, such as it is, of candor about their ideological monopolies. In contrast, American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome.
They do indeed cultivate diversity — in race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference. In everything but thought.
"Because that is exactly what conservatives want to happen in education."
Oh cut the holier than though 'my side only has good intentions' crap.
There's conservatives in Texas who are quite clearly trying to slant the public school curriculum to the conservative side.
"Because that is exactly what conservatives want to happen in education."
Oh cut the holier than though 'my side only has good intentions' crap.
There's conservatives in Texas who are quite clearly trying to slant the public school curriculum to the conservative side.
In my opinion, anybody who is trying to slant public school curriculum in ANY direction other than the way it is are not conservatives. They may be right winger activists. But they aren't conservative.
"Right wing" is not synonymous with conservative any more than "Republican" is synonymous with conservative.
And you'll just have to avoid my posts if you don't want to see me promote modern conservatism because I believe that if we don't, we will drown in ever more oppressive and authoritarian unrestrained modern liberalism that is sinking us. I do believe modern conservatism is the only way to sustain both individual liberties and prosperity and a compassionate social contract. So far, nobody has been able to show me that I am in any way wrong.
And I don't easily give up on what I believe in.
Don't you believe in something strong enough you're willing to fight for it?
You'll have to study your history including the cultural revolution of the 60's for your best source material. When conservatives were in charge, most kids us didn't have a clue what religion or political party our teachers and college professors belonged to and didn't care. People were educated, not indoctrinated.
So, your ideal of teachers/professors being neither liberal nor conservative but people who teach puts you squarely in the conservative column on that one. Because that is exactly what conservatives want to happen in education.
This is part of an old George Will essay I saved - I have it dated 2004. I don't believe a copy is available on the internet any more:
Diversity of Everything but Thought
by George Will
OH, well, if studies say so. The great secret is out: liberals dominate campuses. Coming soon: "Moon Implicated in Tides, Studies Find."
One study of 1,000 professors finds that Democrats outnumber Republicans at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. That imbalance, more than double what it was three decades ago, is intensifying because younger professors are more uniformly liberal than the older cohort that is retiring.
Another study, of voter-registration records, including those of professors in engineering and the hard sciences, found nine Democrats for every Republican at Berkeley and Stanford. Among younger profs, there were 183 Democrats, six Republicans.
But we essentially knew this even before The American Enterprise magazine reported in 2002 of examinations of voting records in various college communities. Some findings about professors registered with the two major parties or with liberal or conservative minor parties:
Cornell: 166 liberals, 6 conservatives.
Stanford: 151 liberals, 17 conservatives.
Colorado: 116 liberals, 5 conservatives.
The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that in 2004 the top two institutions in terms of employee per-capita contributions to presidential candidates were the University of California system and Harvard, both of which gave about 19 times more money to John Kerry than to George Bush.
But George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at Berkeley, denies that academic institutions are biased against conservatives. The disparity in hiring, he explains, occurs because conservatives are not as interested as liberals in academic careers. Why does he think liberals are like that? "Unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good and social justice."
That clears that up.
A filtering process, from graduate-school admissions through tenure decisions, tends to exclude conservatives from what Mark Bauerlein calls academia's "sheltered habitat." In a dazzling essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Bauerlein, professor of English at Emory University and director of research at the National Endowment for the Arts, notes that the "first protocol" of academic society is the "common assumption" that, at professional gatherings, all the strangers in the room are liberals.
It is a reasonable assumption, given that in order to enter the profession, your work must be deemed, by the criteria of the prevailing culture, "relevant." Bauerlein says various academic fields now have regnant premises that embed political orientations in their very definitions of scholarship:
"Schools of education, for instance, take constructivist theories of learning as definitive, excluding realists (in matters of knowledge) on principle, while the quasi-Marxist outlook of cultural studies rules out those who espouse capitalism. If you disapprove of affirmative action, forget pursuing a degree in African-American studies. If you think that the nuclear family proves the best unit of social well-being, stay away from women's studies."
This gives rise to what Bauerlein calls the "false consensus effect": Due to institutional provincialism, "people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population."
There also is what Cass Sunstein of University of Chicago, calls "the law of group polarization." Bauerlein explains: "When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs." They become tone-deaf to the way they sound to others outside their closed circle of belief.
When John Kennedy brought to Washington such academics as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, McGeorge and William Bundy and Walt Rostow, it was said that the Charles River was flowing into the Potomac.
Academics, such as the next secretary of state, still decorate Washington, but academia is less listened to than it was. It has marginalized itself, partly by political shrillness and silliness that have something to do with the parochialism produced by what George Orwell called "smelly little orthodoxies."
Many campuses are intellectual versions of one-party nations except such nations usually have the merit, such as it is, of candor about their ideological monopolies. In contrast, American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome.
They do indeed cultivate diversity in race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference. In everything but thought.
