Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 107
  1. #81  
    As for University hiring, here's a great example of what I think of University hiring practices and another of Bill Clinton's corruption:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=16081

    The gist of the article is that Clinton pardoned a terrorist named Susan Rosenberg who was serving a 58 year term for having over 700 pounds of explosives, illegal weapons, and was involved in a robbery leaving three people including 2 police officers dead. She is now one of those liberals teaching at a university and the university increased it's diversity quota numbers to include female terrorists.

    I know many conservatives that could teach at universities. Most just choose to go into the private sector instead.
    Last edited by Bob-C; 11/24/2004 at 11:15 AM.
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by KypDurron
    If I give you 5 facts that you can research where his administration is corrupt, would you at least do so? or do you have blind faith on his moral standards?
    How do you measure corruption? illegal activities? deaths? millions of dollars?

    However, Bush and Cheney beat their opponents in corruption, hands down.
    Speaking of corruption being judged by deaths, how many people did Clinton murder while president? Read the following and you tell me.

    http://www.counterclintonlibrary.com.../files/8.shtml

    I never heard of anyone who had so many associates coincidentally die in so many violent manners who were not associated with the mafia. Was Bill the head of the US or the Sopranos?
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    I know many conservatives that could teach at universities. Most just choose to go into the private sector instead.
    I agree with you, many more conservatives could go into academics if they wanted to. The reasons conservatives don't go into academics is choice, not because of some type of liberal inbreeding.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/24/2004 at 10:55 AM.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Amazingly, I think it plays into the hands of Republicans to have such an imbalance. A large portion of their appeal is a collective resentment against high profile people (celebrities, academia, etc.) telling others how they should think/feel/act.
    I think your point is 100% correct. I saw an interview with Conn. Senator John Lieber(D) the other day who made the same point. He was saying that he believes Michael Moore really hurt the Democrats in the election campaign. His appeal is only to a small extreme left group but he tries to come off as the spokesperson for the Democratic party and many resent the party for him. He said this extremist left image is real big problem for his party right now. He said Kennedy really hurts them in this way too when he comes out and says Bush should be in prison. Well now that he's president for another four years, how is Kennedy, or the Democratic party, supposed to effectively work with Bush in Congress? Can that gap be healed?

    Lieber is more of a moderate Democrat and I was really impressed with him. He expressed more opinions and conviction in that interview than I got from Kerry the whole election. If Lieber had gotten the nomination and ran his campaign like that, I probably would've voted for him.

    In the Philadelphia area, I've noticed that extreme liberals tend more to fling their views in peoples' faces either verbally or with statements on their clothing or hanging signs up in the streets and just call anyone stupid who disagrees. They don't even realize that it could be construed as ignorant or intolerant. They just KNOW that their right and everyone should hear it. That's all that matters. While conservatives tend to keep their views to themselves unless someone like that shoots their mouth off. A perfect example is in Philly on election day there were people all over downtown that would get in your face to vote Kerry. Literally get in your face. It really pissed me off. The Republicans just made phone calls which were annoying but didn't border on intimidation. I like to call these liberals, the "Intolerant Liberals". Michael Moore is a perfect example.
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  5. #85  
    I don't want to oversimplify a complex problem. but you know there is a saying....


    "those who can, do. those who cannot... teach, and remain in academia."

    its not as simple as how cellmatrix makes this out to be.

    I went through dental school, and many professors were very good. however you also had a very good number of profs there who were there not so much because they were good, but because they couldn't make it outside the academic world on their own in our capitalistic society.

    there are many reasons why each of these "couldn't make it" so instead chose to teach - lack of business sense, inability to work well with people, inability to make independent business decisions for themselves therefore the safety and shelter of academia protected some from failure.

    many, not all, of those types of professors were of liberal bent. not ALL of them, but a significant number. and it would make sense that these types of professors oppose repubs, who in their eyes, represent business class and capitalism - the very world they chose shelter from by remaining in academia, whether it be from personal failure in that business world or whatever.

