4 ms·

The Effect of Research Universities on Student Partisanship and Turnout

22 points by luu 4y ago

angrycontrarian 4y ago
Would the article have been published if the author found evidence to the contrary?
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  You could pose this question about pretty much any research.
  - club_tropical 4y ago
    And you should. If the opposite could not have been published, or would have had enormous donwsides, you should discount its objectivity, same like if I pull out a knife and demand your wallet, one should discount your voluntariness.
- fulafel 4y ago
  Do you mean self-published, like this is, or in some peer reviewed journal?
  - club_tropical 4y ago
    Not speaking for OG, but: associated with his real name, while (as a PhD in econ) deeply dependent on reputation-contingent job prospects. People can have careers ruined by a tweet; self-published article under your own name is in no way free from constraints.
    - nequo 4y ago
      I understand what you are saying. But publishing evidence that exposure to liberal professors makes students more liberal is not the kind of thing that would hurt your job prospects as a PhD in econ. It would be seen as interesting and intriguing work.
- divided 4y ago
  This sort of response encapsulates the conservative victimhood complex. Whenever any data or research comes out that contradicts their viewpoints, the go-to is to assume bias and dismiss it without addressing its actual merits. The writer is an Economics major, not one of the softer social sciences. According to a 2010 study[1] (yeah, yeah boy have things changed since then!), the more economics classes one takes, the more likely they are to lean Republican. So would someone in a field that is split evenly between conservative and liberal viewpoints publish a paper with findings that suggest the conservative viewpoint is correct? Yes, don’t be silly, it clearly happens all the time. No reason to get conspiratorial here. [1] https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr450.pdf https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff...
admissionsguy 4y ago
> Suggestive evidence is more consistent with peer socialization in college and long-run mechanisms than intentional efforts by faculty or curricula So students are pressured to conform to local majority views and eventually internalise those views. Since said students are claimed to go on to wield disproportionate power in society, a policy proposal based on this work might be to introduce mechanism to counterbalance this pro-Democrat conditioning in higher education institutions.
- enkid 4y ago
  It's very easy to take these circumstances and give it a different spin. How about individuals are more receptive to ideas from their peers. In college they are exposed to more political ideologies, and they adopt the best ones, which happen to be "pro-Democrat." I don't actually know the mechanism, or if any of this is true, all I'm trying to point out is your framing is going to adjust the way you view the outcome. The way you frame this ("counterbalance this pro-Democrat conditioning") comes off as anti-democratic (political system, not party), and I'm really curious what your opinion is about social media that labels Republican disinformation (for example, birtherism, the 2020 election was stolen, etc.) because there has been a lot of research done to show social media amplifies those messages more than ones from the left. Does that require counterbalancing?
- divided 4y ago
  I feel like this was a tongue-in-cheek proposal, but why would we want to be the thought police here? These are, after all, students sharing their beliefs with other students. Conservatives have spent decades demonizing higher education as professor-led indoctrination centers. This would have the likely effect of fewer conservatives going to college and fewer conservative parents sending their children. So in that kind of environment, of course the campus becomes more and more liberal, and that’s the pool of people who later become professors, so a higher and higher percentage of professors are liberal. It’s sorta funny your proposal is to send more conservatives to college to counterbalance the liberals, but that’s a problem with decades-long conservative messaging and not anything the schools are doing. As an aside, there’s no real solution here for conservatives. Young people lean liberal. I grew up conservative in a conservative state, but college and debates with other students opened my eyes to other perspectives and I’ve shifted left ever since. Exactly like the findings in the study. The issue is growing up our beliefs are segregated along that urban/rural divide. Where I grew up, conservative kids were the majority. As soon as you mix people between that line (college), you will almost always have a majority liberal lean even in conservative states. Which as you noted will lead to conservatives becoming more liberal, as I did. Although I wouldn’t say pressured, at least in my case it was exposure to different ideas more than anything. I think that’s ultimately why conservatives demonize higher education as indoctrination. Not because it’s literal indoctrination like a church listening to a preacher, but because their kids raised conservative will meet kids raised liberal and it’s far more likely the conservative kids shift left than the others shift right. That spells disaster for a party.
whycombinetor 4y ago
I don't think one can do a study using data exclusively from the University of California system and claim it applies to "research universities" in general. Notwithstanding New York, California is the current best example of a "liberal hellhole" state, so it would make sense that admission to that particular state's public university system is eventually associated with an increased left bent. Let's see this exact study methodology reproduced with e.g. Stanford admissions data where the Hoover Institution is a prominent presence, or the University of Mississippi/Alabama or Louisiana State University located in conservative hotbeds.
- joxel 4y ago
  - xhkkffbf 4y ago
    Well, California has been evolving for some time. Ronald Reagan was governor of the state for two terms. Many people credit Stanford deans like Fred Terman for planting the seeds that grew into Silicon Valley. Alas, the Terman family is also connected with the same eugenics movement with famed progressive Democrats like Woodrow Wilson. I would suggest that it's a bit more complicated.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    California was the bulwark of the GOP during the mid 20th century. Santa Clara County voted Republican every election from 1972 to 1988, encompassing both the period before and after Apple’s founding and IPO. The state as a whole voted Republican in all but one presidential election from 1952 to 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_California.
ivanstegic 4y ago
People should actually read the 135 page dissertation and then leave a comment here with an opinion or an analysis. Anything short of that is meaningless critique.
- ivanstegic 4y ago
  Shocked! Shocked, that this comment is being moderated down!!
- neogodless 4y ago
  To be clear, the conclusion begins on page 22 and ends on page 24. The rest of the pages after that are references, tables, appendices, etc. Your premise here appears to be something like "no one can meaningfully discuss or contribute to discussion without spending a great deal of time poring over minute details of a dissertation." I suspect that's an overreach. To be sure, anyone that is well-versed in statistical analysis can meaningfully contribute to the discussion (particularly of its statistical validity) by spending that kind of time, and weighing in with confirmation or refutation of the techniques and analysis used. But I would offer the premise that reading the 2 pages of the conclusion, and pairing that with your own knowledge and life experience qualifies you to participate in and contribute to meaningful discussion. An excerpt: > Suggestive evidence is more consistent with peer socialization in college and long-run mechanisms than intentional efforts by faculty or curricula. Students who attend UC campuses as a result of the policy are exposed to more secular and left-leaning peers, live with other college students more often, and are more likely to attain a bachelor’s degree, earn higher incomes, and enroll in graduate school. That seems like something that we can discuss without the entirety of the 135 page paper in our heads.
  - ivanstegic 4y ago
    I actually read through the introduction and got to about page 6 when I realized that most people making comments here aren’t even going to do that. I agree with you, it’s not hard to read this and to have an opinion. But most people won’t even bother reading the first page. Becasue, internet.

