I did the math and even the most Republican heavy field is still 61.5% Democrat. I'd be curious to know what those numbers looked like 10 or 20 years ago. There's definitely political bias in the hiring process even in the legitimate departments. A common interview question in academia is how the applicant is advancing DIE in the field. That's going to filter out a lot of sane applicants.
Libs didn't get a stranglehold on academia by dominating the stuff you actually need to have brains for.
They still dominate, but it's telling that they are weakest in engineering, which is the only field listed that actually involves getting shit done in the real world.
I am not an engineer, but I have worked closely with quite a few. Most of them are there to, as you say "Get shit done". Those people wouldn't give a shit about muh inclusion or muh genders and all that nonsense.
They had that traditional engineering mindset that there is a physical problem/task/issue and they plan out a solution before implementing it.
it's funny how dems have really been pushed out of all real world fields where there are consequences for failure.
software engineering still has some lefties, but mechanical, civil, and chemical are practically all conservatives.
then look at stuff like extreme sports, where most people are conservatives. or fucking scuba diving, where 30 years ago, it was all tree hugging hippie environmentalists. now it's easily 90%+ conservative... in all this shit, if you fuck up, you die. lefties fundamentally can't handle even basic degrees of personal responsibility.
In case you were wondering why so many churches are bowing to the Woke.
Also, I can believe history being that low. I got my degree in History from a state college, and not only did I have many openly Conservative/Libertarian professors, my Dean was a Conservative who mocked the fact that everyone else was a bunch of Lefties when we were preparing for graduation ("They are all a bunch of Commies who probably forgot how to even do the Pledge, so you are going to have to hold their hand and walk them through it.")
In my experience, religious people fall for Bolshevik propaganda really easily because the Bolsheviks frame everything in a "nice" and "virtuous" manner. Take the communist manifesto for example. In it, Marx basically takes all the problems of communism and blames it on capitalism; thereby, making communism sound great. This is a common Bolshevik tactic. Unfortunately, many religious people hear the "nice words" but then have no idea they're actually supporting the very problem in society because they lack real world wisdom.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This explains so much of why communists love bragging about being on the "right side of history". Because they're so full of themselves thinking they're doing good deeds.
Bolsheviks were famously anti-religious, following Marx in that ("opium for the masses").
They also never tried to be any "nice", boasting of their Red Terror, which was their own phrase, and the Iron Felix style iron fist of the Proletaryat (in the Dictatorship of the Proletaryat).
Anti established religion does not mean they shun the methods religions use to control followers. Their crusades certainly aren't nice, but they frame it as promoting a greater good which is how they get so many useful idiots to their cause.
The themes like "Stalin, the friend of all children" came only after achieving totalitarian power. Revolutionary struggle themes were all angry and violent.
One factor that led to the state of affairs we find ourselves in has frustrated me for many decades now. The right ceded academia for a long time due to the old canard, "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach." Basically, why teach econ when you can potentially make exponentially more money with a career in econ? After all, that's keeping with their principles.
Also, due to their ideology being less profit focused, more leftists have been far more enthusiastic about trading a potentially lucrative career for a less lucrative opportunity to indoctrinate the minds of the young and take an active part in the "Long March the institutions." Once again, that's keeping with their principles.
Unfortunately, things are so far gone in academia that even if conservatives were to opt for more teaching roles in an attempt to lessen the influence of the left, they would find themselves hard pressed to secure those positions because leftists are now largely in charge of the hiring process as well as the rest of academic administration. So I'm unsure if universities in the United States, as they currently exist, can be saved. Maybe the best we can hope for is the emergence of a skill-based approach to hiring as a move away from the credentialism that has come to dominate our society, as well as more emphasis on the trades. That still leaves professions such as doctors and lawyers being unduly influenced by leftists during their education, but we have to start somewhere.
The left wants to control others & makes sacrifices to manipulate & control others, particularly the young.
It's little wonder that the side which is willing to make greater sacrifices to win, ends up gaining cumulative advantages & power. Reality is not on their side, and yet they've managed to totally take over most institutions just because they want it more.