    I know cellmatrix, would like to say people choose academia out of choice, but the fact is, many choose academia OUT OF NECESSITY - they couldn't flourish for themselves out in the real world. these people tend to be ascerbic in personality, extreme, left-thinking, very opinionated - VERY HARD TO GET ALONG WITH.

    I definitely want to say there are many wonderful profs who helped shape my career values - and I am forever grateful.

    but I have made note of those whom I realized could not possibly have functioned anywhere else successfully and consistently, for varying reasons, outside of academia.

    this is a point I believe you MUST consider when taking into account the views of the academics.
    Last edited by treobk214; 11/26/2004 at 10:06 PM.
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    I don't want to oversimplify a complex problem. but you know there is a saying....


    "those who can, do. those who cannot... teach, and remain in academia."

    its not as simple as how cellmatrix makes this out to be.

    I went through dental school, and many professors were very good. however you also had a very good number of profs there who were there not so much because they were good, but because they couldntc make outside the academic world on their own in our capitalistic society.

    there are many reasons why each of these "couldn't make it" so instead chose to teach - lack of business sense, inability to work well with people, inability to make independent business decisions for themselves therefore the safety and shelter of academia protected some from failure.

    many, not all, of those types of professors were of liberal bent. not ALL of them, but a significant number. and it would make sense that these types of professors oppose repubs, who in their eyes, represent business class and capitalism - the very world they chose shelter from by remaining in academia, whether it be from personal failure in that business world or whatever.

    I know cellmatrix, would like to say people choose academia out of choice, but the fact is, many choose academia OUT OF NECESSITY - they couldn't flourish for themselves out in the real world. these people tend to be ascerbic in personality, extreme, left-thinking, very opinionated - VERY HARD TO GET ALONG WITH.

    I definitely want to say there are many wonderful profs who helped shape my career values - and I am forever grateful.

    but I have made note of those whom I realized could not possibly have functioned anywhere else successfully and consistently, for varying reasons, outside of academia.

    this is a point I believe you MUST consider when taking into account the views of the academics.

    So most people choose academics because they have some type of personality defect or are incompetent?

    The incompetent argument is just plain wrong.
    Lets look at the area of academic medicine which you speak of. Where do the really difficult patients go to? They are referred to academic centers to be seen by university professors. That is the way it is across the country, the university hospital is seen as the tertiary referral center, the place to go to when you need the most expert help for your patient. They are the place with the most cutting edge technology and knowledge, and it is the university professors which run these academic centers. Physicians with academic experience are sought after in many private practice groups. Most academic physicians could work 20 hours a week less and make $100,000 dollars a year more by going into private practice, and the less dedicated ones often do this. Those things sound kind of like the opposite of incompetent to me.

    When you say liberal people have a personality defect, it seems to me that you are trying to ascribe some type of mental defect to people who disagree with you politically. Maybe you do not realize it, but you insult millions of liberal minded people when you say something like this. Maybe you were just trying to jibe me with this comment, and if so, then I am OK with that.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/25/2004 at 10:49 AM.
  7. #87  
    cellmatrix, no.

    look at my whole post. I said I had many excellent professors who were very good at what they do.
    nowhere in my post did I say ALL academics possessed some character defect, but I DID say I recognized a decent number of profs who were not of that same caliber who tended to have similar points of view.

    I clearly said there were a great deal who I am very grateful to for all they have done for us, but others who I could very clearly see who were there not because they really wanted to, but because academia was probably their best bet in order to avoid a rocky path in real life.
    Last edited by treobk214; 11/26/2004 at 10:03 PM.
  8. #88  
    I agree. I've had a couple of college teachers who were so wrapped up in doing whatever research they fancied that they even seemed to lack the ability to focus on teaching at times. And the type of research projects they were doing were the kind that had no commericial value whatsoever. They were the kind of projects most people would do in their spare time as hobbies. To follow those types of pursuits and still get paid, academia was really their only choice.
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    cellmatrix, no.

