Professors Are Afraid of Their Students?

[liberalogic]

It becomes more prevalent in social sciences then the 'hard' sciences. But it's getting bad there too with profs pushing man-made global warming and all. I saw plenty of it (left bias) as a poli-sci major. One prof went so far as to make sure we knew he was a socialist.

Honestly I don't have much beef with what is taught, worthless as I may believe it to be. There was no shortage of classes for woman's studies, feminism, peace, social justice, animal rights, etc. at the college I went to. Though we were just the second college in the nation to have a men's studies program. My thought is if your gonna pay money to learn something eventually I would think you would want some kind of return on your investment.

As I alluded to in another thread, it seems college is no longer (and maybe it never was) a place to prepare people for life after college. They don't seem to teach much that is going to aid you in a career other than your pre-med, pre-dent, education. I think it would be great if colleges taught more in the area of personal finance. How many kids comeing out of college know the ropes of purchasing there first home? Or how many get suckered into credit cards each year?

You do not make any suggestions as to how a traditional liberal arts curriculum can be changed to bend the apparent "liberal bias." A men's course would be irrelevant because they are already the centerpoints of so many subfields of history. For instance, how would you propose to teach a survey lecture class on the U.S. after WWII? What parts of the curriculum would you consider to be left-leaning? Why? So far, no one has provided a solid answer to this type of question.

I once took a class called Interesections: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in US History. It was an admitedly bias class from the onset because she informed us that we would use Foucaultian techniques to analyze the interesections of these three themes (and others of US History). Yes, that is a left-leaning class, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed and certainly most of the courses are not that far out there.

I think you hit a point when you talk about preparing for life. I call that high school. All of those ideas (from credit cards to financing college, etc., etc. etc.) are integral to our development in life. But these ideas shoould be imbedded in a high school curriculum because not everyone goes to college. Very good point that you brought to my attention.

 

[Bern80]

You do not make any suggestions as to how a traditional liberal arts curriculum can be changed to bend the apparent "liberal bias." A men's course would be irrelevant because they are already the centerpoints of so many subfields of history. For instance, how would you propose to teach a survey lecture class on the U.S. after WWII? What parts of the curriculum would you consider to be left-leaning? Why? So far, no one has provided a solid answer to this type of question.

My suggestion would be to strike a balance of some type as far as what is available to students. I don't think you really understand what men's studies is if you think you can pick up what it means to be a man studying 'subfields of history' you would be mistaken. If you offer an animal rights class, offer a benefits and history of hunting class, maybe kids would learn that it is organizations that are primarily hunters that give the most (both time and money) to the environment and not Green Peace or the Sierra Club. If you offer a peace and justice class, offer a benefits of war class, etc.

I once took a class called Interesections: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in US History. It was an admitedly bias class from the onset because she informed us that we would use Foucaultian techniques to analyze the interesections of these three themes (and others of US History). Yes, that is a left-leaning class, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed and certainly most of the courses are not that far out there.

The problem is those classes don't teach critical thinking. My experience has been they are taught by teachers with an agenda. If college has no other objective, it should at the very least be teaching students to be objective and think critically about issues.

I think you hit a point when you talk about preparing for life. I call that high school. All of those ideas (from credit cards to financing college, etc., etc. etc.) are integral to our development in life. But these ideas shoould be imbedded in a high school curriculum because not everyone goes to college. Very good point that you brought to my attention.

Not everyone goes to high school. High school is not the place for personal finance mainly because students that age don't have the maturity to deal with it. At this point if kids aren't going to college they aren't prepared for life already. Which means 'many kids don't go to college' is not a legitimate excuse.

 

[Shogun]

I think you hit a point when you talk about preparing for life. I call that high school. All of those ideas (from credit cards to financing college, etc., etc. etc.) are integral to our development in life. But these ideas shoould be imbedded in a high school curriculum because not everyone goes to college. Very good point that you brought to my attention.


I second the High School timeframe. Even if it is true that not everyone goes to HS or graduated there is still, clearly, a larger sample of the American populations going to HS than college. If they are mature enough to handle after school jobs, insurance payments and everything else they can handle classes on financial responsibility. If anything, they would handle it better while under the guiding presence of their family RATHER THAN the wild clusterfuck that can be the first years of freedom at college. Credit Card companies know what they are doing.