22 points by luu 4y ago

angrycontrarian 4y ago

Would the article have been published if the author found evidence to the contrary?

IIAOPSW 4y ago
You could pose this question about pretty much any research.
- club_tropical 4y ago
  And you should. If the opposite could not have been published, or would have had enormous donwsides, you should discount its objectivity, same like if I pull out a knife and demand your wallet, one should discount your voluntariness.
fulafel 4y ago
Do you mean self-published, like this is, or in some peer reviewed journal?
- club_tropical 4y ago
  Not speaking for OG, but: associated with his real name, while (as a PhD in econ) deeply dependent on reputation-contingent job prospects. People can have careers ruined by a tweet; self-published article under your own name is in no way free from constraints.
  - nequo 4y ago
    I understand what you are saying. But publishing evidence that exposure to liberal professors makes students more liberal is not the kind of thing that would hurt your job prospects as a PhD in econ. It would be seen as interesting and intriguing work.
divided 4y ago
This sort of response encapsulates the conservative victimhood complex. Whenever any data or research comes out that contradicts their viewpoints, the go-to is to assume bias and dismiss it without addressing its actual merits. The writer is an Economics major, not one of the softer social sciences. According to a 2010 study[1] (yeah, yeah boy have things changed since then!), the more economics classes one takes, the more likely they are to lean Republican. So would someone in a field that is split evenly between conservative and liberal viewpoints publish a paper with findings that suggest the conservative viewpoint is correct? Yes, don’t be silly, it clearly happens all the time. No reason to get conspiratorial here. [1] https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr450.pdf https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff...

admissionsguy 4y ago

> Suggestive evidence is more consistent with peer socialization in college and long-run mechanisms than intentional efforts by faculty or curricula So students are pressured to conform to local majority views and eventually internalise those views. Since said students are claimed to go on to wield disproportionate power in society, a policy proposal based on this work might be to introduce mechanism to counterbalance this pro-Democrat conditioning in higher education institutions.

enkid 4y ago
It's very easy to take these circumstances and give it a different spin. How about individuals are more receptive to ideas from their peers. In college they are exposed to more political ideologies, and they adopt the best ones, which happen to be "pro-Democrat." I don't actually know the mechanism, or if any of this is true, all I'm trying to point out is your framing is going to adjust the way you view the outcome. The way you frame this ("counterbalance this pro-Democrat conditioning") comes off as anti-democratic (political system, not party), and I'm really curious what your opinion is about social media that labels Republican disinformation (for example, birtherism, the 2020 election was stolen, etc.) because there has been a lot of research done to show social media amplifies those messages more than ones from the left. Does that require counterbalancing?
divided 4y ago
I feel like this was a tongue-in-cheek proposal, but why would we want to be the thought police here? These are, after all, students sharing their beliefs with other students. Conservatives have spent decades demonizing higher education as professor-led indoctrination centers. This would have the likely effect of fewer conservatives going to college and fewer conservative parents sending their children. So in that kind of environment, of course the campus becomes more and more liberal, and that’s the pool of people who later become professors, so a higher and higher percentage of professors are liberal. It’s sorta funny your proposal is to send more conservatives to college to counterbalance the liberals, but that’s a problem with decades-long conservative messaging and not anything the schools are doing. As an aside, there’s no real solution here for conservatives. Young people lean liberal. I grew up conservative in a conservative state, but college and debates with other students opened my eyes to other perspectives and I’ve shifted left ever since. Exactly like the findings in the study. The issue is growing up our beliefs are segregated along that urban/rural divide. Where I grew up, conservative kids were the majority. As soon as you mix people between that line (college), you will almost always have a majority liberal lean even in conservative states. Which as you noted will lead to conservatives becoming more liberal, as I did. Although I wouldn’t say pressured, at least in my case it was exposure to different ideas more than anything. I think that’s ultimately why conservatives demonize higher education as indoctrination. Not because it’s literal indoctrination like a church listening to a preacher, but because their kids raised conservative will meet kids raised liberal and it’s far more likely the conservative kids shift left than the others shift right. That spells disaster for a party.

whycombinetor 4y ago

I don't think one can do a study using data exclusively from the University of California system and claim it applies to "research universities" in general. Notwithstanding New York, California is the current best example of a "liberal hellhole" state, so it would make sense that admission to that particular state's public university system is eventually associated with an increased left bent. Let's see this exact study methodology reproduced with e.g. Stanford admissions data where the Hoover Institution is a prominent presence, or the University of Mississippi/Alabama or Louisiana State University located in conservative hotbeds.

joxel 4y ago
- xhkkffbf 4y ago
  Well, California has been evolving for some time. Ronald Reagan was governor of the state for two terms. Many people credit Stanford deans like Fred Terman for planting the seeds that grew into Silicon Valley. Alas, the Terman family is also connected with the same eugenics movement with famed progressive Democrats like Woodrow Wilson. I would suggest that it's a bit more complicated.
- rayiner 4y ago
  California was the bulwark of the GOP during the mid 20th century. Santa Clara County voted Republican every election from 1972 to 1988, encompassing both the period before and after Apple’s founding and IPO. The state as a whole voted Republican in all but one presidential election from 1952 to 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_California.

ivanstegic 4y ago

People should actually read the 135 page dissertation and then leave a comment here with an opinion or an analysis. Anything short of that is meaningless critique.

ivanstegic 4y ago
Shocked! Shocked, that this comment is being moderated down!!
neogodless 4y ago
To be clear, the conclusion begins on page 22 and ends on page 24. The rest of the pages after that are references, tables, appendices, etc. Your premise here appears to be something like "no one can meaningfully discuss or contribute to discussion without spending a great deal of time poring over minute details of a dissertation." I suspect that's an overreach. To be sure, anyone that is well-versed in statistical analysis can meaningfully contribute to the discussion (particularly of its statistical validity) by spending that kind of time, and weighing in with confirmation or refutation of the techniques and analysis used. But I would offer the premise that reading the 2 pages of the conclusion, and pairing that with your own knowledge and life experience qualifies you to participate in and contribute to meaningful discussion. An excerpt: > Suggestive evidence is more consistent with peer socialization in college and long-run mechanisms than intentional efforts by faculty or curricula. Students who attend UC campuses as a result of the policy are exposed to more secular and left-leaning peers, live with other college students more often, and are more likely to attain a bachelor’s degree, earn higher incomes, and enroll in graduate school. That seems like something that we can discuss without the entirety of the 135 page paper in our heads.
- ivanstegic 4y ago
  I actually read through the introduction and got to about page 6 when I realized that most people making comments here aren’t even going to do that. I agree with you, it’s not hard to read this and to have an opinion. But most people won’t even bother reading the first page. Becasue, internet.