PDA

View Full Version : Shortage of researchers, sf. Science stories



arosar
01-04-2010, 09:26 PM
I just heard on ABC internet radio that Australia is suffering from a shortage of top level researchers in both maths and science. Is that right?

Why not just extend permanent residency to those currently doing or who have completed Phd's over here (I mean there)?

AR

Kevin Bonham
01-04-2010, 09:31 PM
I just heard on ABC internet radio that Australia is suffering from a shortage of top level researchers in both maths and science. Is that right?

Called the brain-drain. Been that way for at least 30 years I think.


Why not just extend permanent residency to those currently doing or who have completed Phd's over here (I mean there)?

You can do that but it won't necessarily make them stay.

Rincewind
01-04-2010, 09:34 PM
I just heard on ABC internet radio that Australia is suffering from a shortage of top level researchers in both maths and science. Is that right?

Why not just extend permanent residency to those currently doing or who have completed Phd's over here (I mean there)?

The lead story in the Australian Higher Ed yesterday was that Australian graduates are going into industry where they can make good money with reasonable certainty, rather than going on to do PhD for a life in Academia where there is less money and security.

I don't know the figures but certainly a lot of the PhD students I see are international students.

One issue with some international students is they are on scholarships from their local government which requires them to return to their home country to work for some period (say 10 years) after completion of the PhD.

Some other PhD students are staying here but really - if Australian born students aren't going on to do PhDs in the numbers we need then there is a problem.

Rincewind
01-04-2010, 09:37 PM
Called the brain-drain. Been that way for at least 30 years I think.

In the terminology I've heard, the brain drain is more to do with PhD candidates going overseas to do their PhDs or postdocs and staying away.

The problem as put forward by the Higher Ed was students choosing industry over higher research degrees - which is a different problem. Although it too may have a long history.

TheJoker
05-04-2010, 01:13 AM
The lead story in the Australian Higher Ed yesterday was that Australian graduates are going into industry where they can make good money with reasonable certainty, rather than going on to do PhD for a life in Academia where there is less money and security.

What are Academics making these days?

Rincewind
05-04-2010, 09:06 AM
What are Academics making these days?

The starting range for a new academic is around 60-70k/annum.

I guess that is modest for some industries especially when the PhD qualification takes 7 years of full-time tertiary study.

Desmond
05-04-2010, 02:09 PM
The starting range for a new academic is around 60-70k/annum.

I guess that is modest for some industries especially when the PhD qualification takes 7 years of full-time tertiary study.
Is it 7? I thought the path was Bachelor (3) > Bachelor with Hon or Masters (1) > PhD (2?).

Rincewind
05-04-2010, 08:16 PM
Is it 7? I thought the path was Bachelor (3) > Bachelor with Hon or Masters (1) > PhD (2?).

PhD is usually 3 or more. Scholarships are usually 3 years with a possible extension for another 6 months and then the money runs out. So my seven comes from

3 (bachelor) + 1 (honours) + 3 (PhD) = 7.

However there is no fixed time to complete a PhD. I've seen reasonably recent data from Australia which shows Education and Business PhD mean completion times are among the quickest at 3.25 years. Science are among the longest at 3.9 years.

Desmond
05-04-2010, 08:39 PM
Thanks.

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2010, 09:34 PM
Or you could take the scenic route and take over a decade, though they're making it harder and harder for others to follow my bad example. :lol:

Rincewind
05-04-2010, 10:07 PM
Or you could take the scenic route and take over a decade, though they're making it harder and harder for others to follow my bad example. :lol:

Yes I believe this is referred to as a long tail which may skew the mean time metric. :lol:

littlesprout85
05-04-2010, 10:17 PM
KB's Gotz An Long Tail :S That explains alot:doh:

-Sprout85

Adamski
05-04-2010, 10:41 PM
KB's Gotz An Long Tail :S That explains alot:doh:

-Sprout85:lol:

TheJoker
05-04-2010, 11:06 PM
The starting range for a new academic is around 60-70k/annum.

I guess that is modest for some industries especially when the PhD qualification takes 7 years of full-time tertiary study.

Now for real tough question... Why if researchers are in such high demand is the pay so low? Is it that academics and universities are lousy at commercialising their capabilities? Or is there some other reason?

Spiny Norman
06-04-2010, 05:08 AM
Is this the right moment to post: Those that can, do; those that can't, teach; those that can't teach, teach the teachers?

Rincewind
06-04-2010, 09:21 AM
Is this the right moment to post: Those that can, do; those that can't, teach; those that can't teach, teach the teachers?

And those that can't contribute anything parrot trite adages in the vain hope of sounding intelligent.

Rincewind
06-04-2010, 09:25 AM
Now for real tough question... Why if researchers are in such high demand is the pay so low? Is it that academics and universities are lousy at commercialising their capabilities? Or is there some other reason?

I would say from the context of your question you are wedding to a commercial model into which universities don't readily fit.

I think universities have been very good at commercialising the parts of their business which do fit that model. (Just look at the bachelor completion statistics over the last 30 years). However research, especially fundamental research without strong links to commercial application is not the sort of thing you can (and perhaps) should be trying to commercialise.

Basil
06-04-2010, 09:33 AM
I would say from the context of your question you are wedding to a commercial model into which universities don't readily fit.

I think universities have been very good at commercialising the parts of their business which do fit that model. (Just look at the bachelor completion statistics over the last 30 years). However research, especially fundamental research without strong links to commercial application is not the sort of thing you can (and perhaps) should be trying to commercialise.
Sometimes you could pass for a central - rightie. You could be an undercover operative secretly slicing the throats of the tutors such as the ones mentioned by CameronD. This is not the first time I have caught you making sound, well articulated, rightie observations.

Now back to the skullduggery ... perhaps you could poison the orange juice of skinny, angry uni militants (the ones you identify as never being capable of change) who seek to infuse all manner of mindless lefty ideals in an unsuspecting, gullible freshly-hatched audience. It'd be a great story that could be turned into an arthouse classic. Given the preponderance of lefty arthouse fans, there'd a be delicious pleasure and pain aspect ... sort of an academic Dexter!

OK, that was fun. We live in hope. I'm back to fighting with my CMS.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-04-2010, 11:55 AM
Is this the right moment to post: Those that can, do; those that can't, teach; those that can't teach, teach the teachers?
On a more serious note:
I found that brightest graduates usually don't bother with pursuing honours and PhD and go straight into workforce and business.

TheJoker
06-04-2010, 09:20 PM
I would say from the context of your question you are wedding to a commercial model into which universities don't readily fit.

I think universities have been very good at commercialising the parts of their business which do fit that model. (Just look at the bachelor completion statistics over the last 30 years). However research, especially fundamental research without strong links to commercial application is not the sort of thing you can (and perhaps) should be trying to commercialise.

Sorry, when I heard there was a lack of researchers in Oz, , I assumed meant that researchers where in high demand, from a commerical point of view.

Obviously the lack of researchers is not based on the fact that there is demand for researchers but probably based on some sort of benchmarks (historical or international). In which case I'd say that there isn't a lack of researchers but rather that in the Australian context investment in such research is not valued as highly as in other contexts (i.e. the past or other countries).

Its true a lot of research particularly maths and science doesn't develop into commercial opportunities in the short-term. I think Australia is well known as having a short-term orientation therefore it is not surprising that we are not willing invest in research that does not present any immediate practical economic benefits. Its up to researchers and Universities to convince the community that more public funding should be invested into "fundamental" research activities.

Do you think the public would support additional public funding for university researchers?

Rincewind
06-04-2010, 09:48 PM
Sorry, when I heard there was a lack of researchers in Oz, , I assumed meant that researchers where in high demand, from a commerical point of view.

Obviously the lack of researchers is not based on the fact that there is demand for researchers but probably based on some sort of benchmarks (historical or international). In which case I'd say that there isn't a lack of researchers but rather that in the Australian context investment in such research is not valued as highly as in other contexts (i.e. the past or other countries).

Its true a lot of research particularly maths and science doesn't develop into commercial opportunities in the short-term. I think Australia is well known as having a short-term orientation therefore it is not surprising that we are not willing invest in research that does not present any immediate practical economic benefits. Its up to researchers and Universities to convince the community that more public funding should be invested into "fundamental" research activities.

Do you think the public would support additional public funding for university researchers?

I think you hit the nail on the head in that research is not highly valued in Australia, certainly as it is in many other first world countries, particularly the US. I believe one objective of the author of the piece which started this discussion was to raise that issue so these sort of discussions would be had.

Whether the public ultimately would support a greater investment in research, I think they do and things like volunteer phone drives to get public pledges to supplement research funding are worthwhile but not necessarily the most intelligent way to funnel funds (the public tend to support research which does have some sort of tangible quality even if commercialisation is some way off, so this favours say medical research over pure mathematics).

Personally I think the ARC and NHMRC do a reasonably good job of dishing out funding. However they have spawned a layer of administration (both internally and also at fund applying institutions) which dissipates money which could go towards research if a more efficient distribution method could be found.

Rincewind
06-04-2010, 09:59 PM
On a more serious note:
I found that brightest graduates usually don't bother with pursuing honours and PhD and go straight into workforce and business.

That is certainly true of graduates with a strong financial motivation. I too was one of them and went into industry for a while before I discovered how unfulfilling it could be. In the field of financial mathematics I know people who went into business immediately after doing their PhD who did very well. So doing a PhD does not kill off any chances of getting ahead in industry but people who want to start making a lot of money as soon as possible won't choose to do one.

Personally there is no problem here and those graduates with a strong financial motivation would never do a PhD. However, if there are people who might be interested in academia but decide to go into industry due to the real or imagined lack of job security. If this is happening (as the author seems to be arguing) then there is a problem with academia (or its public perception) which needs to be addressed.

Spiny Norman
07-04-2010, 05:49 AM
And those that can't contribute anything parrot trite adages in the vain hope of sounding intelligent.
Lost: one sense of humour, apparently in excellent condition (as rarely used), last seen months ago in the vicinity of a Monty Python joke ... if found, call Rincy on 02 1234 5678 (do not approach, as may turn savage without warning).

Rincewind
07-04-2010, 08:40 AM
Lost: one sense of humour, apparently in excellent condition (as rarely used), last seen months ago in the vicinity of a Monty Python joke ... if found, call Rincy on 02 1234 5678 (do not approach, as may turn savage without warning).

Lost: one capacity to think for oneself. Last seen months ago in the vicinty of Croydon Church of Evangelical Loons. If found please give it a good home as its previous owner apparently has no further use for it.

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2010, 02:54 AM
Lost: one capacity to think for oneself.
Yet there is typically more intellectual and political diversity in most churches than in most uni faculties.

Desmond
14-04-2010, 07:09 AM
Yet there is typically more intellectual and political diversity in most churches than in most uni faculties.
Intellectual diversity. :lol: a delightful euphamism. I might have to use that one.

Rincewind
14-04-2010, 07:19 AM
Yet there is typically more intellectual and political diversity in most churches than in most uni faculties.

Politically I don't think there is any evidence to support your claim. Perhaps with the more mainstream churches like Catholicism that is true but I think you will find generally the religious generally align with the politically right and sometimes disturbingly so. (Think of the scene in Jesus Camp where a group of young kids are encouraged to bless a cardboard cut-out of George W Bush).

fxdt_f0hwUg

Intellectually I'd have to agree. University faculties generally employ and promote based on academic merit which has a positive correlation with intellectual ability. No such process exists at a church.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-04-2010, 09:14 AM
Intellectually I'd have to agree. University faculties generally employ and promote based on academic merit which has a positive correlation with intellectual ability
Over the last 15 years I employed quite a few Phd. Some of them were (and still are!) brilliant, some turned out to be complete idiots, some were good, some were mediocre. While positive correlation might exist, it is not statistically significant.

TheJoker
14-04-2010, 10:19 AM
While positive correlation might exist, it is not statistically significant.

Big call to claim that there is no statistically significant correlation between Ph.D and intellectual ability, especially when your judgement is based on miniscule ancedotal evidence.

Perhaps a better statement would be "Igor's experience of intellectual ability of Ph.D's at his workplace is statistically insignificant, and most certainly biased by his organisation's recruitment power and ability".