The Right and the Left seek material profit and psychic profit, as all humans do. The Right, however, seeks different kinds of psychic profit from different sources than the Left, and are significantly more averse to sustained deception as a means to derive psychic profit.
Academia has used government market manipulation to massively increase earnings for administrators and commissars. Virtually all of the increases in tuition have been routed to higher salaries for leftist indoctrinators. These people actually make inconceivable bank for programming children to become leftist foot soldiers.
Agreed, but it wasn't always that way, hence the reason why those who prioritized earning potential in the past tended to avoid academia and go into the private sector. Now there is an enormous financial incentive to get into administrative positions in universities, but now that the left has captured those institutions, anyone on the right who wants to maximize their earning potential almost has no choice but the private sector, since they would be filtered out from those lucrative positions that are now available.
If enough people on the right hadn't surrendered academia to the left back in the '60s and '70s, opting to forgo private sector jobs, the long march through the institutions would have faced a much more uphill battle. The left was smart enough to realize that capturing the youth was the key to capturing all the other institutions, and they were dedicated to the idea enough to follow through on it. Unfortunately, those of us on the right always assumed that " it doesn't matter, because they'll straighten out once they hit the real world."
But, while it's important to understand how we got here, we need to start focusing on solutions. It is one hell of a hole we have to dig ourselves out after several decades of sticking out heads in the sand and assuming it would all work itself out.
I wonder if all the accounts in that thread who are missing the obvious sarcasm are retarded or bots? Could lack of ability to discern sarcasm be a way to reliably detect bots?
The President should be off playing Mario Kart as Luigi with his grandchildren, not being used as a figurehead to run the US in to the ground. He might have been qualified (if not up to the task) decades ago, but not now.
Watching that man slowly melt away before the public eye has been unpleasant to say the least. Like him or not, it is a horrible fate.
I remember the people who majored in all of those subjects. This dunce is saying that Republicans are "relegated" to the cognitively demanding fields as if that's some sort of insult. God these parasites are so vain.
Tbf, claiming you're conservative as a PhD professor is one way to lose your job and it's honestly really hard to get that job in the first place so it's not too surprising to see these results. In other words, I bet a lot of these are much more conservative than this would suggest
I have degrees in history and anthropology. It's true. The people who demanded indigenous cultures return to their traditional homes were also in line to buy the latest apple product.
Anthropology has high intellectual standards? It’s like shitty philosophical science. What the hell is communications? I’m in telecom, does that mean I’m a communications democrat?
I think what I’m seeing here is useless fields no one would even notice are missing are relegated to useless people (I.e. Democrats)
Liberals only work in soft sciences that don’t require rigor or logic. They basically have to be able to invent their conclusions or they won’t play. Just like everywhere else.
Anthro has been compromised with some of these hare-brained asshats actually believing men = women, ignoring anatomical differences, even skeletal differences.
Communications has been the dumping ground for idiots who got into college via nepotism or affirmative action and who are too stupid and illiterate to study anything deeper than the bass-ackwards Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
"Interdisciplinary studies" has been dominated by the worst of the woke academics--English professors--since its inception back in the '70s.
Goes to show you that just because you have credentials, doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Contrary to what the Pitt prof said, AI can not only identify a person's sex from their skeleton, it can also identify the person's race, which is something that even human researchers can't do.
I did the math and even the most Republican heavy field is still 61.5% Democrat. I'd be curious to know what those numbers looked like 10 or 20 years ago. There's definitely political bias in the hiring process even in the legitimate departments. A common interview question in academia is how the applicant is advancing DIE in the field. That's going to filter out a lot of sane applicants.
it has been this way for a long time, but keeps getting worse. the libs took over humanities 1st then expanded from there.
Most libs become conservative when they get their first paycheck
Very stupid catchphrase. Millennial leftists are far more radicalized now than they were 20 years ago in high school.
Not when that paycheck comes from the government.
I wish.
Funniest shit I've seen in a while.
Libs didn't get a stranglehold on academia by dominating the stuff you actually need to have brains for.