 

[Bern80]

I think you hit a point when you talk about preparing for life. I call that high school. All of those ideas (from credit cards to financing college, etc., etc. etc.) are integral to our development in life. But these ideas shoould be imbedded in a high school curriculum because not everyone goes to college. Very good point that you brought to my attention.


I second the High School timeframe. Even if it is true that not everyone goes to HS or graduated there is still, clearly, a larger sample of the American populations going to HS than college. If they are mature enough to handle after school jobs, insurance payments and everything else they can handle classes on financial responsibility. If anything, they would handle it better while under the guiding presence of their family RATHER THAN the wild clusterfuck that can be the first years of freedom at college. Credit Card companies know what they are doing.

I know we had the conversation, but I don't think you can equate understanding some of the financial complexities life will invariably burden one with to holding down a job.

 

[Shogun]

indeed, and I don't think that teaching finances in HS is really a full 32-bit image of the same complexities but it's certainly a good place to start preparing kids. 14-18 years of age is not a bracket that requires the same consideration as 9-13 year olds. Neither do financial behaviours of college age 18-21 year olds support teaching these things in college.


That last one was a timely conversation, no?
Schools Plan to Pay Cash for Marks
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/nyregion/19schools.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


New York City students could earn as much as $500 a year for doing well on standardized tests and showing up for class in a new program to begin this fall, city officials announced yesterday. And the Harvard economist who created the program is joining the inner circle of Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein, according to an official briefed on the hiring.

The economist, Roland G. Fryer, who has published several studies on racial inequality in public schools, met this month with school principals around the city to push his program, which uses money raised privately.

Both Mr. Klein and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg have been eager to hear Professor Fryer’s thoughts on how to reverse the persistent lagging of poor and minority students, who make up most of the city’s public school enrollment. But educators have been skeptical, saying students have to love learning for its own sake, not for cash prizes.

Now Professor Fryer will be the Department of Education’s “chief equality officer,” a member of the chancellor’s senior staff. The title is meant to reflect his primary focus — to improve the performance of black and Hispanic students.

The school incentive program is part of the mayor’s wider antipoverty initiative, which also includes other cash payments, all raised privately, to influence behavior and reduce poverty. Details of the various incentive programs were announced yesterday by Linda Gibbs, the deputy mayor for health and human services, at a briefing at City Hall. The incentive programs are expected to attract more than 2,500 families in Harlem; Brownsville and East New York in Brooklyn; and the Morris Heights and East Tremont sections of the Bronx, she said.

Cash incentives for adults will include $150 a month for keeping a full-time job and $50 a month for having health insurance. Families will also receive as much as $50 per month per child for high attendance rates in school, as well as $25 for attending parent-teacher conferences.

The city has already raised much of the $53 million it needs for the program, Ms. Gibbs said. The effort, which officials said was the broadest ever tried in this country to pay poor people to develop good habits, is modeled in part on one in Mexico.

Although Professor Fryer helped devise some of the broader incentives like the payments for high attendance rates, his main proposals involve payments to children for doing well on tests.

Under his plan, fourth-grade students will receive up to $25 for a perfect score on each of 10 standardized tests throughout the year. Seventh-grade students will be able to earn twice as much — $50 per test, for a total of up to $500. Fourth graders will receive $5 just for taking the test, and seventh graders will get $10.

Officials expect up to 40 schools to participate this fall, with a total of 9,000 students, in the pilot phase of the program, which will be monitored by Professor Fryer. After two years, they said, they will evaluate it for possible expansion.

Principals in the system’s empowerment initiative — who have more autonomy to run their schools — can choose to join the program.

Similar, smaller programs for cash incentives to raise schoolchildren’s performance have been put in place elsewhere in the country. In Chelsea, Mass., for instance, students can receive $25 for perfect attendance. And in Dallas, some schools hand over $2 for every book a child reads.

Despite the criticism of the program from some teachers and principals, some community leaders praised Professor Fryer’s idea yesterday as an inventive way to encourage students to do well in school.