Also intellectual ability doesn't always translate into either a work ethic or an ambition to be successful in business, take Chris Langan as an example, often considered as one of the smartest individuals in the world he spent much of his time working as a bouncer.

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2010, 10:22 AM
Politically I don't think there is any evidence to support your claim. Perhaps with the more mainstream churches like Catholicism that is true but I think you will find generally the religious generally align with the politically right and sometimes disturbingly so.
But no where near as completely as most university faculties are far to the left of the population.


(Think of the scene in Jesus Camp where a group of young kids are encouraged to bless a cardboard cut-out of George W Bush).
Moronic; Bush was too left-wing (e.g. his huge spending). In any case, I'd be annoyed at blessing any politician, even those I admire, since they are all mere mortals.l

Yet that silliness above is nothing compared to the adulation of Obamov in government schools:

FO3NBqT3LBc

cdPSqL9_mfM


Intellectually I'd have to agree. University faculties generally employ and promote based on academic merit which has a positive correlation with intellectual ability.
But "collegiality" also plays a role, which is why few intelligent conservatives are considered. The common "diversity" mantra really means hiring a white leftard, a female leftard and aboriginal leftard. But I'll be convinced of real diversity when I see some Coalition supporters and biblical Christians in a faculty.


No such process exists at a church.
Yes there is; shows how little you know.

TheJoker
14-04-2010, 10:47 AM
Yet that silliness above is nothing compared to the adulation of Obamov in government schools.

Neither of the clips are of universities so they are irrelevant to the debate.


But "collegiality" also plays a role, which is why few intelligent conservatives are considered. The common "diversity" mantra really means hiring a white leftard, a female leftard and aboriginal leftard. But I'll be convinced of real diversity when I see some Coalition supporters and biblical Christians in a faculty.

When was the last time you were at University? I've tended to find that most of my faculty staff appear to be conservatives, espcially in the hard subjects like fianance, economics and accounting. Even in soft subjects like Human Resources Management I've found a mix.

As for religous beliefs, I wouldn't have a clue being totally irrelevant to most subjects it doesn't really come up.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-04-2010, 11:08 AM
Big call to claim that there is no statistically significant correlation between Ph.D and intellectual ability, especially when your judgement is based on miniscule ancedotal evidence.

Perhaps a better statement would be "Igor's experience of intellectual ability of Ph.D's at his workplace is statistically insignificant, and most certainly biased by his organisation's recruitment power and ability".

I made a point based on personal experience.
What is your point? And what is it based upon?


Also intellectual ability doesn't always translate into either a work ethic or an ambition to be successful in business, take Chris Langan as an example, often considered as one of the smartest individuals in the world he spent much of his time working as a bouncer.
Whether or not it's the case, it's not relevant to my experience with Phd.
The dumbest PhD we had was very diligent and accurate. He'd made an excellent employee if he was smart.

As side note, not relevant to discussion:
Chris Langan you mentioned dropped out of university upon realisation he was too smart. And brightest graduates rarely stay for PhD.

Apart from my company I met plenty of PhD socially. Some of them brilliant, some really dumb.

TheJoker
14-04-2010, 02:55 PM
I made a point based on personal experience.
What is your point? And what is it based upon?.

You said in regards to intellectual capacity and PhDs:

"While positive correlation might exist, it is not statistically significant."

My point is that your very limited personal experience is not sufficent to make such a claim, based on the world-wide population of Ph.D holders being so large and the sample you are drawing being small and biased by contextual factors. I would of thought that you would have been aware of the folly in making generalisations from tiny biased samples.

I am not saying your claim is wrong, just that it is unsubstaintiated.

I'd have at guess that the average IQ of people with a Ph.D would be above that of the general population (but its just a guess). Although A quick search of Google shows some published material confirming this with the average at 125 or 130 depending on the source, both figures well-above the general populations average.


Chris Langan you mentioned dropped out of university upon realisation he was too smart.

I realise this, my point was that other factors outside of intellectual capacity affect performance at work. Using performance at work to judge peoples intellectual capacity is possibily flawed.


And brightest graduates rarely stay for PhD.

Says who? based on what evidence do you make this claim, personal experience again:rolleyes:


Some of them brilliant, some really dumb.

I don't disagree that there is variation in the sample, question is whether there is a statistically significant correlation between intellectual capacity and Ph.D holders.

Rincewind
14-04-2010, 03:43 PM
But no where near as completely as most university faculties are far to the left of the population.

You made a claim and I simply said that you would have to provide evidence to support you claim. Reiterating your statement does not constitute evidence.


Moronic; Bush was too left-wing (e.g. his huge spending). In any case, I'd be annoyed at blessing any politician, even those I admire, since they are all mere mortals.l

Considering the two party system in the US it is no surprise that Bush was the source of the adulation in that case. He is certainly more right wing than the Democrats. Bush also has a special place for some of the moronic stuff he has said like "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."


Yet that silliness above is nothing compared to the adulation of Obamov in government schools

Saying others do similar things does not change the fact that there is some evidence of at least some churches pushing right-wing political views onto children. I would also suspect (although I have not done the analysis) that the states which most often vote Republican are also among the most religious.


But "collegiality" also plays a role, which is why few intelligent conservatives are considered. The common "diversity" mantra really means hiring a white leftard, a female leftard and aboriginal leftard. But I'll be convinced of real diversity when I see some Coalition supporters and biblical Christians in a faculty.

What about your mate at UWA, he is a part of the Physics faculty there isn't he? I don't know his political leanings but AFAIK he fits your offbeat definition of Christian.


Yes there is; shows how little you know.

Please provide details of what you mean. If you go into a church you will find all segments of the population. There is no application, probation or confirmation of tenure process to be in a church. I thought the whole idea was for the doors to be open to all provided you pretended to believe some very silly stories.

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2010, 03:46 PM
Neither of the clips are of universities so they are irrelevant to the debate.
Go back and read the thread. This was in reply to RW's comment about a private kids' camp blessing GWB.


When was the last time you were at University?
A while ago, and even then it was mostly liberal. In American unis, the overwhelming leftardism is well documented by the paper Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/).


I've tended to find that most of my faculty staff appear to be conservatives, espcially in the hard subjects like fianance, economics and accounting.
Fair enough; its usually in the humanities where liberalism dominates. Those faculties dealing with ideas that need to work in the real world tend to have have more conservatives. It was the same in physics and chemistry in my uni.

Rincewind
14-04-2010, 03:52 PM
My point is that your very limited personal experience is not sufficent to make such a claim, based on the world-wide population of Ph.D holders being so large and the sample you are drawing being small and biased by contextual factors. I would of thought that you would have been aware of the folly in making generalisations from tiny biased samples.

Not only is it anecdotal and very limited it also contains a sampling bias which makes it totally beside the point.

The first issues is that Igor made a vague statement about PhD he has been involved with professionally and so would be limited to one or a small number of fields. Obviously generalising to all fields would be unjustified.

Secondly we are not discussing PhD holders generally but specifically university faculty members (most of whom probably hold PhDs). Obviously those PhD holders going into private enterprise are either leaving or choosing not to enter academia and so a weak positive correlation in those PhD holders (as asserted by Igor) may be indicative of a strong positive correlation in those who remain or choose to enter academia. I'm not arguing that case but it certainly is a possibility.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-04-2010, 03:53 PM
I'd have at guess that the average IQ of people with a Ph.D would be above that of the general population (but its just a guess).
But is it above average IQ of people with tertiary education?
You are guessing, I am judging by meeting plenty of PhD both professionally and socially.

Rincewind
14-04-2010, 03:55 PM
Go back and read the thread. This was in reply to RW's comment about a private kids' camp blessing GWB.

I think you need to do your homework, Jono. We are discussing the political leans of churches vs University faculties. My video depicted part of a church activity. Your video was not a university activity.

TheJoker
14-04-2010, 10:56 PM
But is it above average IQ of people with tertiary education?.

I don't know, the point is you don't either:wall:


You are guessing, I am judging by meeting plenty of PhD both professionally and socially.

Semantics... It's the same thing, I've also had experience with Ph.D holders both at work, socially and at uni. It's just I am smart enough to recognise that's not enough evidence to make accurate judgments generalising all Ph.D holders around the world.

cyclo
15-04-2010, 04:17 AM
Politically I don't think there is any evidence to support your claim.

There is abundant evidence. Did you read the actual quote?

"Yet there is typically more intellectual and political diversity in most churches than in most uni faculties."

Notice the statement doesn't specify a particular denomination. Just "most churches," which does not exclude any denomination, except in your own mind.

Indeed, while polls show University faculties are overwhelmingly Left-of-center... polls of church-goers, which includes all Evangelical, Protestant and Catholic denominations, are more evenly split between Left and Right, which makes them more diverse.


You made a claim and I simply said that you would have to provide evidence to support you claim. Reiterating your statement does not constitute evidence.

He did post a link containing the proof of Left-leaning University faculties, but I guess you weren't worth responding to, so he posted it in response to someone else. How many links do you require?


Bush also has a special place for some of the moronic stuff he has said like "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Simply googling the quote before posting it would have informed you that it was attributed to Bush Sr., not Bush Jr. as you claimed.


Saying others do similar things does not change the fact that there is some evidence of at least some churches pushing right-wing political views onto children.

Except in churches, parents can choose which views their children are taught by deciding which church to attend. In the government schools, parents, poor parents in particular, have no choice.


I would also suspect (although I have not done the analysis) that the states which most often vote Republican are also among the most religious.

... and the most charitable giving to the poor and needy.

Rincewind
15-04-2010, 08:23 AM
There is abundant evidence. Did you read the actual quote?

"Yet there is typically more intellectual and political diversity in most churches than in most uni faculties."

Notice the statement doesn't specify a particular denomination. Just "most churches," which does not exclude any denomination, except in your own mind.

Did you actually read my reply? I said

"Perhaps with the more mainstream churches like Catholicism that is true but I think you will find generally the religious generally align with the politically right..."

So I was not thinking about any particular church in analysing Jono's statement but did qualify the remainder of what I said to certain churches.


Indeed, while polls show University faculties are overwhelmingly Left-of-center... polls of church-goers, which includes all Evangelical, Protestant and Catholic denominations, are more evenly split between Left and Right, which makes them more diverse.

I agree that in general you will find all sorts of people at both churches and university faculties. However I'm not sure of the polls you are talking about. The only figures I could think of where looking at American states voting patterns and religiousness. There seems to be a strong correlation there with voting republican as well as an alignment of policy on so-called "ethical" issues.

See for example Religion and the Presidential Vote (http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=103) which reports

"President Bush's successful reelection effort owed much to the support he received from highly religious voters, especially white evangelical Protestants."


He did post a link containing the proof of Left-leaning University faculties, but I guess you weren't worth responding to, so he posted it in response to someone else. How many links do you require?

As the link was posted AFTER the response of mine you are replying to I guess you want me to be telepathic as well. :rolleyes:


Simply googling the quote before posting it would have informed you that it was attributed to Bush Sr., not Bush Jr. as you claimed.

Since they are both republicans it makes no difference to the argument, but thanks for the minor correction - I had misplaced a "W".


Except in churches, parents can choose which views their children are taught by deciding which church to attend. In the government schools, parents, poor parents in particular, have no choice.

Not so. Public schools have curricula to teach and not political positions. I was educated in public schooling and received no overt political conditioning. Certainly no one brought in a cardboard cutout of Gough Whitlam or Bob Hawke to bless. If a teacher is pushing a political position (which I agree CAN happen with any school) the parents can make a complaint.


... and the most charitable giving to the poor and needy.

Even if true (and my anecdotal evidence makes me think it is not) it is irrelevant.

Rincewind
15-04-2010, 08:30 AM
A while ago, and even then it was mostly liberal. In American unis, the overwhelming leftardism is well documented by the paper Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/).

A review of that article is contained here.

Wash. Times news, opinion pieces peddled flawed survey on liberal professors (http://mediamatters.org/research/200504050002)

cyclo
15-04-2010, 03:35 PM
Did you actually read my reply? I said

"Perhaps with the more mainstream churches like Catholicism that is true but I think you will find generally the religious generally align with the politically right..."

He said: "Yet there is typically more intellectual and political diversity in most churches than in most uni faculties."

You said: "Politically I don't think there is any evidence to support your claim."