    look at my whole post. I said I had many excellent professors who were very good at what they do. ...
    Treobk214, this may be off topic, but I am curious since long - why is it that "I" is the only word you find worth capitalizing? It can't be because one could confuse "i" with anything else, and you don't even make a difference between US and us, for instance, which can be confusing sometimes...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #90  
    clulup, the treo automatically capitalises 'i', I know Treobk posts a lot from his treo, like me
    Animo et Fide
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    clulup, the treo automatically capitalises 'i', I know Treobk posts a lot from his treo, like me
    Aha, that explains it, thanks. But doesn't it also capitalize after a "."? Mine does, as far as I remember.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Treobk214, this may be off topic, but I am curious since long - why is it that "I" is the only word you find worth capitalizing? It can't be because one could confuse "i" with anything else, and you don't even make a difference between US and us, for instance, which can be confusing sometimes...
    peter brown is right. my treo automatically capitalizes the "i", and i do post a great deal from the treo. and regarding capitalizing the abbreviation - US - i know. i recognize where that would be confusing. keeping that in mind from now on.
  13. #93  
    Clulup, not in Blazer it doesn't, only in the messaging apps. Maybe that's better in the 650?

    Treobk, the other way is to use 'usa' so you get around the caps issue.
    Animo et Fide
  14. #94  
    that's true, peter. will consider it from now on. thanks for the reminder.
  15. #95  
    If you compare the private to academic sectors in medicine, in the US News ranking, every one of the top hospitals in the United States in 2004 are academic (including mine) - that's 14 out of 14 academic, 0 out of 14 private.

    So if academic professors are overwhelmingly liberal, they also run the best health care centers in the country.

    To say that somehow many of these people could not make it in the private sector is laughable. I would say just the opposite, many in the private sector would just not be able to make it in academic medicine.

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/.../honorroll.htm

    I am sure that the extreme right will continue to discredit any who disagree with them politically, but it is obvious in this area which has been brought up, their claims are both ridiculous as well as transparently self-serving.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/27/2004 at 08:26 PM.
  16. #96  
    It seems that you all want to either condemn or defend what seems to be the fact that University professors in this country are predominantly liberal.

    I don't think they either need defending or condemning, and the reason anyone chooses a profession be it academic or not is so varied that that alone cannot support either position.

    I tried to say this earlier. Most academic environments will naturally bend toward the liberal side of the political spectrum. The professors in this environment feed on each other and bend the spectrum even further to the left. Birds of feather flock together...

    Having said that, one must realize that if the campus has some unusual influence that bends the spectrum to the right, the same things happens. Cases in point... Baylor or Brigham Young Universities.

    As someone pointed out, the same thing really does happen in the business world. Case in point... Wall Street.

    What I am trying to say is that, the reason is entirely more passive then you all want to make it. This is one of those cases where s**t happens.
  17. #97  
    johndbh, very well-said. also, RIGHT on target.
  18. #98  
    you know cell, what's funny is that many of us in the private sector could teach those in the academic field a thing or two now that we've been in the real world, practicing with modern-day, up-to-date equipment.
    many universities are state funded, therefore, very limited as to how much they can invest in furthering their techniques whether that be procedure-wise, material-wise, etc.
    you say many of us would not survive in academia? that's laughable. no one, after having a taste of what success feels like when you do so out on your own, would EVER want to return to a limited experience in the academic world - unless it were for some charitable reason - such as offering to teach an elective class to senior year students in an advanced area of study.
    cell, they teach you the basics in school. bare minimum. what you learn when you get out, makes you an accomplished practitioner - via ce courses, study groups, ada memberships, etc.
    you build upon what basics they've given you to go far beyond what that level was. if anything else, cell, WE could teach the academic world what they could use to better treat their patients, by introducing them to modern techniques, procedures and materials, would you not agree?

    with change, or bringing things up to date, comes a lot of overhauls, inconvenient switching of ingrained habits and old styles, many of which a "smoothly running" machine sometimes is not interested in. because up dating things means inconveniencing the works, having to educate many, many people.
    that costs money, and when a school is limited by state funds, do you think they are jumping at the chance to spend money on new r&d, educating staff, etc?