“I’m willing to say let’s see what works,” said Darwin Davis, the president of the Urban League. “We are in a capitalist society and people are motivated by money across race and across class, so why not?”

But Mr. Davis also cautioned that the amounts of money being offered were relatively paltry in New York.

“I wish $50 could be enough for an insurance payment, but that’s not going to be the case,” he said, wondering aloud how many tests students would need to pass to buy the latest video game.

Sol Stern, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, called the idea a “insult to every hard-working parent.”

Mr. Stern has said he would support paying teachers more to work in low-performing schools.

But he cautioned against giving too much credence to the notion that money would prod students. He said the mayor was being a “sucker for the market system.”
More Articles in New York Region »

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/nyregion/19schools.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



Do you remember the Book-it program? The one where every book ready gets a star on a book-it badge which can then be traded i for pizza at pizzahut? We had this program in my elementary school and, as the result, I am a full on addicted reader. Ironically, I have come to hate pizza BUT the results of positive reinforcement over that of punishment seem to be quite telling.


http://www.bookitprogram.com/

same concept.

 

[liberalogic]

My suggestion would be to strike a balance of some type as far as what is available to students. I don't think you really understand what men's studies is if you think you can pick up what it means to be a man studying 'subfields of history' you would be mistaken. If you offer an animal rights class, offer a benefits and history of hunting class, maybe kids would learn that it is organizations that are primarily hunters that give the most (both time and money) to the environment and not Green Peace or the Sierra Club. If you offer a peace and justice class, offer a benefits of war class, etc.

Can you please tell me what the curriculum was for the "men's studies" program? I'm interested to hear how a professor would approach such a class without incorporating the social, ethnic, racial, and economic divisions of men and how these have shaped their interactions.

Also, I've never heard of an animal rights class in college. The hunter-environment connection may be a tiny portion of an American Politics class that covers interest groups. I can't see an entire course revolving around such a principle.

The problem is those classes don't teach critical thinking. My experience has been they are taught by teachers with an agenda. If college has no other objective, it should at the very least be teaching students to be objective and think critically about issues.

I have to strongly disagree with you here. The leftist-geared class does not require that you agree; instead, it requires you to employ a specific form of analysis to analyze history. This course was probably the most intellectually-stimulating, thought provoking course that I've ever taken. Was I brainwashed to adopt a radical, left platform? No, but I was able to expand my arsenal of analysis and apply certain techniques (at my own discretion) to both historical and current events.

Not everyone goes to high school. High school is not the place for personal finance mainly because students that age don't have the maturity to deal with it. At this point if kids aren't going to college they aren't prepared for life already. Which means 'many kids don't go to college' is not a legitimate excuse.

Exposure to this is essential. Plus, as Shogun said, high school is a much larger sample of the population than college. Teaching these things certainly can't hurt.

 

[Psychoblues]

Don't expect bum80 to respond, ll. Your question/s require much too much comprehension.

bum80 is very much concerned with neg repping those with which she does not agree and conversation is not a forte' with which she chooses to engage.

 

[Bern80]

Can you please tell me what the curriculum was for the "men's studies" program? I'm interested to hear how a professor would approach such a class without incorporating the social, ethnic, racial, and economic divisions of men and how these have shaped their interactions.

Certainly there were aspects that studied the evolution of male stereotypes like machismo, sexism, etc. But the purpose was more geared toward the future. A litle background may help:

I went to an all males college which had a sister, all female college. The campuses are about 10 miles apart. Classes were integrated so most of the day looked like any other co-ed college on both campuses. The essential difference was that the respective dorms were kept seperate and neither gender was allowed on the others campus after a certain time.

The male college decided to develop a men's center for the purpose of helping the young men of the college become better men. In college there is a stereotype that men are just trying to 'get some' and sometimes are viewed as almost predatory. The men's center was created in part to dispel stereotypes like that.

Also, I've never heard of an animal rights class in college. The hunter-environment connection may be a tiny portion of an American Politics class that covers interest groups. I can't see an entire course revolving around such a principle.

I can't speak to your college of course but mine did offer such an animal rights class. Not seeing a fit for a hunting class is rather narrow minded as well. It has nothing to do with politics. How our hunters any less an interest group than PETA? Yet the college saw fit to have a class that essentially pushes the agenda of said interest group.

I have to strongly disagree with you here. The leftist-geared class does not require that you agree; instead, it requires you to employ a specific form of analysis to analyze history. This course was probably the most intellectually-stimulating, thought provoking course that I've ever taken. Was I brainwashed to adopt a radical, left platform? No, but I was able to expand my arsenal of analysis and apply certain techniques (at my own discretion) to both historical and current events.

It depends on the teacher. By way of grades it often does require that you agree with the agenda (i.e write a paper as to why hunting is wrong.)

Exposure to this is essential. Plus, as Shogun said, high school is a much larger sample of the population than college. Teaching these things certainly can't hurt.

Of course it's essential. But what good is a large sample size if it essentially goes in one ear and out the other? Think back to high school for a second. How many of your fellow class mates gave a rats ass about really acquiring knowledge as oppossed to just getting through it?

 

[Psychoblues]

Your argument, as weak as it is, can easily be disputed. I'll let those that you quote so incompletely and certainly incomprehensively speak for themselves.

 

[Bern80]

Your argument, as weak as it is, can easily be disputed. I'll let those that you quote so incompletely and certainly incomprehensively speak for themselves.

Here's a crazy idea. How about you try to discredit me with something of actual substance instead of your lame ass one liners you chicken shit. Course you'll need a grammar lesson first based on the above.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Bern80, I respect your POV, but I don't think it's a fair sample of the average college.

1. I've taken courses with professors that are liberal and ones that are conservative. I'm at a liberal arts school and I've yet to take 1 professor who openly express their political beliefs. I figured out which ones were cons and which ones were libs, but I doubt most students in my classes even notice. The whole "liberal bias" conspiracy is pretty silly. Students are allowed and 99% of the time welcomed to express their opinions and openly disagree with a professor's opinion or teaching. The student is expected to defend their reasoning, but I don't think that's asking too much of the student.

2. Critical thinking is the keystone of today's college education. Unless you play D-1 football, you can't get a degree without developing these skills.

3. Courses like womens studies and animal rights exist because students want to learn about them. Students can choose what they want to take and what they don't. If kids wanted to learn about the benefits of hunting, then a class would exist. Also, those classes are generally electives, meaning they are not degree requirement courses. Students are allowed and encouraged to be open minded in what they choose for electives, because maybe they'll find sometime they take interest in and pursue it further.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, I respect your POV, but I don't think it's a fair sample of the average college.

1. I've taken courses with professors that are liberal and ones that are conservative. I'm at a liberal arts school and I've yet to take 1 professor who openly express their political beliefs. I figured out which ones were cons and which ones were libs, but I doubt most students in my classes even notice. The whole "liberal bias" conspiracy is pretty silly. Students are allowed and 99% of the time welcomed to express their opinions and openly disagree with a professor's opinion or teaching. The student is expected to defend their reasoning, but I don't think that's asking too much of the student.

Question for you. If colleges were conservatively biased would I notice (me being a conservative)? My point is, if you are of a leftist persuasion and colleges really are left wing bias your perception will tend to be that there really isn't any bias.

2. Critical thinking is the keystone of today's college education. Unless you play D-1 football, you can't get a degree without developing these skills.

3. Courses like womens studies and animal rights exist because students want to learn about them. Students can choose what they want to take and what they don't. If kids wanted to learn about the benefits of hunting, then a class would exist. Also, those classes are generally electives, meaning they are not degree requirement courses. Students are allowed and encouraged to be open minded in what they choose for electives, because maybe they'll find sometime they take interest in and pursue it further.

These two kind of go together. You say those classes are taught because that's what the kids want. I say bullshit, but let's just assume it's true for a second. Isn't an aspect of critical thinking exploring all sides of an issue? How does a class who's course lesson it to tell me why I shouldn't hunt, why I shouldn't where fur, why I shouldn't eat meat, promote critical thinking?

What students want has nothing to do with what's taught. If that were the case every college would look like the one in the movie Accepted where they teach binge drinking 101. What is more likely the case is that because academia has a left bias the classes that are offered are more likely to have a leftist agenda.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Question for you. If colleges were conservatively biased would I notice (me being a conservative)? My point is, if you are of a leftist persuasion and colleges really are left wing bias your perception will tend to be that there really isn't any bias.

Nope. You're under the impression that I cannot decipher my own beliefs from reality. I have beliefs, and yes they lean left, but that does not eliminate my ability to fairly evaluate the beliefs of others.

example: If I'm a communist, and I hear someone say that everyone should be paid equally for different jobs, then I am going to recognize that as a communist comment.

These two kind of go together. You say those classes are taught because that's what the kids want. I say bullshit, but let's just assume it's true for a second. Isn't an aspect of critical thinking exploring all sides of an issue? How does a class who's course lesson it to tell me why I shouldn't hunt, why I shouldn't where fur, why I shouldn't eat meat, promote critical thinking?

You need to actually attend or at least look into what is taught in the courses you seem to despise. Issues are not just presented by one side, in the classroom. Students, at least at my university, have to evaluate and learn the stances of all sides of an issue like animal rights or gun control or any other elective course like that.

What students want has nothing to do with what's taught. If that were the case every college would look like the one in the movie Accepted where they teach binge drinking 101. What is more likely the case is that because academia has a left bias the classes that are offered are more likely to have a leftist agenda.

Not at all. I'm afraid you've fallen under the spell by some talking heads in the media. You've got the impression that college students are unmotivated kids who are just looking to take advantage of their newfound freedoms, and that since the student body consistantly votes democrat then the professors must also be all democrats. I believe that you hold this belief as justification as to why the youth in this country will always vote for progressive candidates. What you fail to realize, is that the youth will ALWAYS be progressive because the youth grows up without the same freedoms as the adults, and they are forced to watch their country head in directions that they cannot control. Once given a voice (vote), they will exercise that voice to steer the nation in a direction that they feel is beneficial to their future. Now as to all of this, you, the older person, will look for an excuse as to why the younger generations have not be indoctirned by your generation. Your generation raises the youth, yet cannot understand why the youth opposes many of the values you hold near and dear. That exuse is to blame the colleges. Blame the professors. Claim that there is some kind of leftist agenda that's out there to brain wash the students. If you step back, and really think about what you're saying, then you're going to find it's quite foolish.

 

[Bern80]

You need to actually attend or at least look into what is taught in the courses you seem to despise. Issues are not just presented by one side, in the classroom. Students, at least at my university, have to evaluate and learn the stances of all sides of an issue like animal rights or gun control or any other elective course like that.

So what you really mean is that students need to develop critical thinking somehow on their own if it's not actually being taught.

Not at all. I'm afraid you've fallen under the spell by some talking heads in the media. You've got the impression that college students are unmotivated kids who are just looking to take advantage of their newfound freedoms, and that since the student body consistantly votes democrat then the professors must also be all democrats. I believe that you hold this belief as justification as to why the youth in this country will always vote for progressive candidates. What you fail to realize, is that the youth will ALWAYS be progressive because the youth grows up without the same freedoms as the adults, and they are forced to watch their country head in directions that they cannot control. Once given a voice (vote), they will exercise that voice to steer the nation in a direction that they feel is beneficial to their future. Now as to all of this, you, the older person, will look for an excuse as to why the younger generations have not be indoctirned by your generation. Your generation raises the youth, yet cannot understand why the youth opposes many of the values you hold near and dear. That exuse is to blame the colleges. Blame the professors. Claim that there is some kind of leftist agenda that's out there to brain wash the students. If you step back, and really think about what you're saying, then you're going to find it's quite foolish.

I'm not sure how you came to your media spell conclusion seeing as all my statement regarding my perception are a result of college experience, not believing what the media wants me too. Kind of a cop-out argument really as most righties will argue the media is left biased as well (accept for talk radio of course). The statistical fact is most of academia is occupied by people that identify themselves as democrat. Get real for second and ask yourself what the chances really are then that rightest classes I've mentioned will be taught compared to leftist classes.