You were wrong. He made a simple statement and you claimed he had no evidence to support it, yet the evidence in the form of polling data is widely available.


So I was not thinking about any particular church in analysing Jono's statement but did qualify the remainder of what I said to certain churches.
Obviously, you were thinking about a particular church. You were thinking about politically conservative churches, but that's not what Jono was referring to. He was referring to churches in general. The original context did not reference any denomination in particular.


I agree that in general you will find all sorts of people at both churches and university faculties.
Polls show churches in general contain more diverse political views. University faculties less so.


However I'm not sure of the polls you are talking about. The only figures I could think of where looking at American states voting patterns and religiousness.

The Pew Forum polls
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367


There seems to be a strong correlation there with voting republican as well as an alignment of policy on so-called "ethical" issues.
Thank God for ethics. Without them, the human race would be in even worse condition than it is today.


Since they are both republicans it makes no difference to the argument, but thanks for the minor correction - I had misplaced a "W".
If you're accusing Bush Jr. of something he didn't say, it does make a difference.


Not so. Public schools have curricula to teach and not political positions.
Then why do government schools have 5-6 year old children singing praises to Obama? Did those same government schools have children singing praises to Bush?


Even if true (and my anecdotal evidence makes me think it is not) it is irrelevant.

If an ideology makes people kinder, I'd say it's quite revelant.
http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/statistics.html

Rincewind
15-04-2010, 03:51 PM
He said: "Yet there is typically more intellectual and political diversity in most churches than in most uni faculties."

You said: "Politically I don't think there is any evidence to support your claim."

You were wrong. He made a simple statement and you claimed he had no evidence to support it, yet the evidence in the form of polling data is widely available.

Still this "evidence" has not been produced except for one flawed study.


Obviously, you were thinking about a particular church. You were thinking about politically conservative churches, but that's not what Jono was referring to. He was referring to churches in general. The original context did not reference any denomination in particular.

I agree that it true of the remainder of my response although I clearly flag this in my original reply. I didn't just assume Jono was talking about a subset as you claimed I did in your first post.


Polls show churches in general contain more diverse political views. University faculties less so.

Again no evidence to this effect has been forthcoming.


The Pew Forum polls
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367

I'm not sure as to the point of this link. Id does show that Bush in 2004 garnered the majority of the christian vote across the board of denominations. So it counters Jono's argument to some extent.


Thank God for ethics. Without them, the human race would be in even worse condition than it is today.

I agree that proper ethics are very useful. However the lazy bible-bashing some people mistake for ethics is not. In fact it is counterproductive and we would be far better off without it.


If you're accusing Bush Jr. of something he didn't say, it does make a difference.

You seem to have an blind spot when it comes to context. In the context of this discussion your correction was irrelevant.


Then why do government schools have 5-6 year old children singing praises to Obama? Did those same government schools have children singing praises to Bush?

Again irrelevant. What happens in public schools has nothing to do with the political diversity in universities. Your assertion that poor people are subjected to politically biased education without choice when clearly they do have several choices the simplest being to make a complaint to the relevant authority.


If an ideology makes people kinder, I'd say it's quite revelant.
http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/statistics.html

Again your blind spot, not mine.

BTW cyclo, what is your interest in Australian Chess?

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2010, 04:46 PM
BTW cyclo, what is your interest in Australian Chess?
Did you ever ask this of the Joke?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-04-2010, 05:26 PM
Not only is it anecdotal and very limited it also contains a sampling bias which makes it totally beside the point.

The first issues is that Igor made a vague statement about PhD he has been involved with professionally and so would be limited to one or a small number of fields. Obviously generalising to all fields would be unjustified.


We used to have a policy of giving very strong preference to PhD when hiring. Only through interviewing large number of PhD (and employing quite a few in the process) we came to realisation that this preference should be dropped.

Strangely enough, high academic result in the university course turned out to be a much better indication. I would assume that good marks is a prerequisite for entering PhD.

TheJoker
15-04-2010, 05:44 PM
Did you ever ask this of the Joke?

To put your mind at ease, I am patzer who ocassionaly plays at FICS... Not so much now that I am back at Uni.... you won't see me comment much on chess because I don't have much to say... But I do follow chess events, more so on Chessvibes these days.I think you'll find my first post was about chess at Hyde Park...

Anyway back to the argument at hand, regarding the so-called lack of political diversity at Universities, do you think this lead to poor educational/academic outcomes.

If the lack of political diversity at academic institutions is a concern for you then why do continually cite articles from academic insitutions that cleary lack political diversity (i.e. The Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Cato Institute).

You are a political supremecist, you laud academic institutions that are biased towards your own right-wing tendencies and yet express outrage at those you perceive as having a left-wing bias.

TheJoker
15-04-2010, 06:15 PM
We used to have a policy of giving very strong preference to PhD when hiring. Only through interviewing large number of PhD (and employing quite a few in the process) we came to realisation that this preference should be dropped.

Strangely enough, high academic result in the university course turned out to be a much better indication. I would assume that good marks is a prerequisite for entering PhD.

Now I see why your so confused.... You are comparing two groups both selected on a measure of academic merit; Ph.D's and those with excellent uni results against each other and not seeing a marked difference in intellectual capacity.... well duh they are both likely to have a superior intellectual capacity to the general population (or general population of graduates for that matter). AFAIK, church groups have no such positive selection bias for their members, so one would expect them to have more intellectual diversity as per Jono's claim and Rincy's agreement.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-04-2010, 08:07 PM
Now I see why your so confused.... You are comparing two groups both selected on a measure of academic merit; Ph.D's and those with excellent uni results against each other and not seeing a marked difference in intellectual capacity.... well duh they are both likely to have a superior intellectual capacity to the general population (or general population of graduates for that matter). ...
Not true. There was a marked difference.

Rincewind
15-04-2010, 09:10 PM
Did you ever ask this of the Joke?

I can't remember having asked the question but the two cases are not entirely comparable for reasons I will not go into at the moment.

Rincewind
15-04-2010, 09:22 PM
Strangely enough, high academic result in the university course turned out to be a much better indication. I would assume that good marks is a prerequisite for entering PhD.

The rule of thumb is 1st class or 2nd class division 1 honours. However the rules are neither hard nor fast.

Although as an employer though I would have thought you would choose the qualification to match the skill set of the desired employee, not use it as a measure of intellectual capacity.

If you are after employees with proven ability to do research (from writing a proposal to preparing a report and preparing and giving a presentation) work independently and perhaps engage with academics and the like then you should hire PhDs. If you want someone with the technical skills and knowledge that comes with the undergraduate training then it doesn't seem to make sense to prefer candidates with a PhD.

Either way, none of what you say mitigate the selection biases I identified in your anecdotal sample, i.e. restricted fields and only picking up those leaving or choosing not to enter academia.

Desmond
15-04-2010, 10:34 PM
I can't remember having asked the question but the two cases are not entirely comparable for reasons I will not go into at the moment.
I seem to recall one of his first posts being that he was interested in chess, but not particularly good, so he would mostly limit himself to non-chess posts.

Kevin Bonham
15-04-2010, 11:01 PM
Indeed, while polls show University faculties are overwhelmingly Left-of-center... polls of church-goers, which includes all Evangelical, Protestant and Catholic denominations, are more evenly split between Left and Right, which makes them more diverse.

Actually I'm not satisfied with the use of "diverse" on either side of this debate.

Political diversity is about how many opinions are held, not what proportions they are held in. A faculty with 100 communists, one socialist, one capitalist, one fascist, one Monster Raving Loony and one non-left anarchist masquerading as a reconstructed libertarian is more politically diverse than a faculty with 50 socialists and 50 capos.

What Jono is calling lack of diversity in academia is actually political skew. The department I am loosely affiliated with is a classic case of political skew since it is contains an environmental studies centre. Environmental studies is more attractive to those who are passionate about the environment than to those who couldn't care less about it, hence said department has numerous green lefties who sign their names to gullible open letters about the environment and are rounded up as "the usual suspects" and thwacked in public debate every now and then.

But it is still quite a diverse department. It has room (at least at HRA level) for someone like me, an eco-contrarian stirrer who has been quite a bane of the sorts of activists the green-lefties are cozy with. It has a lecturer who is a global warming sceptic. It had another (now retired) who is a Mormon and used to attempt to smuggle in eschatological mutterings based on the Seven Seals into lectures about population. And so on.

Skew is difficult to avoid in university departments because some research interests corellate so closely with people's political philosophies. The ultimate test is not whether skew is prevented, but whether the department gives those black sheep who do show up a fair go.

(NB I am not suggesting the Mormon's lecturing methods should have been encouraged! I believe there were complaints about that.)

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2010, 02:23 AM
Anyway back to the argument at hand, regarding the so-called lack of political diversity at Universities, do you think this lead to poor educational/academic outcomes.
Yes; people who have never heard the other side are less well rounded.


If the lack of political diversity at academic institutions is a concern for you then why do continually cite articles from academic insitutions that cleary lack political diversity (i.e. The Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Cato Institute).
But they don't pretend to be anything but advocacy organizations.


You are a political supremecist, you laud academic institutions that are biased towards your own right-wing tendencies and yet express outrage at those you perceive as having a left-wing bias.
What on earth is a political supremacist? I am not, in the sense that I want to give politicians as little power over the the economy as possible.

Universities, at least tax-payer funded ones, should not have this lack of political diversity (or, in KB's terminology, should not be so politically skewed).

Rincewind
16-04-2010, 08:00 AM
Universities, at least tax-payer funded ones, should not have this lack of political diversity (or, in KB's terminology, should not be so politically skewed).

Actually I agree with KB terminology and was going to say something similar to cyclo but wasn't sure if it was worth the diversion.

Regarding your statement I would say firstly you have not shown there is a widespread skew (across many disciplines and institutions). And even if their were, even that is not necessarily something that society should try to avoid. As long as appointments and promotions are made on the basis of merit and not politics it is entirely irrelevant unless perhaps it is a school of political science or something where the politics is a part of the job.

TheJoker
16-04-2010, 10:29 AM
Not true. There was a marked difference.

I thought you said it was "statistically insignficant" :eh:

TheJoker
16-04-2010, 11:29 AM
But they don't pretend to be anything but advocacy organizations.

Not true, both insititutes claim to centres of academic excellence.


What on earth is a political supremacist?.

You believe your political ideology is supreme. You laud right-wing organisations (academic and media) as presenting material of merit, at the slightest hint of a left-wing bias you make a huge fuss about this impairing the quality of the material. A clear double standard.



Universities, at least tax-payer funded ones, should not have this lack of political diversity (or, in KB's terminology, should not be so politically skewed).

Intersting how do you propose to fix this percieved "skewness"? Affirmative action? Gender diversity has been shown in some studies to increase the quality of decisions made by management teams, should all tax payer funded institutions be looking to ensure a equal distribution of genders in their management teams?

Why not let the market correct such issues? Choice of University is voluntary therefore if universities lack of political diversity was undermining the quality of their academic output this would be reflected a reduced reputation and subsquently reduce their ability to attract students.

If we assume the market results in optimal outcomes, then if a political "skewness" exists it does so because that leads to optimal academic output. After all Universities need to convince students that the investment of their time and money at that particular university will generate significant benefits for the students.

Also I think your perception of political diversity is possibly skewed in itself, since your views are so far right you might tend to consider right-centrists to be left-wing.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2010, 01:01 PM
Regarding your statement I would say firstly you have not shown there is a widespread skew (across many disciplines and institutions).
The Lichter et al. paper stands despite some whinges by leftards. So how many Coalition supporters are there are your uni? How many conservative Christians?


And even if their were, even that is not necessarily something that society should try to avoid. As long as appointments and promotions are made on the basis of merit and not politics it is entirely irrelevant unless perhaps it is a school of political science or something where the politics is a part of the job.
That's the whole point though. The "collegiality" with the other faculty members might be a problem, if they are all leftards. There is an interesting ongoing case with Mike Adams (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/judge-rules-academic-writings-not-protected/print/), likely denied promotion because of his conservative columns.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2010, 01:12 PM
You believe your political ideology is supreme.
It's more a result of living in the real world and seeing how government intrusion spoils things, while free enterprise and free trade has empirically increased prosperity.