I do believe modern conservatism is the only way to sustain both individual liberties and prosperity and a compassionate social contract. So far, nobody has been able to show me that I am in any way wrong.
And I don't easily give up on what I believe in.
Don't you believe in something strong enough you're willing to fight for it?
"Right wing" is not synonymous with conservative any more than "Republican" is synonymous with conservative.
I do believe modern conservatism is the only way to sustain both individual liberties and prosperity and a compassionate social contract.
Well, when conservatives WERE in charge of the universities and public education, we were turning out engineers and scientists that could compete anywhere and our manufacturing base was second to none. Our public school kids too could do math and science and languages and geography on a par with any kids anywhere in the world.
Now look at it after the liberals have had it for a few decades.
I don't think we would have a darn thing to lose putting the conservatives back in charge of education for awhile. Make that forever.
What are you? The Republican version of Rdean?
When exactly did the "nasty Liberals" take over public education and universities? And where is a credible source for this?
I don't want Conservatives to be in charge of education. Hell, I don't want Liberals to be in charge of education. I want people who are teachers and give a shit about teaching the kids rather than trying to indoctrinate them with political beliefs like you are.
You'll have to study your history including the cultural revolution of the 60's for your best source material. When conservatives were in charge, most kids us didn't have a clue what religion or political party our teachers and college professors belonged to and didn't care. People were educated, not indoctrinated.
So, your ideal of teachers/professors being neither liberal nor conservative but people who teach puts you squarely in the conservative column on that one. Because that is exactly what conservatives want to happen in education.
This is part of an old George Will essay I saved - I have it dated 2004. I don't believe a copy is available on the internet any more:
Diversity of Everything but Thought
by George Will
OH, well, if studies say so. The great secret is out: liberals dominate campuses. Coming soon: "Moon Implicated in Tides, Studies Find."
One study of 1,000 professors finds that Democrats outnumber Republicans at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. That imbalance, more than double what it was three decades ago, is intensifying because younger professors are more uniformly liberal than the older cohort that is retiring.
Another study, of voter-registration records, including those of professors in engineering and the hard sciences, found nine Democrats for every Republican at Berkeley and Stanford. Among younger profs, there were 183 Democrats, six Republicans.
But we essentially knew this even before The American Enterprise magazine reported in 2002 of examinations of voting records in various college communities. Some findings about professors registered with the two major parties or with liberal or conservative minor parties:
Cornell: 166 liberals, 6 conservatives.
Stanford: 151 liberals, 17 conservatives.
Colorado: 116 liberals, 5 conservatives.
The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that in 2004 the top two institutions in terms of employee per-capita contributions to presidential candidates were the University of California system and Harvard, both of which gave about 19 times more money to John Kerry than to George Bush.
But George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at Berkeley, denies that academic institutions are biased against conservatives. The disparity in hiring, he explains, occurs because conservatives are not as interested as liberals in academic careers. Why does he think liberals are like that? "Unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good and social justice."
That clears that up.
A filtering process, from graduate-school admissions through tenure decisions, tends to exclude conservatives from what Mark Bauerlein calls academia's "sheltered habitat." In a dazzling essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Bauerlein, professor of English at Emory University and director of research at the National Endowment for the Arts, notes that the "first protocol" of academic society is the "common assumption" — that, at professional gatherings, all the strangers in the room are liberals.
It is a reasonable assumption, given that in order to enter the profession, your work must be deemed, by the criteria of the prevailing culture, "relevant." Bauerlein says various academic fields now have regnant premises that embed political orientations in their very definitions of scholarship:
"Schools of education, for instance, take constructivist theories of learning as definitive, excluding realists (in matters of knowledge) on principle, while the quasi-Marxist outlook of cultural studies rules out those who espouse capitalism. If you disapprove of affirmative action, forget pursuing a degree in African-American studies. If you think that the nuclear family proves the best unit of social well-being, stay away from women's studies."
This gives rise to what Bauerlein calls the "false consensus effect": Due to institutional provincialism, "people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population."
There also is what Cass Sunstein of University of Chicago, calls "the law of group polarization." Bauerlein explains: "When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs." They become tone-deaf to the way they sound to others outside their closed circle of belief.
When John Kennedy brought to Washington such academics as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, McGeorge and William Bundy and Walt Rostow, it was said that the Charles River was flowing into the Potomac.
Academics, such as the next secretary of state, still decorate Washington, but academia is less listened to than it was. It has marginalized itself, partly by political shrillness and silliness that have something to do with the parochialism produced by what George Orwell called "smelly little orthodoxies."
Many campuses are intellectual versions of one-party nations — except such nations usually have the merit, such as it is, of candor about their ideological monopolies. In contrast, American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome.
They do indeed cultivate diversity — in race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference. In everything but thought.
Most of those countries do have better education systems...because they spend more on education. Are you suggesting we do the same?