I'm not sure how you came to conclusion I'm an 'older person' unless your definition of that is really different than mine (I'm the ripe old age of just turning 27). Why youth don't carry on values of the elders has more to do with parents and their values. Very few youth actually turn out to have different values than their parents. I'm sure if you look at many of your friends you will see as I have they are spitting image of their parants in manner, personality and values. I was raised by conservative parents. College, despite have far more leftists clubs and courses, than conservative ones didn't change that. As I alluded to before had i grown up liberal I probably would have thought hey college is great cause it matches my values. Being a conservative i was able to see that not only my college but others dont' have courses or clubs that espouse my values.

 

[Zoomie1980]

'Liberal' education is the same BS as the so called liberal MSM. While there are liberals in college - I hope there would be - there are just as many conservatives and just as many in the middle somewhere. Many private schools are actually conservative and that is where the monied and the economically powerful come from. The students I know pretty much reflect their parents values or stray little from their values. We have lots of teachers in our family as well and most are conservative. I find this constant conservative effort to label others liberal, because liberal is supposed to a bad thing, an abuse of reality and puzzling.

There is not a single registered Republican in the entire faculty at Harvard.....not ONE....but over 120 registered Democrats.

 

[Dr Grump]

There is not a single registered Republican in the entire faculty at Harvard.....not ONE....but over 120 registered Democrats.

Thank goodness for small miracles!

 

[Zoomie1980]

Exposure to this is essential. Plus, as Shogun said, high school is a much larger sample of the population than college. Teaching these things certainly can't hurt.

This is utter nonsense. "Life skills" are NOT within the educational mandate of primary education. That's what parents are for.

Public education in this country started going to pot when schools were increasingly required to perform functions that used to be the prerogative of the traditional family and taught at home. They no longer have the time to teach the basics of math, science, history, social studies, comp and lit, etc...too busy teaching basic "life skills" because of the breakdown of the American family

 

[Zoomie1980]

Bern80, I respect your POV, but I don't think it's a fair sample of the average college.

1. I've taken courses with professors that are liberal and ones that are conservative. I'm at a liberal arts school and I've yet to take 1 professor who openly express their political beliefs. I figured out which ones were cons and which ones were libs, but I doubt most students in my classes even notice. The whole "liberal bias" conspiracy is pretty silly. Students are allowed and 99% of the time welcomed to express their opinions and openly disagree with a professor's opinion or teaching. The student is expected to defend their reasoning, but I don't think that's asking too much of the student.

2. Critical thinking is the keystone of today's college education. Unless you play D-1 football, you can't get a degree without developing these skills.

3. Courses like womens studies and animal rights exist because students want to learn about them. Students can choose what they want to take and what they don't. If kids wanted to learn about the benefits of hunting, then a class would exist. Also, those classes are generally electives, meaning they are not degree requirement courses. Students are allowed and encouraged to be open minded in what they choose for electives, because maybe they'll find sometime they take interest in and pursue it further.

Colleges used to be about becoming qualified in advanced academic skills required by business. Critical thinking was surely a part of that, but if I'm hiring engineers, programmers, or economists I want kids who actually KNOW engineering, programming concepts and economic fundementals, not kids loaded with a pile of useless mush like "women's studies".

There is a reason so may "college educated" kids can't find gainful employment after graduation....they majored in CRAP that no business finds useful.

 

[jillian]

There is not a single registered Republican in the entire faculty at Harvard.....not ONE....but over 120 registered Democrats.

Do you have the same complaint that this administration hired about 120 lawyers from substandard pretend law school Bob Jones U?

 

[Bern80]

Do you have the same complaint that this administration hired about 120 lawyers from substandard pretend law school Bob Jones U?

Much as you'd love to steer this away from what has become blatantly obvious, please try to stay on topic. If we entrust colleges to teach students critical thinking, how can that possibly be happening if the vast majority of academics are left leaning?

Please try to convince me that even though this particular group of people by and large shares one value set, they are certainly teaching their classes with the utmost objectivity, giving equal merit to all types of classes and all sides of arguments and truly encouraging critical thinking.