You laud right-wing organisations (academic and media) as presenting material of merit,
They do. The media and academic culture is so saturated with leftardism that they must provide strong arguments to do well.


at the slightest hint of a left-wing bias you make a huge fuss about this impairing the quality of the material. A clear double standard.
It's not hard to be a leftist camp-follower when so much of the media and academia are uncritical leftards. Just look at the percentage of Labor/Democrat voters in the media and academia.


Intersting how do you propose to fix this percieved "skewness"? Affirmative action?
A great evil, that has been a disaster all over the world, leading to more racial polarization. AA is racism, pure and simple. In America, it has resulted in many blacks mismatched to their institutions.


Gender diversity has been shown in some studies to increase the quality of decisions made by management teams,
Most doubtful. Sure, if the women get there on merit, then good on them. But lowering standards for physical jobs has resulted in deterioration of quality. And the women who qualified on merit also feel shortchanged.


should all tax payer funded institutions be looking to ensure a equal distribution of genders in their management teams?
No. They should hire on merit.


Why not let the market correct such issues? Choice of University is voluntary therefore if universities lack of political diversity was undermining the quality of their academic output this would be reflected a reduced reputation and subsquently reduce their ability to attract students.
I would be happy to let the market correct the problems. This means getting rid of government funding.


If we assume the market results in optimal outcomes,
Not just an assumption. No other system even comes close to improving the lot of ordinary people as free enterprise.


then if a political "skewness" exists it does so because that leads to optimal academic output.
Except that unis are shieled from market forces.


After all Universities need to convince students that the investment of their time and money at that particular university will generate significant benefits for the students.
Again, if goverments are subsidising and accrediting, then it is no longer a market decision.


Also I think your perception of political diversity is possibly skewed in itself, since your views are so far right you might tend to consider right-centrists to be left-wing.
Just sensible economics, as per Hayek, Mises and Friedman, as shown by the prosperity under Coolidge and Reagan, and the inefficiency and increased unemployment and bureaucracy when the free market is abandoned.

Vlad
16-04-2010, 01:30 PM
Looking at http://www.insureware.com/AboutUs/Company/Staff/rdteam.php I notice the following:

1) Out of 6 people that have anything to do with research (managing director + statisticians) 4 have PhDs. One of these PhDs is a very serious academic, professor, has published extensively in statistics and econometrics, he is the managing director, the BOSS. The other 3 also occupy senior positions. The only two non-PhDs have finished honours with the first class (the best non PhDs could possibly be) and stil occupy junior positions only.

2) Out of software Engineers there are no PhDs. Well, I always thought that programmers do not need PhDs. Correct me if I am wrong.

Now given that the population of PhDs is much smaller than population of non-PhDs, the fact that almost all seniour positions in this firm occupied by PhDs is some kind of signal. I think. :doh:

Igor_Goldenberg
16-04-2010, 01:50 PM
I thought you said it was "statistically insignficant" :eh:
Only in comparison with standard graduates.
In comparison to top mark graduates there was a marked difference (not in PhD favour).

Vlad
16-04-2010, 02:17 PM
2) Out of software Engineers there are no PhDs. Well, I always thought that programmers do not need PhDs. Correct me if I am wrong.


The other thing is that given that Igor is a software engineer/programmer himself, I have a strong feeling he is talking about recruiting other programmers. Would you expect a "normal" PhD to get a programmer job?:hand:

Why does not he check how many cleaners have PhDs and how well they do their job? I am pretty sure that the answer will be statistically significant but not in a favor of PhDs.:whistle:

Rincewind
16-04-2010, 02:32 PM
The Lichter et al. paper stands despite some whinges by leftards. So how many Coalition supporters are there are your uni? How many conservative Christians?

The issues are real and not "whinges". I would have thought most people realise that it can compromise a longitudinal study if you change your questions along the way.


That's the whole point though. The "collegiality" with the other faculty members might be a problem, if they are all leftards. There is an interesting ongoing case with Mike Adams (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/judge-rules-academic-writings-not-protected/print/), likely denied promotion because of his conservative columns.

Again I disagree. For example, I have collaborated with several people that I have no idea as to their political persuasion. I have also asked people to write references for me and provided references for people without knowing their political persuasion. Therefore I maintain that (in my experience) unless politics is a part of the job, then the political persuasion of an academic is irrelevant in practice. I have certainly not seen any politically selection bias in the appointment or promotion processes.

Regarding coalition supporters, I have voted liberal at times and I know of some academics are successful and right-wing. Of the top of my head I can think of one professor who went on to become a vice chancellor who also wrote right-leaning opinion pieces. I'm sure his case wasn't unique.

TheJoker
16-04-2010, 02:51 PM
They do. The media and academic culture is so saturated with leftardism that they must provide strong arguments to do well.

But given the market demand for quality information, and that the most sucessful media organisations and profitable will those that deliver quality information. Therefore any under allocation of right-wing view points must be a result of inferior quality;).



It's not hard to be a leftist camp-follower when so much of the media and academia are uncritical leftards. Just look at the percentage of Labor/Democrat voters in the media and academia.

As above, if right-wing media and academic institutions were providing better quality information the deamnd for their product should increase their proliferation. Instead according to you we see the reverse, that is left-wing media and academic outlets are more proliferent. Whilst you might be able to argue about government funding distortions in Universities, no such intervention occurs in the media outside the ABC.


A great evil, that has been a disaster all over the world..

So how do you suppose to redress the so-called political imbalance in universities?


Most doubtful.

Not doubtful rather most probable. One explaination is that most firm's target markets consist of both male and female customers, female are often more attuned to how strategic business decisions will impact on the female customers. Whilst I don't think it is necessary to have any regulation around workforce diversity. I do believe diverse workforces help aviod group-think, and that is why the maangement philosophy is gradually shifting towards that direction. But the benefits will drive the change not government policy.


I would be happy to let the market correct the problems. This means getting rid of government funding..

Two things, fisrt unless government funding can be shown to be allocated based on some sort political ideelogical factors it will have no bearing as it will be equally available to all institutions regardless of political persuasion.

Secondly, public investment in education and research has been shown to imerative for economic development. So getting rid of the public funding would be rather stupid.


Except that unis are shieled from market forces.

How so? I believe a significant amount of revenue is generated from overseas students, this is purely market driven. I don't think it would be possible for a Uni to compete without some level of overseas students therefore they are largely governed by market forces. Secondly local students recieve government funding no matter which Uni they chose, therefore their choice as far as I can tell is not influenced by the government.


Again, if goverments are subsidising and accrediting, then it is no longer a market decision.

If the government has such an influence then why aren't Uni predominantly right-wing considering the length of the Howard term?



per Hayek, Mises and Friedman Sorry but that group is politically skewed so their findings cannot be trusted;)

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2010, 03:27 PM
That's the whole point though. The "collegiality" with the other faculty members might be a problem, if they are all leftards. There is an interesting ongoing case with Mike Adams (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/judge-rules-academic-writings-not-protected/print/), likely denied promotion because of his conservative columns.

I recommend reading the full judgement at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/AdamsOrder.pdf (PDF LINK, 39 pages but the pages are pretty short) to see why his case against his faculty was thrown out.

In most respects the case is just a standard case where someone who is overlooked for a promotion alleges discrimination on the grounds of other staff with similar records but different views getting better treatment and has the case tossed out because in the absence of positive proof of discrimination, the court will not infer it. The court will not infer it because to do so often obligates the court to make subjective judgements about the merits of respective academics that may rest on an understanding of specialist and obscure matters beyond the court's comprehension. Cases of this kind are apparently routinely turfed; I have heard of quite a few of them in both academia and general employment.

What makes this one different is that Adams attempted to argue that negative evaluations of his columns, in the context of a selection criterion involving service to the community and university as an academic, constituted discrimination against him on the grounds of protected speech.

But in fact he forced the appointments committee to consider the contribution such material made to his case for promotion by including it in his application. That left the faculty open to taking the view that his columns were not scholarly material and did not contribute much or anything to his case for promotion based on "service", or even that his columns constituted negative service by detracting from the faculty's reputation for good scholarship. See pp. 15-21 of the judgement for summaries of the views offered on the promotion and pp 34-35 for the crux of the matter:


A contrary analysis would allow those in plaintiff's position to place employers in a double bind: either neglect employee requests and refuse to look at material [in this case the political columns and book mentioned by Adams in his application-KB], fueling allegations of free speech violations grounded in the refusal; or consider the material, knowing that doing so will open them up, in the event of an adverse outcome, to claims of free speech violations for basing denials on protected speech. The court concludes, under Garcetti, that the columns, publications, and presentations plaintiff included in his application constituted--in the context of the promotion evaluation-expressions made pursuant to plaintiff's professional duties. The court further finds that the record contains no evidence of other protected speech (i.e., speech not presented by plaintiff for review as part of his application) playing any role in the promotion denial. As a result, plaintiff cannot meet his burden at the first step of the McVey test.

Including his columns on his application was a serious blunder by Adams, but an instructive one. Had he not included them and had the faculty then ruled against him and cited his columns as reasons for that ruling he would have been able to claim they ruled against him based on protected speech. But by including them he unprotected his own columns, and so we'll never know whether faculty were biased against him or not. In the absence of proof of guilt they can only be assumed innocent.

The only aspect of the matter I found disquieting was that a fellow academic who had, apparently falsely, accused Adams of attacking her office with gas or pepper spray was allowed to vote on the matter at all. This person should not have attempted to vote and should not have been allowed to vote, and additionally should have been severely reprimanded for making serious accusations against a fellow employee that were found to be groundless. But the margin in the vote was enough that it makes no difference.

TheJoker
16-04-2010, 03:29 PM
Only in comparison with standard graduates.
In comparison to top mark graduates there was a marked difference (not in PhD favour).

Interesting, just to get a handle on the volumes we are talking about here, how many people does your company employ and what's the turnover rate like? Are we talking about a firm with say 200 people or 10? How many recuitments you make in the average year?

Rincewind
16-04-2010, 03:49 PM
Interesting, just to get a handle on the volumes we are talking about here, how many people does your company employ and what's the turnover rate like? Are we talking about a firm with say 200 people or 10? How many recuitments you make in the average year?

It would also be useful to know if the "negative experiences" are candidates who were employed and later found to be wanting or candidates who didn't make the cut. If the majority fall into the second category, those candidates may not have been as bad as Igor thinks and perhaps they just didn't interview all that well. Since his assessment of these subjects is based on a very limited set of interactions. Whereas if the successful candidates form the nonPhD cohort then by becoming a colleague, Igor's assessment of these individuals become entangled with his subsequent relationships with the candidates and so he would have a bias to mark this cohort up.

The bottom line is: the more I think about it, the less illustrative Igor's "observation" appears.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-04-2010, 04:25 PM
Interesting, just to get a handle on the volumes we are talking about here, how many people does your company employ and what's the turnover rate like? Are we talking about a firm with say 200 people or 10? How many recuitments you make in the average year?
Much closer to the 10:) - twelve at the moment. We had a big turnover rate until about ten year ago, when we changed the principles of hiring. I am extremely happy with everyone working now and we have had very low turnover since then.
In terms of interview - at the turn of the century I had to interview at least fifty people, maybe closer to the hundred. Still nowhere near 200, we are a small company and the sample is, of course, small. However, we used to advertise that PhD is an advantage and initially I had a very strong bias toward them.

TheJoker
16-04-2010, 04:58 PM
Much closer to the 10:) - twelve at the moment. We had a big turnover rate until about ten year ago, when we changed the principles of hiring. I am extremely happy with everyone working now and we have had very low turnover since then.
In terms of interview - at the turn of the century I had to interview at least fifty people, maybe closer to the hundred. Still nowhere near 200, we are a small company and the sample is, of course, small. However, we used to advertise that PhD is an advantage and initially I had a very strong bias toward them.

Were you sacking these Ph.D's 10 years ago or where they leaving to pursue better paid or challenging opportunities?

Igor_Goldenberg
16-04-2010, 05:21 PM
Were you sacking these Ph.D's 10 years ago or where they leaving to pursue better paid or challenging opportunities?
Both. Some of those that left were a great loss, some a good riddance.

