6 ms·
Outside of specific academic focus, nearly everyone I know who has graduated a US university thinks basically the same way.
by beaner 8y ago
Outside of specific academic focus, nearly everyone I know who has graduated a US university thinks basically the same way.
- BurningFrog 8y agoA cynical view is that US universities teaches you the opinions and manners you need to assume your role in the ruling class.
- ralusek 8y agoIt is literally the exact opposite. The ratio of leftist to right professors in university is 12:1, even more pronounced among faculty. 1 out of 5 professors in America identify as Marxist.
- mc32 8y agoWhoa! I used ti lean left and professors tilted left, I hadn’t noticed it was so pronounced. I gotta think they are more idealists than bona fide marxists though; I mean, if they read enough, they must know the drill (they wouldn’t have influence and any countertevolutionary ideas and they are sent off).
- tootahe45 8y agoMarxist, so even more in favor of a ruling class above all.
- andrepd 8y agoI know you're just trying to be snarky, but how does that make any sense?
- lake99 8y agoI guess it's a reference to George Orwell's "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
- bongo662 8y agoProbably the idea that instead of class divide by wealth it would be class divide on political hierarchy (which would undoubtly divide on wealth as well)
- manfredo 8y agoIn command economies, someone needs to do the commanding. Unsurprisingly, the revolutionaries that install such systems often choose themselves for that role.
- emmelaich 8y agoYes, the Left is the ruling class. Or the establishment if you like.
- emmelaich 8y agoMaybe a reference to collectivization in Soviet Russia. The peasants did not go willingly.
- xcjones 8y agoAcademia is one of the few professions that do well in communist societies. Also in Western societies, they benefit from the state giving them other people's money. So it's easy and self-serving for an academic to be a socialist.
- fwn 8y agoThis is very wrong, assuming that the concept of academia is to have any scientific meaning. We can see it, for example, in the GDR, the former East of Germany where social sciences basically died. At the very same time, West-Germany developed a hugely influential discourse (...with a lot of Marxists, despite all the tensions). One could say that specific individuals from academia might profit from having symbolic capital to convert into political power, but that's hardly an idea that could be universally applied.
- fdrg 8y agoThis is not wrong at all. Compared to other professions, university-employed academics did well. How is it controversial that it is easier for someone who is directly employed by the state to be a socialist? You mention Marxist discourse in West Germany. It was easy for Adorno to be a socialist, because all he could do was talk in a convoluted, content-free manner. Celibidache (who actually did something), called him the biggest windbag of the 20th century.
- dempseye 8y agoThis sounds pithy, but is inaccurate. Marxists (in particular Leninists, because Marxism is a broad church) think that there is a ruling class, that in capitalist societies the ruling class is the minority of owners of capital, and that, in order to transition to a classless society, the capitalist ruling class needs to be replaced temporarily by a ruling class composed of people with the interests of the working class in mind. The purpose of this period of working class rule is to eradicate the capitalist class and its ideology (not necessarily through violence, although in practice what ruling class yields to another without compulsion?), and develop the productive forces of the society in order to enable communism. This last point is one of the big things that distinguishes Lenin's theories from Marx's, because Marx thought that revolution would naturally arise in the most advanced technological societies once the industrial base necessary for a transition to communism was already pretty much in place. As we know, the revolutions occurred in places with a lower level of development, thus requiring this theoretical modification and extending the period of rule by the working class beyond the brief duration that Marx envisaged. The USSR, while it existed, always said they were "building socialism" and never said they had arrived at the destination, which is a classless society. The PRC says that it is "building socialism" and that the process might take a hundred generations. The purpose of their rule, according to their own theoretical framework, is to eventually give it up. So no, Marxists are not "even more in favour of a ruling class above all."
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago>1 out of 5 professors in America identify as Marxist. I wonder how they're distributed among the various disciplines.
- repolfx 8y agoHere is a helpful chart that gives this data: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1...
- mc32 8y agoI think that’s more SciencesPo which grooms the political/ruling class. It’s too diffuse in the US to say so.
- hnuser355 8y agoHaha, as if the average US university graduate is joining the ruling class
- anonytrary 8y agoHaha, as if the average member of the ruling class didn't graduate from university.
- nineteen999 8y agoAs a counterexample, Gina Rinehart who is Australia's wealthiest woman and number 7 worldwide, never graduated. So there are exceptions, but I get that it is not the norm.
- anonytrary 8y ago> average member
- nineteen999 8y ago> but I get that it is not the norm. And most available evidence suggests she did not get there through high intelligence, in lieu of a university education, but rather, complete and utter greed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDAwGqlIp7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDAwGqlIp7E
- anonytrary 8y agoAs such, it is not a counterexample! Edit: you keep editing your comments, but I was replying to the self-quote, which, at the time was your entire comment.
- nineteen999 8y agoSure, bad choice of words on my part. I'm pointing out, perhaps badly, that there are other attributes other than intelligence & education that can get someone there, eg. luck, greed, being a sociopath etc.
- mycall 8y agoI prefer that US universities teach you have to learn. What you learn doesn't really matter.
- scarface74 8y agoUntil they try to get that first job out of college...
- yardie 8y agoAh yes, the infamous “entry level” position that requires 3 years experience of Java|C++|C#. My first entry level job required C# knowledge. So I went to the nearest Barnes and Nobles and read the Microsoft guide cover to cover. I was not a C# major in uni but being able to study, abstract, and internalize concepts was something I did learn.
