Originally posted by TzeentchI agree, but there is a reason why no one wants to (is able) to do it.
They're all more valuable then mechanical engineering.The only reason engineering has value is because no one wants to do it. If everyone in the world got an engineering degree tomorrow, by the day after 80% of them would be working at mcdonalds.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well they can think what they like and they have different points of view, but I’m not a relativist so I don’t agree that just because someone can have a differing perspective that perspective is equally valid.Now I don’t hate liberal arts in principle or in some practice, I think the discipline has a lot of intrinsic value since our articulate faculty is one of the greatest things we possess and it’s worthwhile developing, but my critique of liberal arts is of where it’s infected by postmodernism critical theory and far left activism.
I’m not some elitist who thinks anything not to do with science or business has no value, I think the liberal arts discipline has a lot of potential, some of it well realized, but is perverted away from all that it could be by this activist bullshit.
Since it is a subjective argument to begin with, I think it is perfectly okay to go back and forth on the opinion debate (super liberals in the academic world vs. people like you and I). In this particular case, it's an opinion about gender studies and academic driven activism (this second one is a good thing...it's just...no so great in some ways, these days).
As to your second and third paragraphs, bingo, 100% agree.
Originally posted by Surtur
There are some interesting numbers listed in this article about the ratio of Dems/Republicans in faculty in college:[b]"Langbert breaks down the faculty Democrat-to-Republican ratio by academic department, and there are not many surprises. Engineering departments have 1.6 Democrats for every Republican. Chemistry and economics departments have about 5.5 Democrats for every Republican. The situation is especially bad in anthropology departments, where the Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratio is 133-to-1, and in communications departments, where the ratio is 108-to-zero. Langbert says, "I could not find a single Republican with an exclusive appointment to fields like gender studies, Africana studies, and peace studies."
Later on in the study, Langbert turns his attention to Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratios at some of our most elite colleges. At Williams College, the Democrat-to-Republican ratio is 132-to-1. At Amherst College, it's 34-to-1. Wellesley's is 136-to-1. At Swarthmore, 120-to-1. Claremont McKenna, 4-to-1. Davidson, 10-to-1. Only two colleges of the top 66 on U.S. News & World Report's 2017 list have a modicum of equality in numbers between Democratic and Republican faculty members. They are the U.S. Military Academy, aka West Point, with a Democrat-to-Republican ratio of 1.3-to-1, and the U.S. Naval Academy, whose ratio is 2.3-to-1."
[/B]
Anyway, interesting post. Thanks for sharing.
Do they have data on Cybersecurity programs? From my experience, it was a ratio of 1 to 10: democrats to GOP/Libertarians. Something about that area of study makes democrats disfavor it. And I am not being facetious: I don't know why democrats are disinterested in Cybersecurity. Only when you step away from the more direct Cybersecurity areas of study and get more into the pure mathematics of it; specifically, cryptography; do you see the ratios become less extreme (and at that, still strongly lop-sided in disfavor of Democrats).