Adamski
17-04-2010, 01:15 AM
There is an interesting ongoing case with Mike Adams (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/judge-rules-academic-writings-not-protected/print/), likely denied promotion because of his conservative columns.There is no truth to the rumour that this man is me. Nor is it maddam12. Nor is it a British Super-GM!

cyclo
17-04-2010, 06:08 AM
Still this "evidence" has not been produced except for one flawed study.

The study wasn't flawed in its reporting of the overwhelmingly Left-wing ideologies among University faculties. Every poll has shown it. That fact was never in dispute. What was in dispute was something about conservative professors being discriminated against. You'll have to start reading your own links before you post them.


I didn't just assume Jono was talking about a subset as you claimed I did in your first post.

Yes, you did. The only way you could possibly claim that church congregations were as Right-wing as University faculties are Left-wing, would be to exclude all churches from the discussion, except the conservative Evangelical ones.


Again no evidence to this effect has been forthcoming.

Pew research polls make clear that church-goers are more diverse in their political ideologies and this is reflected in their voting patterns. Churches are more evenly balanced between Left and Right than University faculties, which are overwhelmingly Left.


I'm not sure as to the point of this link. Id does show that Bush in 2004 garnered the majority of the christian vote across the board of denominations. So it counters Jono's argument to some extent.

All he said was churches are more diverse politically than University faculties are. You stated your disagreement based on nothing. Yet it was a true and factual statement as the polling data shows.


I agree that proper ethics are very useful. However the lazy bible-bashing some people mistake for ethics is not.

Had to re-read this one a few times. :hmm:
Agreed. The lazy Bible-bashing is not ethical.


You seem to have an blind spot when it comes to context. In the context of this discussion your correction was irrelevant.

You were attempting to use the words of Bush Jr. to show his intolerance of atheists, except the words you quoted were not his words. It's ok to disagree with a man's words. Just make sure they are his words.


Again irrelevant. What happens in public schools has nothing to do with the political diversity in universities. Your assertion that poor people are subjected to politically biased education without choice when clearly they do have several choices the simplest being to make a complaint to the relevant authority.

Poor people often have no choice, because liberals won't allow poor parents to have vouchers. Complaints filed about Darwinism being taught as fact or classroom rants against conservatives are usually fruitless towards balancing what is taught.


Again your blind spot, not mine.

No, it's your blind spot. You stated your disagreement that conservative Christians donate more money to helping the poor and homeless than secular liberals do. The link I posted proved you wrong. Yes, conservative Christians are more charitable in helping the poor and homeless than secular liberals are.

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/statistics.html

Rincewind
17-04-2010, 08:00 AM
The study wasn't flawed in its reporting of the overwhelmingly Left-wing ideologies among University faculties. Every poll has shown it. That fact was never in dispute. What was in dispute was something about conservative professors being discriminated against. You'll have to start reading your own links before you post them.

Well it depends how you ask the questions and the research at Pew are no doubt aware and modify their questions to get the response their right wing backers want.


Yes, you did. The only way you could possibly claim that church congregations were as Right-wing as University faculties are Left-wing, would be to exclude all churches from the discussion, except the conservative Evangelical ones.

Which I clearly stated in my response to Jono.

Go back read again. Come back when it has sunk in.


Pew research polls make clear that church-goers are more diverse in their political ideologies and this is reflected in their voting patterns. Churches are more evenly balanced between Left and Right than University faculties, which are overwhelmingly Left.

Read Kevin's post. Even if the study wasn't fatally flawed, this shows a skew in the distribution and not greater diversity.


All he said was churches are more diverse politically than University faculties are. You stated your disagreement based on nothing. Yet it was a true and factual statement as the polling data shows.

Again your lack of comprehension is disturbing. Read what I said again especially the bit were I said, "Perhaps with the more mainstream churches like Catholicism that is true..." :rollseyes:


Had to re-read this one a few times. :hmm:
Agreed. The lazy Bible-bashing is not ethical.

By lazy bible-bashing I mean ethical positions supported by claimed supernatural authority. E.G. "Euthanasia is wrong because it violates the ten commandments" or "goes against the sanctity of human life". That sort of thing.


You were attempting to use the words of Bush Jr. to show his intolerance of atheists, except the words you quoted were not his words. It's ok to disagree with a man's words. Just make sure they are his words.

Again you seem obsessed by this point. I'm happy for any republican president to have said it. It demonstrates the link between the political right and the religious (in America at least).


Poor people often have no choice, because liberals won't allow poor parents to have vouchers. Complaints filed about Darwinism being taught as fact or classroom rants against conservatives are usually fruitless towards balancing what is taught.

The reason why Evolution is taught is science classrooms is because it is science. ID is not taught because it is bunk. Teach bunk is science classrooms is not "balance" it is just inappropriate.

That's why alchemy is not taught in chemistry, astrology is not taught in physics and ID is not taught in biology.


No, it's your blind spot. You stated your disagreement that conservative Christians donate more money to helping the poor and homeless than secular liberals do. The link I posted proved you wrong. Yes, conservative Christians are more charitable in helping the poor and homeless than secular liberals are.

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/statistics.html

I said "in my experience". Again your inability to comprehend is not my issue. Either way it has nothing to do with this thread.

BTW cyclo, what is your interest in Australian Chess?

cyclo
17-04-2010, 11:22 AM
But given the market demand for quality information, and that the most sucessful media organisations and profitable will those that deliver quality information. Therefore any under allocation of right-wing view points must be a result of inferior quality;).

As above, if right-wing media and academic institutions were providing better quality information the deamnd for their product should increase their proliferation. Instead according to you we see the reverse, that is left-wing media and academic outlets are more proliferent.

The very reason why liberals won't allow poor parents to have school choice through vouchers is because they fear everyone will send their children to private schools (many of which are conservative) and the public school system will collapse... while the private schools turn out more conservative young people (i.e. fewer voters for the Democratic party).

The movie 'The Blind Side' was a shining example of what can happen when a disadvantaged kid from the public school system is thrown into the midst of a private conservative Christian school ... rather than be abandoned, he was embraced by multiple Christian families one of which adopted him... and it's worth noting that the real students, parents and faculty at Briarcrest were far more friendly to Michael Oher than was depicted in the movie.

As for why liberals dominate the news media, it's not because conservatives produce an inferior quality product. It's because ideology trumps profits. Most liberal media outlets would rather go bankrupt than showcase news from a conservative perspective... or even a balanced perspective.

The conservative FoxNews channel is by far the highest rated cable news outlet in America. The ratings for FoxNews channel trump the ratings for liberal CNN and MSNBC combined.

For example, here are the ratings for 4/15/2010.

Total Day
FNC – 1,173,000 viewers
CNN – 368,000 viewers
MSNBC – 426,000 viewers
CNBC – 221,000 viewers
HLN – 361,000 viewers

Prime Time
FNC – 2,347,000 viewers
CNN – 563,000 viewers
MSNBC –1,019,000 viewers
CNBC – 256,000 viewers
HLN –739,000 viewers

The numbers are telling. If the news media cared about profits, they'd be producing more conservative news, because it seems the American masses consider "right-wing" news the superior quality product!

But, ideology trumps profits. News outlets like CNN would rather lose money than sacrifice their liberalism.

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2010, 05:52 AM
Read Kevin's post. Even if the study wasn't fatally flawed, this shows a skew in the distribution and not greater diversity.
OK, but this is just a question of what we call this phenomenon of hugely left-leaning uni faculties. Conservative Republicans are an endangered species in American unis.


By lazy bible-bashing I mean ethical positions supported by claimed supernatural authority. E.G. "Euthanasia is wrong because it violates the ten commandments" or "goes against the sanctity of human life". That sort of thing.
Murder and theft are wrong because they violate the Decalogue. Better legalize them then.


Again you seem obsessed by this point. I'm happy for any republican president to have said it. It demonstrates the link between the political right and the religious (in America at least).
Which is no where near as extensive as the links between the Dems and the Secular Left (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2003/07/Are-The-Democrats-Anti-Religion.aspx). Furthermore, to get back to the topic, American uni faculty were far more skewed to the Dems than American churchgoers are to the GOP.


The reason why Evolution is taught is science classrooms is because it is science. ID is not taught because it is bunk. Teach bunk is science classrooms is not "balance" it is just inappropriate.
In your opinion. Should be up to parents.


That's why alchemy is not taught in chemistry, astrology is not taught in physics and ID is not taught in biology.
False comparisons.

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2010, 06:03 AM
To add to Cyclo's excellent points, the leftard newspapers in America are badly losing market share as people choose to get their news from the Internet. The traitorous New York Times, the one that published Walter Duranty's whitewash of Stalin's mass murders and show trials (http://old.nationalreview.com/contributors/stuttaford051501.shtml), is hemorrhaging subscribers (http://chesschat.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=275742).

Also, the US Dems canned a popular school voucher program (http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/05/lady-obama-visits-charter-scho) in Washington DC that produced better outcomes for poor kids as well as saving government money, simply because the teachers unions (along with the ambulance-chasing lawyer types) own the Dems.

Films like Blind Side, Passion, and 10 Commandments were blockbusters. Leftards make christophobic flops like Richard Gere's David and Last Temptation of Christ, because as Cyclo said, ideology trumps money.

Rincewind
18-04-2010, 09:13 AM
OK, but this is just a question of what we call this phenomenon of hugely left-leaning uni faculties. Conservative Republicans are an endangered species in American unis.

Yet to be demonstrated but certainly doesn't seem to be a problem frmo my experience in Australian institutions.


Murder and theft are wrong because they violate the Decalogue. Better legalize them then.

No but there is no reason to argue ethics based on a supposed moral authority ordained by your imaginary friend in the sky.


American uni faculty were far more skewed to the Dems than American churchgoers are to the GOP.

Lets deal with what you said not what your argument has now morphed into when your initial assertion was found to be indefensible.


In your opinion. Should be up to parents.

No, it should not be up to parents. Children should be taught what we can demonstrate to be true not fairy-tales.


False comparisons.

That's true. There was some academic merit in alchemy. Astrology and ID are in a much lower league.

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2010, 10:35 AM
Yet to be demonstrated but certainly doesn't seem to be a problem frmo my experience in Australian institutions.
Easily demonstrated in American institutions, and was the case with the humanities in my uni in NZ.


No but there is no reason to argue ethics based on a supposed moral authority ordained by your imaginary friend in the sky.
None based on anything imaginary, unlike the goo to you via the zoo nonsense you hold.


Lets deal with what you said not what your argument has now morphed into when your initial assertion was found to be indefensible.
Indefensible, just because you found a leftist source that disagrees with the Lichter et al. study?


No, it should not be up to parents. Children should be taught what we can demonstrate to be true not fairy-tales.
Spoken like a true leftard atheoelitist. Next you'll be wanting to dictate that parents shouldn't be allowed to take their kids to church, given that your hero Clinton R. Dawkins calls this "mental child abuse", and what foods parents are allowed to feed their kids.

Even an evolutionary libertarian argued (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/a-libertarian-s/):


... Q: But what if those parents didn’t want their kids to be taught gravity.

A: Yes, that would be okay too, though in practice it’s nonsense. You’re trying to find an example that’s outrageous — but that’s making law by extreme cases. What you want to do is make public policy decisions on the overwhelming majority, then deal with the outliers. We don’t have feeding laws; but when parents abuse children by starving them , we throw the parents in jail. We have extreme case laws, but don’t have broad law saying, these are things you must do as a parent.

...

‘[T]he key source of the school wars we and others have experienced has always been compulsion: forcing people to either send their children to or pay for schooling that violates their convictions. When there is no compulsion, conflict is relatively insignificant. Consider other marketplaces, such as the one for religion. Do Protestants picket outside synagogues saying, “No, Jesus wasn’t just some guy, he was God!!!!” Nope. Despite the fact that people often feel very strongly about their religious views, it’s live and let live, because there is no compulsion in the religious marketplace.

‘Liberals, ironically, think that a liberal education system based on parental choice would be socially divisive. They have it exactly backwards: it is the compelled conformity of a single officially-established school system that is socially divisive. Individual freedom in other areas of American life, especially religion, is the reason we have had such a comparatively stable and peaceful society. If we got rid of the one significant remaining area of cultural and ideological compulsion, the official school monopoly, the current red vs. blue animosity would lessen substantially (though of course there are reasons why it wouldn’t go away entirely).’


