Difference between revisions of "Talk:Professor values"

Revision as of 11:18, March 25, 2008

...does Dawkins fall into this category as well? For example, "Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate." Feebasfactor 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--RossC 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

He's not a politician, but he is an atheistic (and liberal) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor. Feebasfactor 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--RossC 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. Feebasfactor 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--RossC 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

What is this about?

What? Another article based on an unheard-of phrase plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. Hollywood values, Liberal friendship, Second generation atheist, Liberal grading, Embraced deceit, etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and trustworthy encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on Doctor values, Taxi-driver values and Lawyer values as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. Humblpi 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Tony Blair

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --KimSell 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--Aschlafly 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

You mean just like Al Gore?--KimSell 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.

Really?

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? DLerner 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--Aschlafly 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on censorship) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? DLerner 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. Koba 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--DinsdaleP 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase Criminal values refers to the lack of respect for the law..." DLerner 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is Liberal drivel, which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. Humblpi 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Um...

This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --Helps 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What statistical evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism , censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. Angband 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic.
My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it.
I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--DinsdaleP 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. LeaningRight 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

First paragraph of article is not adequately supported

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. Conservative 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [1] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [2] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. Conservative 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. DanH 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. Conservative 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the professor values and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--Aschlafly 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values"

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. Conservative 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Professor Values on Wikipedia

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. LeaningRight 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)