Just thought I'd briefly note here a point I have mentioned many times before on this blog and on various comment boards:
There really is no way in which conservatives are discriminated against in hard sciences. Conservative mathematicians, for example, produce output of exactly the same quality and type as liberal mathematicians, and there is no way to discriminate on the basis of a person's cv, publication record, or job talk.
Conservative bloggers have been passign around the recent study on the liberal domination of academia. It seems to me, though, that the data collected in this study undermines the claims of bias much more than it supports them. If one looks at the imbalance between liberals and conservatives by discipline, we find that liberals outnumber conservatives 70%-to-20% in the sciences, 75%-to-10% in the social sciences, and 80-to-10% in the humanities.
The conclusion from this is that if somehow the politicization of the humanities was entirely removed - and furthermore the ability to pinpoint conservatives eliminated - we should not be surprised to find liberals outnumber conservatives 70%-to-20% as they do in math.
Of course, liberals outnumber conservatives 80%-to-10% in the humanities. How much of the difference is due to bias and how much of it is to other factors like difference in inclination is unclear for now.
posted by alex @ 10:53 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Thought you might be interested in a Johnah Goldberg column that addresses this point:
http://nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200504051438.asp
He points out that those who have Ph.D.'s in the sciences have economic incentives to look for work outside the academy.
. . . For what it's worth.
I don't think Goldberg's argument is convincing for two reasons.
i. On the topic of scientists leaving the academy, he writes:
"Indeed, I don’t have the data to back this up handy, but it would hardly surprise me to find out that the most liberal members of the science faculty are probably the least likely to be able to find work elsewhere."
This is a comically bad response. Goldberg responds to an empirical piece of evidence by inventing a claim and saying it would not surprise him.
ii. The high-tech enclaves in the U.S. - which have the largest concentration of jobs for phds in sciences and engineering - e.g Silicon Valley, Austin, TX, Route 128 in MA, are the most reliably Democratic areas of the country. So the only piece of tangible evidence we have on the voting preferences of scientists outside academia contradicts Goldberg's point.
It seems to me, notwithstanding your "tangible evidence" of the voting records of scientists outside the academy, that -- in the absence of some statistical date regarding the voting preferences of all scientists outside of the academy -- that you have as little evidence to back up your claim as Goldberg does. It remains true that scientists have somewhere to go besides academia, and that they have an economic incentive to go elsewhere, while Ph.D.'s in the humanities generally do not.
While it MAY be true that the disparity between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the sciences tends to support the position that there is no bias in the academy, it doesn't constitute definitive proof.
Do you think there's ANY bias in the academy? If not, what do you think is the real reason for the disparities?
"...in the absence of some statistical date regarding the voting preferences of all scientists outside of the academy -- that you have as little evidence to back up your claim as Goldberg does."
Not so! For the simple reason that I don't have a claim. I have never claimed that scientists outside the academy are liberals - I have simply pointed out that Goldberg does not have any evidence to claim they are conservative, and followed that up by noting that the little we do know points us in the opposite direction of Goldberg's point. Unlike the staff of the National Review, I would not dream of making grandiose claims based on such limited information.
"While it MAY be true that the disparity between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the sciences tends to support the position that there is no bias in the academy, it doesn't constitute definitive proof."
Of course not - but I think a definitive proof is far too much to ask. Is there any statement in the social sciences that can be definitively proved?
"Do you think there's ANY bias in the academy?"
Yes, definetily. I think its fairly obvious to any observer - let alone a detached one! - that much of the humanities and social sciences has become extremely politicized. But for reasons spelled out in this post, I think this bias accounts for relatively little of the imbalance.
"what do you think is the real reason for the disparities?"
-Conservatives are overrepresented in the rural areas, liberals in the urban areas. The best rural schools are much worse than the best city schools, leading to a disparity.
-Conservatives are overrepresented among the religious, liberals among the nonreligious. Most scientists are driven by a skeptical attidude, a desire to question and test all known explanations. Most scientists have a tremendous belief in human rationality, tending to reject explanation based on faith and abnegation of reason.
(see some data here)
-finally - and this is the weakest argument I have - my feeling is that the modern day Republican party is a powerful anti-intellectual movement. Youve got the attacks on evolution, the constant attempts to regulate what professors teach in the classroom (accompanied by attacks on the professors themselves), theattacks on scientist-invented global warming, and the attakcs on john kerry for using "nuance." I think its pretty obvious - in my opinion - to anyone who watched the Bush-Kerry and the Bush-Gore debates that Bush would appeal to people looking for simple rhetoric and simple solutions while Kerry/Gore would appeal to more wonkish types.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
"Conservatives are overrepresented in the rural areas, liberals in the urban areas. The best rural schools are much worse than the best city schools, leading to a disparity."
-- First, is there empirical evidence that the best rural schools are much worse than the best city schools? Second, it's the worst urban schools (which far outnumber the rural schools) that probably churn out the largest number of "graduates." Third, do you assume that the most talented students from rural areas stay in rural schools? Your point seems to be that urban schools, which would tend to have more liberal students, produce a better educated class of students. Any empirical evidence for this? What about the statistic that the majority of people with undergraduate degrees tend to vote Republican?