That's true. There was some academic merit in alchemy. Astrology and ID are in a much lower league.
Spoken by someone with blind faith in materialism.

Rincewind
18-04-2010, 02:37 PM
Easily demonstrated in American institutions, and was the case with the humanities in my uni in NZ.

Both anecdotal and 15 years out of date.

A common mistake of those on the fringe of academia is they are exposed to the "activist" segment and somehow conclude that is indicative of academia or academic humanities in general. BTW The professor -> VC I mentioned a few posts ago was in the humanities.


None based on anything imaginary, unlike the goo to you via the zoo nonsense you hold.

Science just holds what is necessary to best explain the data. Imagineering a mythos to explain the world is something stone age tribes do. Oh, wait, that's who wrote your "scripture".


Indefensible, just because you found a leftist source that disagrees with the Lichter et al. study?

That make valid points which raise questions as to the validity of the study and the objectivity of the researchers.



Spoken like a true leftard atheoelitist.

I would like to personal request you only use the word "leftard" in the political sub-forum. I find the term very offensive not because of any personal relationship I have with anyone with a cognitive disability. I just find the term inappropriate and unnecessary in the volume you seem to spew out the term.


Next you'll be wanting to dictate that parents shouldn't be allowed to take their kids to church, given that your hero Clinton R. Dawkins calls this "mental child abuse", and what foods parents are allowed to feed their kids.

I said "should", not that I wanted to do anything. If you're going to respond to my posts, then I suggest you try reading what I write first.


Spoken by someone with blind faith in materialism.

No, just spoken by someone who doesn't believe your fanciful stories. In the same way that you don't wish to submit to sharma law because you don't believe their fanciful stories.

Aaron Guthrie
18-04-2010, 04:09 PM
Why if researchers are in such high demand is the pay so low?
Being paid to do research is highly desirable, and not readily avaliable outside universities. I guess that is part of it.

Is it that academics and universities are lousy at commercialising their capabilities?
That is proabably a large part of it too.

However research, especially fundamental research without strong links to commercial application is not the sort of thing you can (and perhaps) should be trying to commercialise.
The simple model for universities is: maximize number of students. The university ranking systems are based on research. I would have thought that the ranking of a university has a fairly large influence on the number of students it picks up. It does seem like a lot of universities don't agree with me on this latter point (my impressions based mostly on the current round of cuts post GFC). I would like to know if I am wrong, or they are wrong; hopefully the answer to this will become clear in the next couple of years.

Vlad
18-04-2010, 04:36 PM
The simple model for universities is: maximize number of students.


That is not entirely correct. If one of the top 8 universities decided to maximize the number of students, they could easily take 3-4 times as much as they are currently taking by decreasing their entrance criteria. For the universities that closer to the bottom the story is obviously different; they may have already decreased their entrance criteria close to almost letting anybody. However, in the case of these universities can one seriously think they are doing any research?:)

My second point is regarding heterogeneity of students. There are fee-paing students and hecs-paying students. The first ones are giving so little to universities comparing to the second ones that universities are trying to intake as little of them as possible.




The university ranking systems are based on research.


That is correct.




I would have thought that the ranking of a university has a fairly large influence on the number of students it picks up.

I think it should be rephrased to "the ranking of a university has a fairly large influence on the number of good students it picks up".

Mokum
18-04-2010, 05:08 PM
Murder and theft are wrong because they violate the Decalogue. Better legalize them then.

I'd argue that if the only argument against murder and theft was that they violate the Decalogue, those should indeed be legal. The Decalogue is only relevant if you believe in (and submit to) the God of the Bible being its authority. The overwhelming majority of the worlds population (about 75%) does not believe this, and for those (and me) the Bible is not at all significant as a legal document. That doesn't seem to be much of a problem, as pretty much every society in the past and present has laws against murder and theft, I guess because its not practical not to have those laws, and because murder and theft are seen to be unethical by both Christians and non-Christians alike. However, when it comes to things like euthanasia, homosexuality or abortion that is not so clear cut. I have no ethical problems with any of those and have a real problem with laws being imposed on me if these are only based on an authority I don't believe in.

Rincewind
18-04-2010, 06:29 PM
I'd argue that if the only argument against murder and theft was that they violate the Decalogue, those should indeed be legal.

As far as I can tell the ten commandments have nothing to do with it.

As you point out there are laws against theft and murder in non-Christian states and the only reason they are illegal because ideologically we support an individuals right to life and to hold property and thus denying either of these against the will of a citizen is obviously wrong. On the other hand, there are "laws" in the ten commandments which are not codified in civil law (and rightly so). For example, consensual sex between unmarried adults and blasphemy are not against the law in Australia.

The fact that some of the ten commandments line up with some civil and criminal laws is more a coincidence than anything else.

Thus, Jono suggestion that I would support the abolition of murder as a crime on the basis that I don't hold a belief in a supernatural authority is just more of his usual right-wing slippery-slope bulldust.

Mokum
18-04-2010, 07:31 PM
As far as I can tell the ten commandments have nothing to do with it.
My point exactly, which is why I emphasized 'only'. The many laws and regulations in the Bible that did not stand the test of time make interesting reading though. One of my favorites is in Deuteronomy 23:1: "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord" (NRSV). But I digress.

Rincewind
18-04-2010, 07:41 PM
I think it should be rephrased to "the ranking of a university has a fairly large influence on the number of good students it picks up".

That's true but there are a number of other factors the the attraction of good students is also a reasonably difficult thing to quantify. For example there is no doubt the close proximity of USydney and UNSW negatively affects the average quality of domestic students each picks up, since they are both highly ranked universities in the same city. Whereas the University of Queensland (for example) has no similarly ranked competition for domestic students within coee.

With international students it is a different kettle of fish and local (city level) competition is less of an issue but marketing and international perception (rather than fact) plays a role. For example, I think regional universities have had a boost in the Indian market by the perception that regional centres are relatively student friendly environment compared to capital cities. However whether this overcomes the overall negative trend for Indian students perception of Australia - I'm not sure.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-04-2010, 10:09 PM
For example, consensual sex between unmarried adults and blasphemy are not against the law in Australia.

Out of curiosity - which of the Commandment forbids it?

Rincewind
18-04-2010, 10:15 PM
Out of curiosity - which of the Commandment forbids it?

The numbering of commandments is denomination specific but I had in mind the following from Exodus 20.

20.7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

and

20.14 You shall not commit adultery.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-04-2010, 10:41 PM
20.14 You shall not commit adultery.
Adultery (at the times of ten commandments) is not the same as sex between unmarried adults.

Rincewind
18-04-2010, 10:57 PM
Adultery (at the times of ten commandments) is not the same as sex between unmarried adults.

Definitions of adultery vary between denominations. I think the usual Jewish interpretation would be sex between adults where one or both of the participants are married but not to each other.

If you are more comfortable with that definition then just use that consistently with what I was saying above. Such consensual acts between adults is not illegal in Australia but are against God's "law" in the ten commandments.

In fact, the ten commandments goes further and simply the act of coveting is against the law. God help the prison system if coveting was ever made a criminal offence. :lol:

On a more serious note, it was just an example, I'm not that interested in arguing which interpretation of "adultery" is the correct one as long as you agree that, in general, acts defined as adultery between consenting adults in Australia are generally not illegal.

TheJoker
19-04-2010, 12:08 AM
The very reason why liberals won't allow poor parents to have school choice through vouchers is because they fear everyone will send their children to private schools (many of which are conservative) and the public school system will collapse... while the private schools turn out more conservative young people (i.e. fewer voters for the Democratic party).

Perhaps in the USA, but in NSW public schools are getting the best HSC results so it is unlikely. Also in Australia private schools get significant public funding. So the voucher debate isn't really valid since IIRC schools receive funding based on enrolments. It is the same thing as vouchers except the middleman (the parents) are avoided to save on administration costs.


The movie 'The Blind Side' was a shining example of what can happen when a disadvantaged kid from the public school system is thrown into the midst of a private conservative Christian school ... rather than be abandoned, he was embraced by multiple Christian families one of which adopted him... and it's worth noting that the real students, parents and faculty at Briarcrest were far more friendly to Michael Oher than was depicted in the movie.

I could equally show you cases of how poorly some kids have been treated at priate christian schools. Last time I checked the OECD stats there was barely any difference in efficiency of outcomes (results/$ invested) at private schools compared to public schools. I suspect if you applied that test to schools drawing from the same demographic therefore correcting for exogeneous factors it might even favour public schools who might tend to be resourceful due to financing constraints.

But you are diverging into generic USA right-wing arguments about primary and secondary education. It's irrelevant to the discussionon universities since equal public funding is available to each student to attend any accredited University, unless you can show that the accreditation process is politically biased you dont have a leg to stand on.


As for why liberals dominate the news media, it's not because conservatives produce an inferior quality product. It's because ideology trumps profits. Most liberal media outlets would rather go bankrupt than showcase news from a conservative perspective... or even a balanced perspective.

Evidence


The conservative FoxNews channel is by far the highest rated cable news outlet in America. The ratings for FoxNews channel trump the ratings for liberal CNN and MSNBC combined..

But this defeats the claim that the media has a left-wing bias. In fact it shows the media has a right-wing bias. Perhaps you should tell Jono and other fanatics who continually whinge about a left-wing media bias.


The numbers are telling. If the news media cared about profits, they'd be producing more conservative news, because it seems the American masses consider "right-wing" news the superior quality product!.

No the numbers show market is fragmented. Which probably means that each veiwpoint has its strengths and weaknesses.

But you are correct in saying that numbers show the majority value the right-wing views and therefore these dominate the media.


But, ideology trumps profits. News outlets like CNN would rather lose money than sacrifice their liberalism.

You don't have a clue about making profits from a market do you, there is process called segmenting, which breaks the market down into segments it is often more profitable to market to a particular segment where there is less competition than to attack the biggest segment where there are dominant cmpetitors. You really should learn a little about business before making rash claims about profitability.

TheJoker
19-04-2010, 12:21 AM
Being paid to do research is highly desirable, and not readily avaliable outside universities. I guess that is part of it.

So this means there is excess of supply of people willing to engage in research compared to demand. Which means there is not a shortage of researches but a shortage of demand for research. Two very different problems.


The simple model for universities is: maximize number of students.

I think like any business there are a number of strategies adopted by universities. I think there is vast difference between say USyd and UTS in terms of numer of students and investment in research. And also I would assume fees.

I think if the problem is the a lack of demand for research then focusing on research with commercial benefits in the short-term might stimulate demand. As would creating public awareness about the need for more investment in long-term research that doesn't necessarily have immediate short-term economic prospoects.

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2010, 01:47 AM
Perhaps in the USA, but in NSW public schools are getting the best HSC results so it is unlikely. Also in Australia private schools get significant public funding. So the voucher debate isn't really valid since IIRC schools receive funding based on enrolments. It is the same thing as vouchers except the middleman (the parents) are avoided to save on administration costs.
Howard pointed out something similar in an interview in the US.


I could equally show you cases of how poorly some kids have been treated at priate christian schools.
Maybe you can, but then parents can vote with their feet.


Last time I checked the OECD stats there was barely any difference in efficiency of outcomes (results/$ invested) at private schools compared to public schools. I suspect if you applied that test to schools drawing from the same demographic therefore correcting for exogeneous factors it might even favour public schools who might tend to be resourceful due to financing constraints.
If public schools were as good as you claim, then they would not bleat about competition from the private sector.


But this defeats the claim that the media has a left-wing bias. In fact it shows the media has a right-wing bias. Perhaps you should tell Jono and other fanatics who continually whinge about a left-wing media bias.
Missing the point as usual. Fox finally provided an alternative to the Communist News Network and all the other leftard advocacy channels masquerading as news networks. It's not even especially conservative, having far more liberal staff than the other media have conservatives.


But you are correct in saying that numbers show the majority value the right-wing views and therefore these dominate the media.
Fox is a recent phenomenon. As is the Internet.