They still dominate, but it's telling that they are weakest in engineering, which is the only field listed that actually involves getting shit done in the real world.
I am not an engineer, but I have worked closely with quite a few. Most of them are there to, as you say "Get shit done". Those people wouldn't give a shit about muh inclusion or muh genders and all that nonsense.
They had that traditional engineering mindset that there is a physical problem/task/issue and they plan out a solution before implementing it.
When it comes to the medical fields they are the weakest in another field where you get shit done: surgery. Highest in psychiatry though...haha.
literally jews
it's funny how dems have really been pushed out of all real world fields where there are consequences for failure.
software engineering still has some lefties, but mechanical, civil, and chemical are practically all conservatives.
then look at stuff like extreme sports, where most people are conservatives. or fucking scuba diving, where 30 years ago, it was all tree hugging hippie environmentalists. now it's easily 90%+ conservative... in all this shit, if you fuck up, you die. lefties fundamentally can't handle even basic degrees of personal responsibility.
In case you were wondering why so many churches are bowing to the Woke.
Also, I can believe history being that low. I got my degree in History from a state college, and not only did I have many openly Conservative/Libertarian professors, my Dean was a Conservative who mocked the fact that everyone else was a bunch of Lefties when we were preparing for graduation ("They are all a bunch of Commies who probably forgot how to even do the Pledge, so you are going to have to hold their hand and walk them through it.")
In my experience, religious people fall for Bolshevik propaganda really easily because the Bolsheviks frame everything in a "nice" and "virtuous" manner. Take the communist manifesto for example. In it, Marx basically takes all the problems of communism and blames it on capitalism; thereby, making communism sound great. This is a common Bolshevik tactic. Unfortunately, many religious people hear the "nice words" but then have no idea they're actually supporting the very problem in society because they lack real world wisdom.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This explains so much of why communists love bragging about being on the "right side of history". Because they're so full of themselves thinking they're doing good deeds.
Bolsheviks were famously anti-religious, following Marx in that ("opium for the masses").
They also never tried to be any "nice", boasting of their Red Terror, which was their own phrase, and the Iron Felix style iron fist of the Proletaryat (in the Dictatorship of the Proletaryat).
Anti established religion does not mean they shun the methods religions use to control followers. Their crusades certainly aren't nice, but they frame it as promoting a greater good which is how they get so many useful idiots to their cause.
The themes like "Stalin, the friend of all children" came only after achieving totalitarian power. Revolutionary struggle themes were all angry and violent.
Yes, but those themes were laundered by complicit media and academia as being in service of goodness.
One factor that led to the state of affairs we find ourselves in has frustrated me for many decades now. The right ceded academia for a long time due to the old canard, "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach." Basically, why teach econ when you can potentially make exponentially more money with a career in econ? After all, that's keeping with their principles.
Also, due to their ideology being less profit focused, more leftists have been far more enthusiastic about trading a potentially lucrative career for a less lucrative opportunity to indoctrinate the minds of the young and take an active part in the "Long March the institutions." Once again, that's keeping with their principles.
Unfortunately, things are so far gone in academia that even if conservatives were to opt for more teaching roles in an attempt to lessen the influence of the left, they would find themselves hard pressed to secure those positions because leftists are now largely in charge of the hiring process as well as the rest of academic administration. So I'm unsure if universities in the United States, as they currently exist, can be saved. Maybe the best we can hope for is the emergence of a skill-based approach to hiring as a move away from the credentialism that has come to dominate our society, as well as more emphasis on the trades. That still leaves professions such as doctors and lawyers being unduly influenced by leftists during their education, but we have to start somewhere.
The right wants to make money & live a good life.
The left wants to control others & makes sacrifices to manipulate & control others, particularly the young.
It's little wonder that the side which is willing to make greater sacrifices to win, ends up gaining cumulative advantages & power. Reality is not on their side, and yet they've managed to totally take over most institutions just because they want it more.
I don't think that's entirely true.
