Why does it seem that most university faculty are politically liberally oriented? Are college professors smarter than the average slug?
Why are most university towns in the USA populated mainly by liberal folks?
Is this coincidence? Are liberal people smarter? Does it just SEEM that people are more educated in university towns (like Berkeley, Madison, Ann Arbor, Austin etc.)
Doctor If you could give any statistics or figures for your assertions/questions, I’m sure we’d take you more seriously.
To use anecdotal examples: I moved to Akron, OH. in 1971. My then wife taught Russian History at the U of Akron. She was one of 25 members of the Department. I would characterize the breakdown of the department as follows(IMHO): 2 Ultra Liberals, 5 Liberals, 10 Middle-of-the Road, 3 Conservatives, 5 Ultra Conservatives.
Now, many of the conservatives were somewhat liberal when it came to social issues. Many of the liberals were conservative when it came to finances and their own best interest. On the whole, I found/find Univ. people to be not too much different from a similar mix of people in any community which has a similar educational/economic background. YMMV.
I’m curious as to whether you have lived in or visited Austin, Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Madison, etc?
Most questions in the OP are open to debate, but the only thing I think that can be said for a fact is that as a rule, university towns will contain people who have MORE EDUCATION than towns without one.
Universities employ a lot of people, although the faculty is only a small fraction of the population. However, there are still likely to be more people with a Ph.D. in Berkeley than there are in some place like Hercules, CA.
Hmm. To answer your question, one would have to really pin down definitions of “liberal” and “intelligent.”
How are you defining these terms?
1: I dunno.
2: Clearly.
3: I dunno.
4: No
5: Probably not.
6: Of course they’re more educated.
Of course we are! And we look better and smell better too!
Seriously, one cannot generalize so sweepingly. Any real study will most likely show a curve just like the general population.
Liberals do make better lovers, though.
Do you have a cite for this? 
I freely admit to making sweeping generalizations in the OP.
I probably should have posted in IMHO but I’m trying to get used to this.
I was just pointing out something that I had noticed and wondered if others had noticed too.
And if a big ol argument got started along the way…
well… okay… : )
Well, being a lefty I guess I’ll have to agree with the OP!
Seriously, overall political bent of the profs would vary from department to department. For example, I work in the library of a law school and there faculty here (overall) leans right, but whenever I’ve taken a undergrad Humanities class at this same university, the bent seems a bit more left.
Patty
Perhaps your General Question could have been: Is there a correlation between high IQ and political views?
There are alternative explanations for the liberal-college connection.
Perhaps people who spend the extra years in the liberal (by your own account) academic world necessary to obtain their Ph.D. tend to absorb the liberal views of their professors more thoroughly than someone who was only exposed to those liberal professors’ views for a few years if at all.
Frankly, I believe your premise is faulty. College profs are not representative of all intelligent people or all liberals, since obviously many intelligent people go into totally different careers (including some
intelligent people who don’t seek out careers befitting their intellect), and many people who GENERALLY have little formal education are GENERALLY liberal (blue collar union workers and the inner city poor tend to favor Democrats, for example)
Furthermore, I’m sure there are plenty of people who are highly educated in their given field of study who are no better informed about politics than the “average slug”. A prof who has chosen to study Biology or Computer Science is undeniably “smarter” about those topics than the average person, but that doesn’t make them authorities on topics outside of their field.
Someone who said, “You know I have the facts about foreign policy: After all, I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science!” would probably be laughed out of Great Debates, wouldn’t you think?
If I were to make a sweeping generalization, I would say yes. However, there are exceptions to every sweeping generalization.
The reason behind my thinking is thus:
A person who is better educated has a higher chance of being more open minded. A person who is naturally closed minded is not going to seek to increase their intelligence above a certain point because at some point their acquired knowledge would force conflict with their preconceived beliefs. A person who is closed minded will not accept that their preconceived beliefs are wrong when presented with something that conflicts them, and will likely choose to stop educating themselves or allowing themselves to be educated at the point where the conflict begins.
A person who is open minded is less likely to continue to hold on to the past, in thought, theory, or method. A person who is more willing to be educated will likely be more willing to try new things to expand the limits of their knowledge because it is likely to be part of their nature. A person who is more willing to try new things is also more likely to wish to expand the ability of others to try new things, which would show itself in their political views. In addition, a more educated person who is more willing to try new things is also more likely to be accepting of the differences in thought, process, or nature of others, regardless of the other person’s education or knowledge level.
This will often present itself in persons who have made it their lot in life to educate others, and are good at it. These people who attempt to educate and succeed are very likely to end up in teaching positions at colleges and universities.
I believe it is probably safe to assume that liberalism increases with education, but then again, generalizations are a bad thing, mmkay? False pretenses, as Chronos has often cautioned me, can allow you to derive conceivably any result.
The stick in the gears of this is when a person who is closed minded has a very high tolerance for education, but refuses to remove themselves from a belief when required by observation or fact. This shows itself in ‘asshole’ college professors who teach an incorrect method or theory, and refuse to be corrected either by peer or student.
