Manifesto for a new university in Austin

[Caracal]

Great, let's go ahead with the indoctrination then.

There's a great deal of evidence that this concern is grossly overblown:

But contrary to conservative rhetoric, studies show that going to college does not make students substantially more liberal. The political scientist Mack Mariani and the higher education researcher Gordon Hewitt analyzed changes in student political attitudes between their freshman and senior years at 38 colleges and universities from 1999 to 2003.

This is ridiculously outdated for the present time. Given the huge changes that have happened socially since the advent of smartphones and social media in the last decade or so, it's hard to compare to an era where even Google was just getting started.

We're talking about the alleged indoctrination of students by professors, so I fail to see how the advent of smartphones and social media affects the findings. Besides, "political indoctrination" was already a major talking point by conservatives 20 years ago. Are we to assume that these critics were wrong then--as the studies quotes above suggest--but the reality changed in the meantime?

Wouldn't it make it harder if students can be sitting in class and have access to a whole range of other viewpoints without ever moving?

Besides what does indoctrination mean? I've had students tell me that they came into my Civil War class believing that slavery didn't have much to do with secession, and our discussions and readings in class convinced them that their previous beliefs were wrong. I'm sure some people would believe this is evidence that I'm indoctrinating students. I think its a case where if you give people the context and framework to evaluate the issue and they come in with an open mind, they tend to see that some arguments and viewpoints fit poorly with the evidence. I certainly try to make my class a place where students can disagree with me if they choose to, but what's the point of education if nobody ever changes their mind?

[Ruralguy]

Space tourism is more viable than a start up university with clear ideologies (I'm not saying its necessarily defined political ideology).

[marshwiggle]

Great, let's go ahead with the indoctrination then.

There's a great deal of evidence that this concern is grossly overblown:

But contrary to conservative rhetoric, studies show that going to college does not make students substantially more liberal. The political scientist Mack Mariani and the higher education researcher Gordon Hewitt analyzed changes in student political attitudes between their freshman and senior years at 38 colleges and universities from 1999 to 2003.

This is ridiculously outdated for the present time. Given the huge changes that have happened socially since the advent of smartphones and social media in the last decade or so, it's hard to compare to an era where even Google was just getting started.

We're talking about the alleged indoctrination of students by professors, so I fail to see how the advent of smartphones and social media affects the findings. Besides, "political indoctrination" was already a major talking point by conservatives 20 years ago. Are we to assume that these critics were wrong then--as the studies quotes above suggest--but the reality changed in the meantime?

A few questions about 20 years ago vs. now.:

• How many professors identified themselves as "activists" 20 years ago, compared to now?
• How many speakers were *"disinvited" 20 years ago, compared to now?
• How many professors would have talked about "deplatforming" people they disagreed with 20 years ago, compared to now?

The rise in "activism" among profs has combined with smartphones and social media to make groupthink much more prevalent and powerful. Before social media, the only ways people would know someone was coming to campus to speak would be either word-of-mouth or seeing a physical poster. Now, social media means that an organized campaign can happen in minutes to mobilize protesters for or against any cause.

So the indoctrination is not expressly, or possibly even primarily, done in class, but can be woven into the fabric of campus life.


(*Either disinvited, or prevented from speaking by mobs screaming, pulling fire alarms, etc.)

[Puget]

I doubt Stephen Pinker is going to be teaching intro psych classes. Perhaps if you're lucky he will show up and teach some seminar, give a few large lectures and wander off.

I certainly hope not since he's a very bad psychologist who hasn't done any actual psychology research in a very long time. I saw him give a keynote address at a conference once and it was all fluff-- I don't think he showed a single point of actual data. Of course, that's true of most of the field of evolutionary psychology, he's just found ways to make much more $ off it.

[Parasaurolophus]

I saw him give a keynote address at a conference once and it was all fluff-- I don't think he showed a single point of actual data. Of course, that's true of most of the field of evolutionary psychology, he's just found ways to make much more $ off it.

As you know, I'm not a psychologist. But I had the exact same experience.

[mahagonny]

Great, let's go ahead with the indoctrination then.

There's a great deal of evidence that this concern is grossly overblown:

But contrary to conservative rhetoric, studies show that going to college does not make students substantially more liberal. The political scientist Mack Mariani and the higher education researcher Gordon Hewitt analyzed changes in student political attitudes between their freshman and senior years at 38 colleges and universities from 1999 to 2003. They found that on average, students shifted somewhat to the left — but that these changes were in line with shifts experienced by most Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 during the same period of time. In addition, they found that students were no more likely to move left at schools with more liberal faculties.

Similarly, the political scientists M. Kent Jennings and Laura Stoker analyzed data from a survey that tracked the political attitudes of about 1,000 high school students through their college years and into middle age. Their research found that the tendency of college graduates to be more liberal reflects to a large extent the fact that more liberal students are more likely to go to college in the first place.