The Right and the Left seek material profit and psychic profit, as all humans do. The Right, however, seeks different kinds of psychic profit from different sources than the Left, and are significantly more averse to sustained deception as a means to derive psychic profit.
Academia has used government market manipulation to massively increase earnings for administrators and commissars. Virtually all of the increases in tuition have been routed to higher salaries for leftist indoctrinators. These people actually make inconceivable bank for programming children to become leftist foot soldiers.
Agreed, but it wasn't always that way, hence the reason why those who prioritized earning potential in the past tended to avoid academia and go into the private sector. Now there is an enormous financial incentive to get into administrative positions in universities, but now that the left has captured those institutions, anyone on the right who wants to maximize their earning potential almost has no choice but the private sector, since they would be filtered out from those lucrative positions that are now available.
If enough people on the right hadn't surrendered academia to the left back in the '60s and '70s, opting to forgo private sector jobs, the long march through the institutions would have faced a much more uphill battle. The left was smart enough to realize that capturing the youth was the key to capturing all the other institutions, and they were dedicated to the idea enough to follow through on it. Unfortunately, those of us on the right always assumed that " it doesn't matter, because they'll straighten out once they hit the real world."
But, while it's important to understand how we got here, we need to start focusing on solutions. It is one hell of a hole we have to dig ourselves out after several decades of sticking out heads in the sand and assuming it would all work itself out.
49% leftists in anything: MUH REPRESENTATION
99.5% leftists in everything: Well, uh, we're just naturally cut out for this.
“Relegated”
“Communications = highest intellectual standards”… 🤔
I briefly studied Communications. I beg to differ…
Edit: Oh, I see…
Don't worry that it took you a while. You only studied communications briefly ;)
I wonder if all the accounts in that thread who are missing the obvious sarcasm are retarded or bots? Could lack of ability to discern sarcasm be a way to reliably detect bots?
If you ever catch yourself underestimating the degree of human retardation, just remember who the President of the United States is.
The President should be off playing Mario Kart as Luigi with his grandchildren, not being used as a figurehead to run the US in to the ground. He might have been qualified (if not up to the task) decades ago, but not now.
Watching that man slowly melt away before the public eye has been unpleasant to say the least. Like him or not, it is a horrible fate.
Look in this thread and you find a decent number of those people as well.
Why does 50% of the country allow funding of an extreme left terrorist training camp?
I remember the people who majored in all of those subjects. This dunce is saying that Republicans are "relegated" to the cognitively demanding fields as if that's some sort of insult. God these parasites are so vain.
you dumb motherfucker it's obvious sarcasm. lol
What do you expect people to do, read a thing carefully before they reply to it?!?
Poe's Law, you technology illiterate law monkey.
Tbf, claiming you're conservative as a PhD professor is one way to lose your job and it's honestly really hard to get that job in the first place so it's not too surprising to see these results. In other words, I bet a lot of these are much more conservative than this would suggest
I have degrees in history and anthropology. It's true. The people who demanded indigenous cultures return to their traditional homes were also in line to buy the latest apple product.
Anthropology has high intellectual standards? It’s like shitty philosophical science. What the hell is communications? I’m in telecom, does that mean I’m a communications democrat?
I think what I’m seeing here is useless fields no one would even notice are missing are relegated to useless people (I.e. Democrats)
Liberals only work in soft sciences that don’t require rigor or logic. They basically have to be able to invent their conclusions or they won’t play. Just like everywhere else.
OMFG. "Highest intellectual standards"?
Anthro has been compromised with some of these hare-brained asshats actually believing men = women, ignoring anatomical differences, even skeletal differences.
Communications has been the dumping ground for idiots who got into college via nepotism or affirmative action and who are too stupid and illiterate to study anything deeper than the bass-ackwards Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
"Interdisciplinary studies" has been dominated by the worst of the woke academics--English professors--since its inception back in the '70s.
I have a degree in anthropology, and can assure you that we check them hips like nobodies business.
Goes to show you that just because you have credentials, doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Contrary to what the Pitt prof said, AI can not only identify a person's sex from their skeleton, it can also identify the person's race, which is something that even human researchers can't do.