Many people would also argue that certain preconceived notions must be eliminated in the attainment of education and knowledge, such as religion. This is a faulty premise, however, so do not listen to such arguments. Many very intelligent people have managed, quite successfully, to reconcile their beliefs with science and fact. The key lies in realizing that religion is dogma and therefore cannot be proven, unlike science which can. They are not mutually exclusive to an open-minded intellectual, but to a closed-minded intellectual, they are black powder waiting for a spark. This trip-wire of religion has stifled many, many intellectual people, either by stopping their self-education, or by abandoning their prior beliefs, thinking it was the only way to continue.
If I may show my religions nature for a moment, I believe that since God has given man free will, and God has allowed man to keep what he stole from God (the knowledge of right and wrong), that the greatest sin man can commit against his Creator is to not take advantage of these gifts. An open mind is a wonderful thing. A closed-minded intellectual is a very dangerous thing, indeed.
–Tim
Numerous studies have found that greater education, higher I.Q.'s, liberal attitudes and non-religious beliefs are all substantially correlated to each other.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jonvwill/resurgent/L-oldliberalmedia.htm
Note that this is a correlational study and not a causal one. There are probably other studies that show correlations of what intelligent conservatives are related with, and my guess would be occupations which make them more money than university positions, like maybe CEOs of Fortune 500 companies as an example.
I think political views have more to do with how you are raised than how intelligent you are.
I consider myself to be a rabidly liberal Democrat, by the way.
What about a radically liberal feminist Green/Democrat with a master’s degree and a high IQ who has intensely religious beliefs?
I have made a career out of not fitting into anyone’s damn pigeonholes.
As a quick, dumb response, let me say this: it is not so much that more intelligent people are Liberals (I capitalize, since I assume we mean ‘liberals in the current political sense’), but rather that members of Academia tend to be liberals. You’ll see this not only on college campuses, but also throughout the school system. Why? Well, most people don’t become schoolteachers or professors to get rich; many are employed by the government, through the public school system. They are also more likely to be involved in social programs, etc, than their Conservative brethren. Again, I know this sounds like stereotyping, but in my limited experience it has tended to be true.
I guess I’ll drop in before this spirals off to GD with some anecdotal observations. I’ve known and know several people with Ph.D.s. My father was an anthropology professor, my mother was an archeology lecturer and I grew up with the world of academe around. I’ve worked with several Ph.D.s and I have friends who have achieved that level of education.
I’m thinking of two good friends of mine who are both Ph.D.s (in psychology), one female, one male. The woman is a sharp person, and knows her stuff, or so it appears to me. But she doesn’t know squat about science. Zip physics, math, chemistry, biology (wasn’t there a thread not too long ago addressing the differences between psychologists and psychiatrists?); and, for that matter, history; you don’t need to know that stuff to be a Ph.D. Our discussions over the years have revealed to me that she has essentially no opinions on foreign policy, defense, the budget, taxation, etc. She does care about health, and particularly mental health, care. But she isn’t really given to approaching the how of it all. Abortion is the only issue on which she’ll voice an opinion; on that subject she’s an uneasy (Catholic) pro-choice voter. In the complete absence of concern over other issues, that makes her a liberal. She votes Democrat largely because (almost - hehe) all of her friends and associates do. Sharp cookie, though.
The guy is not even a particularly sharp tack. I don’t mean he’s stupid, just not really a lofty thinker. A diligent fellow, to be sure, he knocked on the door for fourteen years and brought that Ph.D. home. He’s gay, and inclined to stay up to date on gay political issues (forever emailing me 'net petitions and the like), but he’s disinclined to gnaw on geopolitics, taxation, etc. Unsurprisingly, he votes Democrat.
My daddy was a Ph.D., in anthropology. The nature of that field did demand that he attempt to integrate knowledge from disparate fields of study, and I’d say he had a better global perspective than either of the two friends mentioned above. And he was your classic 1950s flaming liberal ivory tower academic (immigrant, to boot). He was a sharp cookie who did try to swallow it whole, and voted Democrat.
One of my better friends holds a Ph.D. in physics. He’s one of those naturally curious folks who is continually scratching at new stuff, and generally does a decent job. His view of the world is much more encompassing than either of my psychologist friends’, and he is unflinchingly conservative (and an immigrant - hmm…is that a factor?). Perhaps a varied background has something to do with it - he spent a good part of his formative years and early adulthood as a tattoo artist in Hong Kong, emmigrated to go to school in Ohio and finally came to the oil patch in Texas.
The point of this long winded meander (the coffee was strong this morning) is that attaining a Ph.D. does not necessarily mean one is generally knowledgable, or even truly sharp, it just means that one has devoted enough effort to grasp a certain field of study to a degree that allows them to contribute to that field. While there are certainly (thankfully) a smattering of global intellects out there, I’m inclined to think that as the body of human knowledge continues to expand, more and more specialization will be demanded in most fields and the end result will be manny more Ph.D.s who don’t know any more about the world as a whole than the average bear.