-Conservatives are overrepresented among the religious, liberals among the nonreligious. Most scientists are driven by a skeptical attidude, a desire to question and test all known explanations. Most scientists have a tremendous belief in human rationality, tending to reject explanation based on faith and abnegation of reason.
-- That may serve to explain some of the disparity in the sciences (which I suppose was the point of your post), but not in the humanities. I would add, however, that I think scientists are as vulnerable as most people to irrational prejudices, especially in non-science-related fields. Anyway, I think this is your strongest point.
". . . finally - and this is the weakest argument I have - my feeling is that the modern day Republican party is a powerful anti-intellectual movement. Youve got the attacks on evolution, the constant attempts to regulate what professors teach in the classroom (accompanied by attacks on the professors themselves), theattacks on scientist-invented global warming, and the attakcs on john kerry for using "nuance." I think its pretty obvious - in my opinion - to anyone who watched the Bush-Kerry and the Bush-Gore debates that Bush would appeal to people looking for simple rhetoric and simple solutions while Kerry/Gore would appeal to more wonkish types."
-- Since I am a reasonably intelligent, Catholic, Republican who voted for Bush and who is "pro-evolution" and pro-intellectual, I find it hard not to take your characterization (or caricature) of Republicans personally. Do you not see that I could turn the caricature inside out with one of my own: The modern day Democrats are a powerful anti-intellectual movement. You've got the attacks on free inquiry, the constant attempts to regulate or suppress the speech of non-liberal dissidents, the treatment of those who question the environmentalist orthodoxy as "heretics" (see Bjorn Lomborg), and the attacks on Bush's lack of off-the-cuff eloquence which amount to an elevation of style over substance. I think it is pretty obvious -- in my opinion -- that anyone who based their voting decision on three 90 minute "battles of the sound bytes" believes in a simplistic and degraded form of public discourse.
Now, I don't REALLY think this caricature applies to the entire modern-day Democratic movement or to you (though it does apply to a certain element within it) -- I'm just trying to make a point, of course. I simply think that those who are inside the academy -- those who presumably desire to test all known explanations --might do well to investigate whether the disparities could be explained -- partly, at least --by what's gone wrong with liberalism rather than what's gone wrong with conservatism.
Out of curiousity, who are "conservatives" that you consider to be intellectuals? I suppose I'm being slightly disingenuous in asking the question, since I'm trying to get a sense of whether you give "conservative" thought its intellectual due.
Anyway, I appreciate the discussion here. Thanks.
"Your point seems to be that urban schools, which would tend to have more liberal students, produce a better educated class of students. Any empirical evidence for this?"
Yes - take a look at the "doctoral" column of this census table.
" it's the worst urban schools (which far outnumber the rural schools) that probably churn out the largest number of "graduates."
Definitely true - but for our purposes what matters is not average performance. Only the very top students tend to go through the bachelors, masters, phd, postdoc, tenure-track process - so that we need to compare the performance of the very top-tier in rural vs. urban high schools. Anyway, this is all manifested in the data in the table: note that the number of high school graduates in rural areas is a bit less than 1/4 of the total while the number of doctoral graduates is about 1/10.
" [Data on religious belief] ...may serve to explain some of the disparity in the sciences (which I suppose was the point of your post), but not in the humanities."
Why not? I don't know of any surveys of religious beliefs among academics in the social sciences and humanities - but my personal observation suggests that they are even less likely to be religious. Anyway, if you prefer something more tangible to go on, there is data (scroll to bottom of first page) suggesting that religious belief decreases with education.
"I find it hard not to take your characterization (or caricature) of Republicans personally."
Can we all at least agree that conservatives engage in science-bashing and academic-bashing at far higher rates than liberals? And that its hardly surprising that this would contribute to fewer conservatives becoming academics?
"I suppose I'm being slightly disingenuous in asking the question, since I'm trying to get a sense of whether you give "conservative" thought its intellectual due."
Ah well, the honest answer is really I don't :)
"Why not? I don't know of any surveys of religious beliefs among academics in the social sciences and humanities - but my personal observation suggests that they are even less likely to be religious."
-- You misunderstood my point, Detached. I don't deny that those in the humanities tend to be less religious -- I reject the notion that they are more "scientific" (see the Alan Sokal "Social Text" affair for one example among many).
"Ah well, the honest answer is really I don't [give conservative thought its due]."
-- You don't because you've read the best of conservative thought (say, Hayek, Bloom, et al) and rejected it?
One more point about religious belief, which you seem to denigrate. Isn't any political ideology (as opposed to scientific inquiry), any school of thought which attempts to define the best society and government, ultimately founded on articles of belief rather than reason?
"...religious belief, which you seem to denigrate..."
Not at all. One can observe the statistical trend - that some manifestations of religious belief are inversely correlated with education -- without denigrating religious belief in any way. Conversely, there exist manifestations of religious belief that increase with education.
"You don't because you've read the best of conservative thought (say, Hayek, Bloom, et al) and rejected it?"
Nope - but then I haven't read the best in liberal thought either. As the subtitle of my profile says, my ignorance does not stop me from having strong opinions!
"As the subtitle of my profile says, my ignorance does not stop me from having strong opinions!"
-- Fair enough, Alex. That's the rule I blog by, as well. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home