The rest of the article

****

One study is by a husband and wife team of political scientists, Matthew Woessner, a prominent conservative and registered Republican, and April Kelly-Woessner, a liberal and registered Democrat.

"There is no evidence that a professor or lecturer's views instigate political change among students," Woessner says.

[...]

The authors do not deny that the majority of academics are left of center, and that many of them reveal their politics to students.

"But that is different from indoctrinating them with it," says Kelly-Woessner, who works at nearby Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania.

Their survey showed that students' politics did shift at university, mostly toward the center or slightly left. But those who shifted left did not necessarily have left-leaning professors, they claim. The change was more connected to their peers and what was going on outside the classroom. Three earlier studies by the couple have produced similar conclusions.

[...]

And Mack Mariani at Xavier University, Ohio, and Gordon Hewitt at Hamilton College, New York, write in PS of their latest research at US colleges, which found that: "Student political orientation does not change for a majority of students while in college, and for those that do change there is evidence that other factors have an effect on that change, such as gender and socio-economic status."

The rest of the article

Could be that students are agreeing with their professors for grades. If indoctrination is not happening that doesn't mean it is not being attempted.

[Hibush]

I saw him give a keynote address at a conference once and it was all fluff-- I don't think he showed a single point of actual data. Of course, that's true of most of the field of evolutionary psychology, he's just found ways to make much more $ off it.

As you know, I'm not a psychologist. But I had the exact same experience.

Pinker made it clear that they just paid him to evaluate aspects of their plan and that he is in no way a founder, partner, board member, professor or employee of the University of Austin.

[Parasaurolophus]

Great, let's go ahead with the indoctrination then.

There's a great deal of evidence that this concern is grossly overblown:

But contrary to conservative rhetoric, studies show that going to college does not make students substantially more liberal. The political scientist Mack Mariani and the higher education researcher Gordon Hewitt analyzed changes in student political attitudes between their freshman and senior years at 38 colleges and universities from 1999 to 2003. They found that on average, students shifted somewhat to the left — but that these changes were in line with shifts experienced by most Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 during the same period of time. In addition, they found that students were no more likely to move left at schools with more liberal faculties.

Similarly, the political scientists M. Kent Jennings and Laura Stoker analyzed data from a survey that tracked the political attitudes of about 1,000 high school students through their college years and into middle age. Their research found that the tendency of college graduates to be more liberal reflects to a large extent the fact that more liberal students are more likely to go to college in the first place.

The rest of the article

****

One study is by a husband and wife team of political scientists, Matthew Woessner, a prominent conservative and registered Republican, and April Kelly-Woessner, a liberal and registered Democrat.

"There is no evidence that a professor or lecturer's views instigate political change among students," Woessner says.

[...]

The authors do not deny that the majority of academics are left of center, and that many of them reveal their politics to students.

"But that is different from indoctrinating them with it," says Kelly-Woessner, who works at nearby Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania.

Their survey showed that students' politics did shift at university, mostly toward the center or slightly left. But those who shifted left did not necessarily have left-leaning professors, they claim. The change was more connected to their peers and what was going on outside the classroom. Three earlier studies by the couple have produced similar conclusions.

[...]

And Mack Mariani at Xavier University, Ohio, and Gordon Hewitt at Hamilton College, New York, write in PS of their latest research at US colleges, which found that: "Student political orientation does not change for a majority of students while in college, and for those that do change there is evidence that other factors have an effect on that change, such as gender and socio-economic status."

The rest of the article

Could be that students are agreeing with their professors for grades. If indoctrination is not happening that doesn't mean it is not being attempted.

Dunno about anyone else, but I evaluate student work based on the quality of the argumentation rather than the content of its conclusions. Agreeing with what you think I think is not a ticket to success.

[WWUpdate]

Can anyone cite studies that support the notion that professors give out better grades to students who share their politics? Here's one (PDF format) that effectively debunks this idea.

Claims of unfairness are easier to take seriously when there's evidence to back them up.

[marshwiggle]

Can anyone cite studies that support the notion that professors give out better grades to students who share their politics? Here's one (PDF format) that effectively debunks this idea.

Claims of unfairness are easier to take seriously when there's evidence to back them up.

About the study:

Accordingly, as we explain in more detail below, we use a double-blind trial in
which neither students nor instructors know each other. Doing so allows us to account for the
most severe challenges to studies on grading bias and perceptual filtering within our study
population.

This study doesn't  address the issue of what happens when an instructor has clearly indicated a position on some policy area and then gets students to write about it.  (One point of the double blind study was to make the TA graders' position completely unknown to the students.) So whether students self-censor was not investigated, and how the grader would react to a position contrasting what they have explicitly stated is unknown.

[Wahoo Redux]

The whole concept of "liberal professors" who "brainwash" or intimidate poor callow, hapless college students into becoming weak-willed liberal robots is simply more conservative propaganda to get gullible people agitated. 

[Caracal]

Can anyone cite studies that support the notion that professors give out better grades to students who share their politics? Here's one (PDF format) that effectively debunks this idea.

Claims of unfairness are easier to take seriously when there's evidence to back them up.

About the study:

Accordingly, as we explain in more detail below, we use a double-blind trial in
which neither students nor instructors know each other. Doing so allows us to account for the
most severe challenges to studies on grading bias and perceptual filtering within our study
population.

This study doesn't  address the issue of what happens when an instructor has clearly indicated a position on some policy area and then gets students to write about it.  (One point of the double blind study was to make the TA graders' position completely unknown to the students.) So whether students self-censor was not investigated, and how the grader would react to a position contrasting what they have explicitly stated is unknown.

I read a lot of crummy papers where students aren't arguing much of anything at all, so I'm perfectly happy to give a good grade to a paper or essay where the student uses actual evidence to make a cogent argument that I don't happen to agree with. In fact, I often realize that a paper is quite good when I start arguing with the student as I read it. That means the student has articulated a claim and is presenting evidence to back it up.

I've had students who think I'm giving them bad grades because I don't like their politics, but they just wanted to spout political slogans and have them accepted.

[Parasaurolophus]

Can anyone cite studies that support the notion that professors give out better grades to students who share their politics? Here's one (PDF format) that effectively debunks this idea.

Claims of unfairness are easier to take seriously when there's evidence to back them up.

About the study:

Accordingly, as we explain in more detail below, we use a double-blind trial in
which neither students nor instructors know each other. Doing so allows us to account for the
most severe challenges to studies on grading bias and perceptual filtering within our study
population.

This study doesn't  address the issue of what happens when an instructor has clearly indicated a position on some policy area and then gets students to write about it.  (One point of the double blind study was to make the TA graders' position completely unknown to the students.) So whether students self-censor was not investigated, and how the grader would react to a position contrasting what they have explicitly stated is unknown.

I read a lot of crummy papers where students aren't arguing much of anything at all, so I'm perfectly happy to give a good grade to a paper or essay where the student uses actual evidence to make a cogent argument that I don't happen to agree with. In fact, I often realize that a paper is quite good when I start arguing with the student as I read it. That means the student has articulated a claim and is presenting evidence to back it up.

I've had students who think I'm giving them bad grades because I don't like their politics, but they just wanted to spout political slogans and have them accepted.

Yeah... one of the few topics where I explicitly tip my hat in intro ethics is the permissibility of torture (it's entirely impermissible). But of the students who get 100% on their final papers, most are arguing for the permissibility of torture. Their arguments are not, ultimately, successful. But they've done an excellent job of reading and understanding the course material, distilling the relevant arguments, identifying premises, identifying weak points, and making their case. And, as I tell them over and over again, that's all I want to see.

[mahagonny]

Can anyone cite studies that support the notion that professors give out better grades to students who share their politics? Here's one (PDF format) that effectively debunks this idea.

Claims of unfairness are easier to take seriously when there's evidence to back them up.

About the study:

Accordingly, as we explain in more detail below, we use a double-blind trial in
which neither students nor instructors know each other. Doing so allows us to account for the
most severe challenges to studies on grading bias and perceptual filtering within our study
population.

This study doesn't  address the issue of what happens when an instructor has clearly indicated a position on some policy area and then gets students to write about it.  (One point of the double blind study was to make the TA graders' position completely unknown to the students.) So whether students self-censor was not investigated, and how the grader would react to a position contrasting what they have explicitly stated is unknown.

If conservative students are already self-censoring in order to get along with their peer group socially, it's a habit they may bring into the classroom. That would explain the disconnect between the abundance professors who claim neutrality at the same time as the abundance of students who report self-censoring.

ETA:

I've had students who think I'm giving them bad grades because I don't like their politics, but they just wanted to spout political slogans and have them accepted.

What's your response if a student says this:
'The United States of America is a racist nation. That's obvious because black families have, on average, much less accumulated wealth than white families have.'

They lost Zimmer from Advisory Board. Evidently, Pinker is also distancing.

This doesn't mean they don't agree with Weiss's take on the state of higher education. It could mean they don't want arrows flying at them or prefer to make the point differently.

[WWUpdate]

They lost Zimmer from Advisory Board. Evidently, Pinker is also distancing.

This doesn't mean they don't agree with Weiss's take on the state of higher education. It could mean they don't want arrows flying at them or prefer to make the point differently.

From Zimmer's resignation statement (my bolding):

"While the new organization's commitment to a liberal arts education and free expression reflects topics that are very important to me, I resigned from the Advisory Board on November 11, noting that the new university made a number of statements about higher education in general, largely quite critical, that diverged very significantly from my own views."