This makes me wonder if the Conrad Hilton School of Hotel and Restaurant Management has a doctoral program.
I’ll tack on a little something to gnaw on as you ponder your generalizations; for the folks addressed in this thread (and me):
Shrink #1 - “liberal” - devout (though troubled) Catholic
Shrink #2 - “liberal” - non-specific Christian
Daddy-o - “liberal” - atheist
Tattoo artist - “conservative” - devout Christian
Moi - “conservative” - atheist
I do believe that academia tends to be more liberal than the population as a whole. It also tends to be more intelligent.
But that’s just a very weak correlation. It could be that smarter people tend to become liberals, or it could simply be that smart conservatives tend to direct their lives in other areas.
It may also just be a cultural phenomena. When I went to university, there was a lot of subtle pressure on conservatives. It got to be very frustrating taking classes with incredible liberal biases. It got to be tiring to have to be the lone voice of dissent in lunchroom conversations. Much of campus life centers around liberal causes. Conservatives can become ostracized, and in the case of some of the more extremely liberal campuses, harassed.
Plus, the values of conservatives may not lead them to generally want to be University Professors. Instead, conservatives may just learn what they need to make in the real world and get out. Or maybe smart conservatives tend to self-educate themselves. Or perhaps occupations that tend to attract conservatives place less emphasis on advanced college degrees, making them less valuable.
And if you want correlations between intelligence and political beliefs, I can provide plenty of counter examples. For example, CEO’s tend to be much smarter than the average person, and much more educated than average. They also tend to be conservative.
Blue collar workers tend to be less intelligent and less educated than average, but tend to be liberal. Unions have voted Democratic for a long, long time. Want to draw any conclusions from this?
I do find the premise that intelligence should naturally lead to ‘liberal’ viewpoints to be almost insulting. It’s just a way for liberals to pat themselves on the back and reinforce their sense of natural superiority over those of us who happen to have opposing views.
As an intelligent, educated conservative, I can see no special insights in liberal philosophy that are only open to intelligent people. And I see nothing in the conservative philosophy that can be exposed as being wrong by those of greater intellect or education.
I know equal numbers of intelligent liberals and conservatives, the converse holds true as well. It just seems to me that the liberals are more vocal about their pereception (or, in some cases, misconception) that being liberal means one is more intelligent. November was a terrible month at work for me, since I was the lone republican, and I endured many unpleasant and unprofessional attacks on my political leanings. The only bit of nastiness that truely upset me was one of the older women in the office saying to me " I can’t understand it, you’re such an intelligent young woman, how could you possibly vote for Bush?" Good manners prevaled, and I didn’t blurt out what I was thinking, which was * “Well, you’re not too bright, and I have no trouble understanding why you voted for Gore.” * No, wait, I lied. I was also upset by another girl claiming that I should be ashamed to vote for Bush because he doesn’t support headstart, and some of the kids we worked with attended that program, so how could I rationalize voting for him? Truth to be told, I had to rationalize the postion, not my politics, thank you.
So, IMHO liberals that I’ve encountered have been no smarter nor more ignorant as a whole than conservatives, but they are more nasty about disagreeing with one’s political beliefs, since I’ve yet to see a conservative torture a liberal the way I was by officemates during the election mess.
Thank you Biggirl.
Gene Weingarten wrote a funny and yet disturbing article for the January 21, 2001 Washington Post Magazine in which he categorized President Bush’s election as a “hicktory”. (Unfortunately, the article is now archived and costs two bucks.)
He took a look at an election map (I suspect it was Dave Leip’s election atlas), which posted results by county, and (IIRC) called officials in the one county in Iowa which voted for Gore, asking why they thought that county alone went Democrat.
Their answer was straightforward (and bitter): our citizens are better educated. It turns out there is a college in that county.
Does this answer anything? No. But take a look at that election map (select “Past Presidential Elections”, then the year 2000, then click on “county” on the left) to see for yourself. Of particular interest to me was southwestern Virginia, a sea of blue except for a one-pixel red area which I believe represents the town of Radford, home of Radford University. Little Radford rates as a “city” in Virginia, and therefore reports its votes separately from the county it is in. Why not check to see how your college did?
(As far as your observation goes, elfkin477, you obviously didn’t work for a car dealership. When I went back there to visit in 1998 in the midst of a roaring economy I still caught shit, and I mean rude, personally directed shit, for voting for Clinton six years previously. I wonder who those gearheads are blaming their lot on now?)
Another factor is that in recent politics, liberals have tended to support education more than conservatives. Unsurprisingly, academes tend to vote for candidates who support education.
This is just academia, though, not intelligent people as a whole. I would have a very hard time accepting the validity of any study which claimed a corellation between intelligence and politics, since the folks conducting the study are almost guaranteed to be biased one way or another.