- scarface74 8y agoYes it sucks from both ends. Companies aren’t willing to invest in teaching employees because they know as soon as they do, the employee will leave for greener pastures and the employee can’t get experience without a job or a job without experience. The usual retort is why not bring someone in as a junior, train them, and give them a raise to market rates? But then you’ve invested x amount of dollars on someone and y amount of time to bring them up to speed when you can find someone who already has the skill you need and they can hit the ground running.
- yardie 8y agoBut the whole point of entry-level positions is you get someone inexperienced at below market rates. What they are really aiming at is getting someone experienced but desperate enough to take an underpaid position. Then hope they don't leave for a better paying job elsewhere.
- scarface74 8y ago
- all2 8y agoMost people I know (I'm in university) can recite facts rather easily, they understand the theory and practice relatively well. What they seem to lack (what most people I meet seem to lack) is questions and a questioning mind.
- chasing 8y agoWow, that’s the polar opposite of my experience (the “lacking a questioning mind” bit). Maybe you’re in the wrong program or studying a major that doesn’t fit your intellectual needs? (Added later...) I don’t know what you’re studying. And I know philosophy and fine arts programs get shat on sometimes, but one thing those subjects allow (when taught properly) is a very, very deep questioning and thoughtfulness towards many things. In my experience, anyway.
- all2 8y agoI was in Engineering, then Applied Math, now in computer science. I don't do well in university style math classes. It takes me a long time working through something to understand what is happening (and why - the why of a thing is one of the first questions I ask when I'm learning something new). It takes me about twice as long to learn a math concept as my peers (or so it seems). But I'm typically the first to speak up during a lecture.
- godelmachine 8y ago>>It takes me about twice as long to learn a math concept as my peers (or so it seems). But I'm typically the first to speak up during a lecture. This is actually an excellent habit, and you should nurture it as much as you can. It looks like you have done a careful SWOT analysis, and thats the way to go.
- chasing 8y agoAsk your professor questions, even if it feels weird to you. Go deep! Good professors and people truly interested in their fields of study will want to get into the nitty gritty with you — oftentimes the reason they can’t in class is more practical than anything: Lack of time, presumption of disinterest from students, etc. I have taught classes at universities and I’m always super-excited when students stick around wanting to talk more after class. It’s a sign that you’ve connected. Maybe take a good literature or philosophy class if your university offers. They won’t help you understand CS (most likely — although some weird parallels can crop up), but they’ll expand your mind. If you let them!
- shoo 8y agoJeff Schmidt's book "Disciplined Minds" is a great read about this kind of thing -- http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/ http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/ Here's some discussion from a review of Disciplined Minds by Brian Martin: > Jeff Schmidt provides an answer in his book Disciplined Minds: professionals, including teachers, are selected and molded to have politically and intellectually subordinate attitudes, thereby making their creative energies available to the system. In short, "professional education and employment push people to accept a role in which they do not make a significant difference, a politically subordinate role." (p. 2). > The first step in Schmidt’s argument is the claim that professionals - including police, doctors, lawyers, teachers and many others - think less independently than nonprofessionals. He cites opinion polls taken during the Vietnam war showing that support for the war was greater among those with more higher education. > Schmidt argues that what really makes an individual a professional is not technical knowledge, but rather "ideological discipline." > A key to creating docile professionals is professional training. Through their training, budding professionals learn to orient their intellectual effort to tasks assigned to them. Schmidt has a wonderful expression for this: "assignable curiosity." Children are naturally curious about all sorts of things. Along the road to becoming a professional, they learn how to orient this curiosity to tasks assigned by others. https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/01BRrt.html https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/01BRrt.html The journalist Lyn Gerry read and recorded most of the chapters in the book, they can be listened to here: https://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Disciplined_Minds https://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Disciplined_Minds
- yters 8y ago> He cites opinion polls taken during the Vietnam war showing that support for the war was greater among those with more higher education. If support for the war was lower among the less education, does this mean the less educated do not think as independently?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- nyolfen 8y ago> He cites opinion polls taken during the Vietnam war showing that support for the war was greater among those with more higher education. ie, people whose peers and children were less likely to be drafted.
- heyitsguay 8y agoThere is a huge diversity of thought in university graduates. The extreme rightward shift in conservative mindset in the US over the past two decades means that everybody left of "maybe owning slaves is ok" gets uniformly labeled "liberal" or "leftist" in 2018.
- nixpulvis 8y agoI'm a hard liberal, but these days I feel like a conservative. I'm sure I too have been changing in ways, but it's true the buckets have gotten too large and far apart.
- ikeboy 8y agoUnless your definition of slaves includes all workers under capitalist regimes, this is wrong. Plenty of conservatives don't think slavery is acceptable.
- WalterBright 8y agoI've never run into anyone that did.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoI think you just did...
- maxxxxx 8y agoI have talked to some libertarians that once you push them a little seem to view slavery as a lesser evil than taxes or environmental regulations.
- WalterBright 8y agoBut they're still thinking of it as evil. Slavery is completely anti-ethical to libertarianism.
- 8y ago
- Iv 8y agoUS universities seem terrible. Mine opened me to a variety of specialties, opinions, skills, cultural movements that I had never seen before. This was my first contact with unions, entrepreneurs, metalheads, gay community, ultra-christians, drug users, researchers.
- diogenescynic 8y agoIt’s narrow minded to generalize that massive groups of people think “basically” the same way... I can honestly say that when I went to college, there were definitely people who had a multitude of ideas and opinions—there was no groupthink or even a super majority consensus of opinion. Maybe you went to the wrong school and have a narrow social circle if all the people you know think the same way.