You don't have a clue about making profits from a market do you,
Apparently the Leftmedia don't either, because they won't change their ways in the face of losing market share. Here is Mark Steyn on the Leftmedia either ignoring or smearing the Tea Party protests (http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3172/30/):


But in America tea is not a soothing beverage to be served with McVitie's Digestive Biscuits. It's a raging stimulant. It's rabies in an Earl Grey bag. At America's tea parties, there's no McVitie's, just McVeighs – as in Timothy of that ilk, as in angry white men twitching to go nuts. To Paul Krugman of The New York Times, the tea party is a movement of "crazy people" manipulated by sinister "right-wing billionaires." To the briefly famous Susan Roesgen of CNN, the parties are not safe for "family viewing." Which is presumably why the Boston Globe forbore to cover them last week. The original Boston Tea Party was so-called because it took place at Boston Harbor, which I gather is a harbor somewhere in the general vicinity of the Greater Boston area. So there would appear to be what I believe the journalism professors call a "local angle" to Wednesday's re-enactment. Might be useful for a publication losing a million bucks a week and threatened with closure by a parent company that, in one of the worst media acquisitions of all time, paid over $1 billion for a property that barely a decade later is all but worthless.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-04-2010, 09:41 AM
Definitions of adultery vary between denominations. I think the usual Jewish interpretation would be sex between adults where one or both of the participants are married but not to each other.


Interpretation of adultery at the time was married woman having sex with someone who is not her husband.
It is no longer a criminal offence, but until very recently had undesirable legal consequences.

TheJoker
19-04-2010, 11:04 AM
If public schools were as good as you claim, then they would not bleat about competition from the private sector.

Do they, I think what they bleat about is public funding going to schools that are already over resourced.8


Fox is a recent phenomenon. As is the Internet.

:doh: And here I was thinking we were talking about the present


Apparently the Leftmedia don't either, because they won't change their ways in the face of losing market share.

Now your argument doesn't make sense at all. If Fox, a right-wing network, is the market leader and eroding other left-wing media outlets market share, how in the hell is there any left-wing media bias? BTW that's a rhetorical question since the answer is that there clearly isn't.

Your remarks about them refusing to change their ways, assumes most likely incorrectly that they could appeal to a right-wing audience. Given the strength of the Fox brand among "conservatives" that seems unlikely, all that they would achieve is to alienate their current viewers. Very similar to the folly of chess trying to appeal to a mass market at the expense of current fans.

Rincewind
19-04-2010, 11:19 AM
It is no longer a criminal offence, but until very recently had undesirable legal consequences.

Yes, as I said, not illegal in Australia (and many other countries). If you really have a hang up on the definition I suggest you see a sex therapist the work through your issues. :)

Igor_Goldenberg
19-04-2010, 11:52 AM
Yes, as I said, not illegal in Australia (and many other countries). If you really have a hang up on the definition I suggest you see a sex therapist the work through your issues. :)
It is rude, but quite expectable from someone like RW

Aaron Guthrie
19-04-2010, 01:22 PM
So this means there is excess of supply of people willing to engage in research compared to demand. Which means there is not a shortage of researches but a shortage of demand for research. Two very different problems.My understanding is that at the junior level there is an excess of supply. (Note that the first post of this thread was about top level researchers, but the one I replied to was about junior level researchers.)

I think like any business there are a number of strategies adopted by universities. I think there is vast difference between say USyd and UTS in terms of numer of students and investment in research. And also I would assume fees.

That is not entirely correct. If one of the top 8 universities decided to maximize the number of students, they could easily take 3-4 times as much as they are currently taking by decreasing their entrance criteria. For the universities that closer to the bottom the story is obviously different; they may have already decreased their entrance criteria close to almost letting anybody. However, in the case of these universities can one seriously think they are doing any research?

My second point is regarding heterogeneity of students. There are fee-paing students and hecs-paying students. The first ones are giving so little to universities comparing to the second ones that universities are trying to intake as little of them as possible.
This is all fine. Let me refine things.

As far as I can tell a common reaction to the GFC, and other funding crisis has been to focus on getting more students (which may mean of a certain form), but at the cost of research. And thus at the cost of rankings. Which, I would guess, means at the cost of students (and of the relevant sorts). That is my issue.

(Aside, I am really only talking about top end universities.)

I think if the problem is the a lack of demand for research then focusing on research with commercial benefits in the short-term might stimulate demand. As would creating public awareness about the need for more investment in long-term research that doesn't necessarily have immediate short-term economic prospoects.
This sort of debate is going on in England at the moment, as the Higher Education Funding Council for England is arguing for an impact measure. Where it seems "impact" means something like economic impact (but a common criticism is that it is not well defined, or even undefined).

TheJoker
19-04-2010, 01:56 PM
As far as I can tell a common reaction to the GFC, and other funding crisis has been to focus on getting more students (which may mean of a certain form), but at the cost of research. And thus at the cost of rankings. Which, I would guess, means at the cost of students (and of the relevant sorts). That is my issue.

But if its an across the board reduction in research it shouldn't have much impact on the rankings which are relative.

How else would you suggest the Uni's fill the revenue hole, considering the squeeze on both private and public sector research budgets?


This sort of debate is going on in England at the moment, as the Higher Education Funding Council for England is arguing for an impact measure. Where it seems "impact" means something like economic impact (but a common criticism is that it is not well defined, or even undefined).

Interesting, I would have thought that requiring a certain propotion of research funding to be sourced from private industry would have been a way to avoid the problem of determing the type of research that is likely to be of immediate economic benefit. Of course there is a risk of becoming too short-sighted when only conducting research with short-term economic impacts.

Rincewind
19-04-2010, 04:14 PM
It is rude, but quite expectable from someone like RW

Sorry, didn't you see the emoticon? Then again I guess being a humourless bore is quite "expectable" from Igor.

Aaron Guthrie
19-04-2010, 05:17 PM
But if its an across the board reduction in research it shouldn't have much impact on the rankings which are relative.Not all universities are reacting in the same way (viz. taking focus away from research to teaching), or to the same degree.

How else would you suggest the Uni's fill the revenue hole, considering the squeeze on both private and public sector research budgets?Accross the board cuts, rather than focused against research. (NB: I think research focused cuts will lead to drops in numbers pretty quickly, and hence is actually conterproductive.)

A more specific suggestion. When firing people, don't give their teaching workload to the people that are left (on salary), but move it to sessional staff. This might mean firing more, or not saving as much money. But the research lost by this strategy (note, you typically keep your best researchers) is too much of a cost in my view.

Another thing is that a whole lot seems to be getting caught up with the reaction to GFC. That is to say, there is restructure going on, not just temporary cost cutting. KCL is an example. Then there are the cases of cutting courses with few students (which is happening in America and Australia). Some courses, by their nature, are going to have less students whilst still being valuable qua producing high-level graduates. And this used to be accepted. This change to focus on students numbers in a fairly indiscriminate way looks like a restructure in the way of doing things.

TheJoker
19-04-2010, 05:42 PM
Not all universities are reacting in the same way (viz. taking focus away from research to teaching), or to the same degree.
Accross the board cuts, rather than focused against research. (NB: I think research focused cuts will lead to drops in numbers pretty quickly, and hence is actually conterproductive.).

Fair enough sounds logical


That is to say, there is restructure going on, not just temporary cost cutting.

You are probably right some universities might be seeking to reposition themselves to cash in on the growing demand for uni education.

Capablanca-Fan
21-04-2010, 09:47 AM
Do they, I think what they bleat about is public funding going to schools that are already over resourced.
Leftards bleat about the undermining of the government school monopoly. In reality, public funding of private schools avoids the iniquity of some parents paying twice for their kids' education.


Now your argument doesn't make sense at all. If Fox, a right-wing network, is the market leader and eroding other left-wing media outlets market share, how in the hell is there any left-wing media bias? BTW that's a rhetorical question since the answer is that there clearly isn't.
There is: most media are leftards; Fox is the only exception, and they are gaining hugely.


Your remarks about them refusing to change their ways, assumes most likely incorrectly that they could appeal to a right-wing audience.
But they could easily. Instead, many have dropped their token conservative, and seen their market share erode further.

A detailed survey of the political and social beliefs of producers, editors, writers, and staff in the American television industry shows that they are biased against Christianity and conservatism. Two-thirds of them believe the structure of American society is faulty and must be changed. They overwhelmingly vote Democrat [Lichter, S.R., Lichter, L.S. and Rothman, S., Watching America: What Television Tells Us About Our Lives, 1992].

In Australia, David Marr claimed, "the natural culture of journalism is kind of vaguely soft-Left inquiry".

In the UK, at a 2006 “impartiality” summit called by the BBC chairman, Michael Grade:


“Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411977/Yes-biased-religion-politics-admit-BBC-executives.html). … executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away—but would not do the same for the Koran.”

TheJoker
21-04-2010, 02:20 PM
In reality, public funding of private schools avoids the iniquity of some parents paying twice for their kids' education.

So what about those without children, who don't want to see their tax dollars being dished out to schools that already have sufficient resources to educate their student body. But on the other hand are quite happy to support those schools (public or private) that are under resourced. I'd rather see efficiency and effectiveness in the funding system over a bogus equality.

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2010, 01:52 AM
So what about those without children, who don't want to see their tax dollars being dished out to schools that already have sufficient resources to educate their student body.
What about them? They are happy to receive tax dollars for their own kids.


But on the other hand are quite happy to support those schools (public or private) that are under resourced. I'd rather see efficiency and effectiveness in the funding system over a bogus equality.
This could be achieved with voucher funding of an equal amount per child.

TheJoker
27-04-2010, 10:22 AM
What about them? They are happy to receive tax dollars for their own kids..

I was talking about people who don't have any kids:doh:



This could be achieved with voucher funding of an equal amount per child.

Not at all a voucher system does not consider the current resources a school already has or ability to source funding from the private sector. Secondly, a voucher system is a waste of government resources because it involves the parents as a middle-man unecessarily. If you want to go down the equal funding path, the best way is to fund schools (public and private) directly with based on enrolements. Again like I said this is inefficient and ineffective because some schools will end up being over resourced (due to existing resources or private funding).

The whole point of public funding of education is not to recycle tax dollars, but to ensure universal access to education. Any voucher, although it is a dumb idea, should therefore be means tested, that way you would reduce the overall tax burden of education and reduce the uneccessary recyling.

Problem is the Government doesn't have the balls to say were are only going to fund those schools that are under-resourced and that we will focus on efficiency of education spending rather than total number of dollars spent. Part of the reason is that there aren't any objective measures of education on a national level, so its difficult for the government to sayyes we've decreased spending but we've maintained or increased outcomes. I expect that reducing public funding to some of the most exclusive private schools (who aren't short a quid) would have no effect on their education outcomes since they generate enough private funding to provide for their students.

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2011, 02:17 PM
That's the whole point though. The "collegiality" with the other faculty members might be a problem, if they are all leftards. There is an interesting ongoing case with Mike Adams, likely denied promotion because of his conservative columns.

I recommend reading the full judgement at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/AdamsOrder.pdf (PDF LINK, 39 pages but the pages are pretty short) to see why his case against his faculty was thrown out.

In most respects the case is just a standard case where someone who is overlooked for a promotion alleges discrimination on the grounds of other staff with similar records but different views getting better treatment and has the case tossed out because in the absence of positive proof of discrimination, the court will not infer it. The court will not infer it because to do so often obligates the court to make subjective judgements about the merits of respective academics that may rest on an understanding of specialist and obscure matters beyond the court's comprehension. Cases of this kind are apparently routinely turfed; I have heard of quite a few of them in both academia and general employment.

What makes this one different is that Adams attempted to argue that negative evaluations of his columns, in the context of a selection criterion involving service to the community and university as an academic, constituted discrimination against him on the grounds of protected speech.

But in fact he forced the appointments committee to consider the contribution such material made to his case for promotion by including it in his application. That left the faculty open to taking the view that his columns were not scholarly material and did not contribute much or anything to his case for promotion based on "service", or even that his columns constituted negative service by detracting from the faculty's reputation for good scholarship. See pp. 15-21 of the judgement for summaries of the views offered on the promotion and pp 34-35 for the crux of the matter:


A contrary analysis would allow those in plaintiff's position to place employers in a double bind: either neglect employee requests and refuse to look at material [in this case the political columns and book mentioned by Adams in his application-KB], fueling allegations of free speech violations grounded in the refusal; or consider the material, knowing that doing so will open them up, in the event of an adverse outcome, to claims of free speech violations for basing denials on protected speech. The court concludes, under Garcetti, that the columns, publications, and presentations plaintiff included in his application constituted--in the context of the promotion evaluation-expressions made pursuant to plaintiff's professional duties. The court further finds that the record contains no evidence of other protected speech (i.e., speech not presented by plaintiff for review as part of his application) playing any role in the promotion denial. As a result, plaintiff cannot meet his burden at the first step of the McVey test.

