College Students Are Taught To Be Leftists?

the University of Delaware residential halls "treatment" requirements for anyone living in the dorms. It includes all whites are racist, all non-whites cannot be racist. Also ask private questions about sexuality, religious, etc. You want to tell us again about the left not indoctrinating college students?

Yeah, that's bad, and at least you are being specific for a change. Prager, however, paints every college and every incoming freshman with the same brush.

And, you may have missed my most important point. Prager assumes that the freshman have mush for brains and character and the indoctrination by the University of Delaware wil automatically transform every freshman into a leftist.

I have more faith in incoming freshmen and college students as a group. I don't think that the Delaware program will influence the students more than their parents and church. If it does, then blame the parents and church for not doing a good job.

Prager, though he has a nice, melliflous voice, is a very poor thinker. He attributes effects to causes without any indication that this is true.
He essentially makes claims that are not true and I've heard Prager, in his melliflous voice, do this time after time.

was not missed. After seeing the "high school" graduates entering the military and seeing the incoming freshman entering college, I am of the opinion that the majority of them have not been taught any critical thinking skills in school.

Practically speaking, the issue is not so much that they are young with little life experience but that they accept whatever is given to them without actually studying the topic.

We still have a steady stream of young people entering MIT and Cal Tech. We have a steady stream of young people going on to Harvard, Yale Law, etc.

But we also have a steady stream of young people becoming computer programers, a steady stream of young people developing new software and hardware, a steady stream of young people starting their own companies, a steady stream of young people entering the military academies; plus a steady stream of young people who fill more modest positions in society.

I think you're infected with conservative pessimism.

a steady stream of drug users, a steady stream of criminals, a steady stream of high school dropouts, etc.

It is not whether the stream is steady but the results that occur from the stream. We no longer compete in international competitions of knowledge because the current crop of "college" students consistently rank low against other nations.

Is this the result of the current educational system? The result of no standards being upheld? The result of no debate, like we are engaging in here, allowed on college campuses?

I am not infected with pessimism, I am disgusted with what our educational institutions have become and the results they produce.

Flame. As an observer, reading papers, etc., it seems like every 20 years or less someone declares that the educational system is a wasteland. I think every new generation just lacks perspective and memory of what has gone before.

I remember a popular book "Why Johnnie can't read," but don't know how long ago it was published. I remember from a long time ago it was established that students from other countries, such as Japan and France, were much more proficient than American students, took education much more seriously and studied at home much longer and harder. This could have been 50 years ago, Flame.

I blame TV.

Just continuing my education. Taking classes in the 1970s is different than 2000s. I have taken on campus courses through out this time period. It is not so much TV but the changing of academic standards. With no standards to which the student is accountable, then there is no reason to put forth effort. Just think, Harvard is not even in the top 5 of debate competition. It is more the name Harvard on the degree than the education received that garners attention.

This has been building from the elementary grades and now is in our universities. Instead of learning proper English, mathematics, sciences, history, geography; they are more concerned with the student feeling good about themselves. When these people enter the workforce, they believe that they have the knowledge and skills, that everyone will accept them as really good. Instead they find out that they are now held accountable for what they bring to the business and receive compensation based on what they accomplish instead of what they feel.

It was a lesson that I tried to teach my children before they were adults. They didn't like it at the time however they have both thanked me for not sugar coating what would occur.

This is one of the big issues that lead many people to consider liberal ideology as no different than socialism. Liberals, in general, want the government to provide everything for people while at the same time teaching people feelings instead of knowledge. Which is more useful in supporting yourself and family, Knowledge or emotions?

I was just ready from a series of articles on Global Warming in a Canadian newspaper about the "deniers;" the well known scientists who dissent from the idea that global warming is man made. The author cites about three scientists who think that cosmic rays can account for most of the warming we are experiencing.

The author of the series quotes from the scientists, who speak in the cautious and precise way that scientists will do. His own editorial comments are somewhat more emotional.
But, the author presents the case against man made global warming in terms of scientific experiment.

As I was reading I couldn't help but segue to Christian "creationism." Example: One of the "deniers," a very famous French scientist who was one of the first to warn about man made global warming 20, maybe 40 years ago, has changed his mind in the last decade and now decries the "alarmists," and says that "the science is not settled."

As a scientist he is most famous for his work on things that happened very early in the universe's and the earth's history, i.e., as a scientist his work is a rebuff to the creationism which says that God created everything all finished about 10,000 years ago.

I couldn't help but wonder if someone like yourself, who is a Christian, will willingly accept his credentials as a scientist who denies that global warming is man made, but at the same time deny those very credentials because they concern a universe and an earth that were formed billions of years ago and didn't come finished and complete, i.e., his work involves the processes that formed mountains and the earth's crust and the meteorites that earth captured in its orbit around the sun.

I'd like to hear your take.

pl: "I couldn't help but wonder if someone like yourself, who is a Christian, will willingly accept his credentials as a scientist who denies that global warming is man made, but at the same time deny those very credentials because they concern a universe and an earth that were formed billions of years ago and didn't come finished and complete, i.e., his work involves the processes that formed mountains and the earth's crust and the meteorites that earth captured in its orbit around the sun."

I think I understand where you get the idea of a conundrum. It is not the credentials of an individual that are denied, it is the application of the methods used by the individual.

When I looked at global warming, I saw many questionable issues in how the method was applied. It was not based on the credentials but the inappropriate application and terrible assumptions.

When it comes to origin of the planet and life again I must look at the methods used. What many people do not realize is that all scientific theories as based on assumptions. Isaac Asimov, an atheist, said that these assumptions were taken on faith and that they are the weakest point of the scientific method. Science has continuously changed the theory of evolution because of discrepancies between their theories and the data. Currently the theory of evolution is disassociated with the origin of life.

My choice is to believe what is written in Scripture as opposed to scientific theories. Neither of those has any data to support their premise on the origin of the planet or life. Christians have looked at science, for centuries, as a way to better understand God's creation. Many assumptions and scientific theories are based on the concept that God created order out of chaos. Practically all science is based on there being a defined order.

Hope that helps you to understand that for Christians it is not a conundrum but a better understanding of God's wonderful creation.