No they do not spend more on education. Do you have some proof for your assertion?
Yes they do.
Here you go!
How Countries Spend Their Money |
"Because that is exactly what conservatives want to happen in education."
Oh cut the holier than though 'my side only has good intentions' crap.
There's conservatives in Texas who are quite clearly trying to slant the public school curriculum to the conservative side.
Besides a politically neutral campus isn't a liberal or conservative idea. If anything it's centrist.
6% of scientists are Republicans and 9% conservative according to PEW research.
That means virtually every scientific discovery in the US comes from Liberals and close to zero from Conservatives. Those are just FACTS and it proves why you are "challenged" to put it mildly.
Good luck on your delusion. Hope it works out for you.
What are you? The Republican version of Rdean?
When exactly did the "nasty Liberals" take over public education and universities? And where is a credible source for this?
I don't want Conservatives to be in charge of education. Hell, I don't want Liberals to be in charge of education. I want people who are teachers and give a shit about teaching the kids rather than trying to indoctrinate them with political beliefs like you are.
You'll have to study your history including the cultural revolution of the 60's for your best source material. When conservatives were in charge, most kids us didn't have a clue what religion or political party our teachers and college professors belonged to and didn't care. People were educated, not indoctrinated.
So, your ideal of teachers/professors being neither liberal nor conservative but people who teach puts you squarely in the conservative column on that one. Because that is exactly what conservatives want to happen in education.
This is part of an old George Will essay I saved - I have it dated 2004. I don't believe a copy is available on the internet any more:
Diversity of Everything but Thought
by George Will
OH, well, if studies say so. The great secret is out: liberals dominate campuses. Coming soon: "Moon Implicated in Tides, Studies Find."
One study of 1,000 professors finds that Democrats outnumber Republicans at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. That imbalance, more than double what it was three decades ago, is intensifying because younger professors are more uniformly liberal than the older cohort that is retiring.
Another study, of voter-registration records, including those of professors in engineering and the hard sciences, found nine Democrats for every Republican at Berkeley and Stanford. Among younger profs, there were 183 Democrats, six Republicans.
But we essentially knew this even before The American Enterprise magazine reported in 2002 of examinations of voting records in various college communities. Some findings about professors registered with the two major parties or with liberal or conservative minor parties:
Cornell: 166 liberals, 6 conservatives.
Stanford: 151 liberals, 17 conservatives.
Colorado: 116 liberals, 5 conservatives.
The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that in 2004 the top two institutions in terms of employee per-capita contributions to presidential candidates were the University of California system and Harvard, both of which gave about 19 times more money to John Kerry than to George Bush.
But George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at Berkeley, denies that academic institutions are biased against conservatives. The disparity in hiring, he explains, occurs because conservatives are not as interested as liberals in academic careers. Why does he think liberals are like that? "Unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good and social justice."
That clears that up.
A filtering process, from graduate-school admissions through tenure decisions, tends to exclude conservatives from what Mark Bauerlein calls academia's "sheltered habitat." In a dazzling essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Bauerlein, professor of English at Emory University and director of research at the National Endowment for the Arts, notes that the "first protocol" of academic society is the "common assumption" that, at professional gatherings, all the strangers in the room are liberals.
It is a reasonable assumption, given that in order to enter the profession, your work must be deemed, by the criteria of the prevailing culture, "relevant." Bauerlein says various academic fields now have regnant premises that embed political orientations in their very definitions of scholarship:
"Schools of education, for instance, take constructivist theories of learning as definitive, excluding realists (in matters of knowledge) on principle, while the quasi-Marxist outlook of cultural studies rules out those who espouse capitalism. If you disapprove of affirmative action, forget pursuing a degree in African-American studies. If you think that the nuclear family proves the best unit of social well-being, stay away from women's studies."
This gives rise to what Bauerlein calls the "false consensus effect": Due to institutional provincialism, "people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population."
There also is what Cass Sunstein of University of Chicago, calls "the law of group polarization." Bauerlein explains: "When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs." They become tone-deaf to the way they sound to others outside their closed circle of belief.
When John Kennedy brought to Washington such academics as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, McGeorge and William Bundy and Walt Rostow, it was said that the Charles River was flowing into the Potomac.
Academics, such as the next secretary of state, still decorate Washington, but academia is less listened to than it was. It has marginalized itself, partly by political shrillness and silliness that have something to do with the parochialism produced by what George Orwell called "smelly little orthodoxies."
Many campuses are intellectual versions of one-party nations except such nations usually have the merit, such as it is, of candor about their ideological monopolies. In contrast, American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome.
They do indeed cultivate diversity in race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference. In everything but thought.
Liberals have sabotaged the educational system.
75% of US high school graduates cannot pass a 2 question history test:
1. When was the War of 1812 fought.
2. Including John Adams, name 3 of Americas Founding Fathers