Including his columns on his application was a serious blunder by Adams, but an instructive one. Had he not included them and had the faculty then ruled against him and cited his columns as reasons for that ruling he would have been able to claim they ruled against him based on protected speech. But by including them he unprotected his own columns, and so we'll never know whether faculty were biased against him or not. In the absence of proof of guilt they can only be assumed innocent.

The only aspect of the matter I found disquieting was that a fellow academic who had, apparently falsely, accused Adams of attacking her office with gas or pepper spray was allowed to vote on the matter at all. This person should not have attempted to vote and should not have been allowed to vote, and additionally should have been severely reprimanded for making serious accusations against a fellow employee that were found to be groundless. But the margin in the vote was enough that it makes no difference.
Yet now an appeals court has rejected that, and put it back to them. See Victory for Academic Freedom: 4th Circuit Says Professor’s Speeches, Columns Protected by First Amendment (http://blog.speakupmovement.org/university/uncategorized/victory-for-academic-freedom-4th-circuit-says-professor%E2%80%99s-speeches-columns-protected-by-first-amendment/):

A University of North Carolina–Wilmington professor’s speeches and columns are fully protected by the First Amendment, according to a published decision handed down Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. ...

A lower court had said that Adams’ speeches and columns on matters of public concern were not protected by the First Amendment and instead constituted “official” speech as part of his job duties. The 4th Circuit disagreed, finding that Adams’ columns and speeches constituted protected, private speech and that university officials could be held personally liable for damages should Adams ultimately prevail in the case. ...

In its opinion in Adams v. The Trustees of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, the 4th Circuit wrote that “no individual loses his ability to speak as a private citizen by virtue of public employment. . . . Adams’ columns addressed topics such as academic freedom, civil rights, campus culture, sex, feminism, abortion, homosexuality, religion, and morality. Such topics plainly touched on issues of public, rather than private, concern. . . . The Defendants’ arguments to the contrary rest on the same fallacy engaged by the district court, and focus not on the nature of Adams’ speech at the time it was made, but on his inclusion of those materials in the ‘private’ context of his promotion application. Nothing in the district court’s analysis or the Defendants’ contentions rebut the conclusion that Adams’ speech was that of ‘a citizen speaking on a matter of public concern.’” ...

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2011, 11:08 PM
Yet now an appeals court has rejected that, and put it back to them. See Victory for Academic Freedom: 4th Circuit Says Professor’s Speeches, Columns Protected by First Amendment (http://blog.speakupmovement.org/university/uncategorized/victory-for-academic-freedom-4th-circuit-says-professor%E2%80%99s-speeches-columns-protected-by-first-amendment/):

As always, see the actual judgement:

http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/AdamsOpinion.pdf

The appeal judgement actually only partially reverses and remands the previous judgement, it also affirms parts of it.

The parts it affirms are that Adams completely failed to demonstrate religious discrimination or Equal Protection violation and the court was entitled to award summary judgement on those points.

The part it reverses and remands for further consideration is the awarding of summary judgement on the question of whether Adams' comments posessed First Amendment protection from retaliation. That is a different question to whether retaliation implicitly forbidden under the First Amendment actually happened. The reasons it got overturned included (i) that the appeal court disagreed with the original court's assertion that originally protected speech could be retrospectively unprotected by use in a certain way (ii) doubts about whether the case cited as precedent applied in that manner (iii) that there was no need to rule the materials unprotected since "The Defendants were not precluded from examining the materials for a permissible purpose
using lawful criteria. At the same time, their review of those materials can be examined for an impermissible discriminatory use."

All that means is that the matter of whether there was First Amendment retaliation needs to be reexamined rather than being ruled out on summary judgement. It does mean that we now may get to find out whether his claim of bias in these areas had any substance and therefore that the finding leading to my above conclusion that he had blundered in putting that stuff in his application has been overturned. But given that the finding that Adams completely failed to demonstrate religious discrimination I don't like his chances of demonstrating First Amendment retaliation either (though maybe his legal team will get their act together and do a better job of actually trying to prove the motives being claimed next time around.)

For the most part the link you provide shows little idea of what the appeal finding is about. It's not about whether disagreement with the professor's views is a legitimate ground to refuse him a promotion. Rather, it's about whether a professor who includes public views he has expressed under the heading of community service is still protected if a negative evaluation of that expression counts against his job chances. The appeal finding says not that he is protected from that sort of thing happening, but that whether or not he is protected will depend on whether it was a legitimate appraisal of his job suitability based on the material in his application, or an action of viewpoint discrimination not relevant to the job.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2014, 12:51 PM
Now for the conclusion:

TARGETED CHRISTIAN SCORES MAJOR LEGAL VICTORY (http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/targeted-christian-scores-major-legal-victory/)
Court orders promotion, back pay for believer suffering retaliation
Bob Unruh, 10 April 2014

Officials at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington have been ordered to pay a teacher $50,000 in back pay and promote him to a full professorship, backdated to 2007, for discriminating against him over his Christian perspectives.

The ruling from Senior U.S. District Judge Malcolm Howard (http://www.thefire.org/adams-decision-on-motion-for-equitable-relief/) comes in the case of Christian professor Mike Adams, who had faced retaliation, according to the jury, for his conservative views expressed in opinion columns, books and speeches.

“This is a great day not only for Dr. Adams but for all who value academic freedom,” said Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot of the Alliance Defending Freedom (http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/), which, along with the American Center for Law and Justice (http://www.aclj.org/), represented Adams.

“The court’s order reminds universities that they cannot retaliate against those who simply express opinions that some officials do not like,” Theriot said.

WND reported last month (http://wnd.com/?p=682149) the jury’s verdict in favor of Adams. The jury concluded the school unfairly denied a promotion to a professor who was celebrated when he was hired as an atheist but then faced retaliation when he became a Christian.

Lawyers said that when Adams was denied promotion in 2006, he had “multiple awards and rave reviews from students for his teaching, he had published more peer-reviewed articles than all but two of his colleagues, and he had a distinguished record of service both on and off campus, culminating in earning UNCW’s highest service award.”

Adamski
11-04-2014, 01:03 PM
Great news! I knew about the Mike Adams case.

This Michael Adams name is pretty popular!

Jonathan Michael Adams

Rincewind
11-04-2014, 02:15 PM
The article shows a pretty shallow understanding of the assessing of academic promotions when they describe the professor as having received "rave reviews from students" and having published "more peer-reviewed articles than all but two of his colleagues". Regarding assessing teaching, testimonials from students are one of the least objective of measures you could use. Especially when they are offered by the applicant. The report bias gives them very little standing whatsoever. Likewise merely counting the number of articles published in peer-reviewed journals is not a very convincing measure of research performance since not all journals are of equal merit and what is more important is publishing important contributions in prestigious journals. So perhaps Adams did have a convincing case for promotion, however saying the sort of things like rave reviews and lots of papers does not make a lay-down misere case for the promotion.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2014, 02:08 AM
^^^^^^
That was just the popular summary. Evidently the higher court found that his work did deserve promotion and it was denied just because of his conservative Christian beliefs.

Rincewind
12-04-2014, 10:42 AM
^^^^^^
That was just the popular summary. Evidently the higher court found that his work did deserve promotion and it was denied just because of his conservative Christian beliefs.

That is a stretch what they found was that Adams speech activity was the deciding factor. You are inferring that this represents a bias against Adam's conservative Christian beliefs.

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2014, 02:12 PM
The final result being a jury trial on the key point does mean we are deprived of a nuanced explanation of the outcomes of the sort present at earlier stages. However this (http://www.nacua.org/documents/Adams_v_UNCWilmington_032213.pdf) finding from last year is useful, especially page 6 and the top of page 7.

With the question of retaliation still open, Adams' team were able to keep it open by pointing to issues of possible evidence for retaliation that were then sent to a jury to decide. One of these was the one I already mentioned as disquieting (that someone who should have been excluded from a decision-making process was allowed to remain in it). Unfortunately it isn't clear which of the issues listed the jury considered to be relevant evidence of retaliation.

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2014, 02:39 AM
Sorry, here is the real conclusion:

University Ordered to Pay Over $710,000 for Discriminating Against Christian Professor (http://christiannews.net/2014/06/12/university-ordered-to-pay-over-710000-for-discriminating-against-christian-professor/)
Heather Clark, Christian News, 12 June 2014


However, Adams’ conversion to Christianity and his outspokenness on current events soon resulted in “tension” on campus as some disagreed with his views and manner of presentation. In 2006, when he was up for consideration of a promotion to full professor status, Adams was denied.

According to reports, “Dr. Diane Levy, known as an outspoken feminist with leftist political leanings, raised concerns about Adams’ ‘political activity’ and reprimanded him for his weekly nationally syndicated column.”

Dr. Kimberly J. Cook, an atheist, soon also became the chair of the department in which Adams served, and likewise expressed opposition to Adams. Reports state that she “described to a recruitment committee her ideal candidate for a teaching position as ‘a lesbian with spiked hair and a dog collar.’” Cook and others are alleged to be directly involved in the denial of Adams promotion.

On Tuesday, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ordered (http://www.adfmedia.org/files/AdamsOrderFees.pdf)the University of North Carolina-Wilmington to pay $710,626.50 in attorney’s fees for expenses incurred surrounding the lawsuit. The court had already ordered the university to promote Adams to full professor status and pay him $50,000 in back pay in April.

“This is a great day, not only for Dr. Adams, but for all who value academic freedom,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “It sends a message to all public universities that they should not engage in this type of unconstitutional injustice and think there will be no consequences.”

“This is one of the biggest amounts awarded in the academic freedom context,” added ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman. “It’s a shame the university officials wasted taxpayer money all because they didn’t want to promote a conservative Christian.”

Rincewind
15-06-2014, 03:02 AM
Professors Sue Bryan College Over School’s Adherence to Biblical Creation Account (http://christiannews.net/2014/05/17/professors-sue-bryan-college-over-schools-adherence-to-biblical-creation-account/)


Two professors are suing Bryan College because their teaching contracts were not renewed when they refused to agree with the school’s literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

As previously reported, Bryan College in Tennessee continues to grapple with an evolution/creation debate which has divided many students and faculty members. The controversy began earlier this year when the conservative Christian school clarified its statement of belief to affirm the literal historicity of Adam and Eve.

Many professors criticized Bryan College’s president, Dr. Stephen Livesay, for pushing the statement of belief clarification.

“These are decisions that did not have to be made at this time,” Dr. Stephen Barnett, a professor of natural sciences, told Chattanooga’s Times Free Press in March. “This is, as I see it, the hallmark of this administration: making hasty decisions and regretting them. And if they don’t regret this decision, they just aren’t thinking.”

...

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2014, 05:22 AM
Of course, totally different, because private colleges should be allowed to set their own Statement of Faith. If people don't want to adhere to that, then they should find other employment. But Dr Adams' uni is taxpayer-funded, so should not be allowed to have a de facto Statement of Faith that says: only atheopaths and leftards allowed.

Desmond
15-06-2014, 09:45 AM
Of course, totally different, because private colleges should be allowed to set their own Statement of Faith. If people don't want to adhere to that, then they should find other employment. But Dr Adams' uni is taxpayer-funded, so should not be allowed to have a de facto Statement of Faith that says: only atheopaths and leftards allowed.

So you would be against, for instance, a government funding a quarter of a billion dollars to put religious programs in public schools.

Rincewind
15-06-2014, 11:07 AM
Of course, totally different, because private colleges should be allowed to set their own Statement of Faith.

And are they then allowed to change that statement of belief without the consultation of the professoriat and not renew the contract of any teachers that they feel are not believers in the new statement of faith?

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2014, 09:13 AM
So you would be against, for instance, a government funding a quarter of a billion dollars to put religious programs in public schools.
You should know by now that I oppose public schools, full stop. If governments must fund education, then fund the parents and let the schools compete for the money, whether religious or secular, much like the American GI Bill.