    not that universities aren't interested in progress, cell. but they do progress much more slowly than we, the private sector do.
    believe me, academia could very much benefit from what the private sector could teach them.
    that's a fact. thinking otherwise, well, that's laughable and self-serving.
  19. #99  
    and if you want to claim this is all ridiculous or transparent ...... your perogative. just because one disagrees with another politically doesn't mean they will go out to try to discredit them at each and every opportunity!!! it also doesn't mean they are EXTREME right either. again, you know the whole rule about what happens when you "assume" things, right?
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    you know cell, what's funny is that many of us in the private sector could teach those in the academic field a thing or two now that we've been in the real world, practicing with modern-day, up-to-date equipment.
    I am not sure what field you are talking about, did you read the link above? Academic medicine has the most technologically advanced equipment and does the most cutting edge health care. Thats why all the top medical centers in the country are academic based.

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    you say many of us would not survive in academia? that's laughable.
    I am saying you could not just step from private practice into academics without years of additional training.

    When you are in academics, you need to be doing research and they expect you to publish in the best journals, and get federal grants. You would have to do some training first, a postdoctoral fellowship. In that way, you would learn how to do either clinical research or basic research. If you have clinical experience and want to do clinical research, then a two year fellowship would be sufficient. You would need at least three years training if you wanted to do basic research and that is a bare minumum. Once you get your fellowship training, you have to develop a line of research that is fundable and you actually have to obtain funding for your work.

    Alternatively, it is relatively easy to go from academics to private practice in my field, academic medicine. Sure there are a few things to learn, but you can literally just step into the job and transition quite easily.

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    no one, after having a taste of what success feels like when you do so out on your own, would EVER want to return to a limited experience in the academic world - unless it were for some charitable reason - such as offering to teach an elective class to senior year students in an advanced area of study.
    Success means different things to different people. For all health care practitioners success should mean offering the best care for our patients. Beyond that, to some people success means making more money. To others success means making great discoveries that could help lots of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    cell, they teach you the basics in school. bare minimum. what you learn when you get out, makes you an accomplished practitioner - via ce courses, study groups, ada memberships, etc.
    you build upon what basics they've given you to go far beyond what that level was. if anything else, cell, WE could teach the academic world what they could use to better treat their patients, by introducing them to modern techniques, procedures and materials, would you not agree?
    In the academic environment, our students are exposed to the cutting edge procedures and techniques, they learn the newest information and see the most challenging patients. The learning curve is the steepest in the academic environment. At the time that they graduate from residency and pass thier specialty boards, they are at the highest level of knowledge of their specialty.

    It is after they leave and go into private practice that they are at risk for losing touch with what is going on at the cutting edge. Most of them are able to keep up by reading journals, coming to the university for grand rounds, going to meetings etc. That is whole reason for CME, to assist a physician out in practice in staying up with the current findings in his or her field, once they leave the academic environment.

    I have to say, my experience is with medicine, where all of the students go on to take three or more years of specialized training. That could be different with dentistry, where many students just go straight out into practice. I suppose in that type of situation, there is a lot more on the job learning.

    Having said that I agree that once students either dental or medical graduate and go into private practice, they need to learn some important practical issues like how to run a practice, how to manage office staff, how to compete for patients in a given community, how to bill insurance effectively admist changing guidelines. However, those who go into academic medicine need to learn these skills too.

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    not that universities aren't interested in progress, cell. but they do progress much more slowly than we, the private sector do.
    Did you read my link? All of the top hospitals in the country are run by academics. I think the private sector wishes it could keep up with the progress of these hospitals.

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    believe me, academia could very much benefit from what the private sector could teach them.
    I agree with you. There are definitely things private practitioners can teach us. Actually we have volunteer clinical faculty coming in from the private practice environment and they do teach our students important things about their jobs.

    I guess that there is one other thing I would like to touch upon, this idea that there is no entrepreneurial spirit in academics. I have a great many colleagues who have been able to start up quite successful biotech or computer tech companies based on some of the basic discoveries they made. There is actually quite a lot of merging of academics and entrepreneuialism going on these days, and I think that is a good thing.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/28/2004 at 01:29 PM.
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions