2% of the harvard faculty identify as conservative, and only 16% are moderate. it’s a problem.
years ago it was more like 20% conservative, still a minority but way more representative of the general population.
some of my best professors were ‘conservative’ in my time at uni. In today’s environment they’d have never been allowed to hired because they would have ‘disqualifying’ beliefs. That’s messed up.
there is also systematic problem with these kinds of incredibly lopsided faculty environments that create a orthodoxy that is inherently problematic to have at an institution of inquiry and learning. exposure to different ideas allows you to challege such orthodoxy. I don’t want anyone going to uni to be subject an orthodoxy.
search “federal research funding priorities by administration” will yield numerous articles and government reports on how funding gets handled by different presidents. each admin will fund what they want and put allies in place to get paid with that money.
As I said, the only difference here is that Trump is stating this shit out right publicly.
This is a classic grift and each administration gets its turn to milk it.
Grant proposals are often evaluated not only on scientific merit, but also on their potential to advance diversity and equity goals.
There is also private funding issues. Look at the funding of university-affiliated think tanks and research centers – many receive substantial donations from liberal foundations and individuals, such as the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, and various family foundations.
State applications for funding were scored on selection criteria worth a total of 500 points. In order of weight, the selection criteria were:[3]
Great teachers and leaders (138 total points)
Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (25 points)
Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
Providing effective support to teachers and principals (20 points)
Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs (14 points)
State success factors (125 total points)
Articulating state’s education reform agenda and LEAs’ participation in it (65 points)
Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain proposed plans (30 points)
Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps (30 points)
Standards and assessments (70 total points)
Developing and adopting common standards (40 points)
Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments (20 points)
Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments (10 points)
General selection criteria (55 total points)
Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools (40 points)
Making education funding a priority (10 points)
Demonstrating other significant reform conditions (5 points)
Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (50 total points)
Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points)
Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs (10 points)
Data systems to support instruction (47 total points)
Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system (24 points)
Using data to improve instruction (18 points)
Accessing and using State data (5 points)
In addition to the 485 possible points from the selection criteria above, applicants were assessed based on six priorities, including the prioritization of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education which is worth another fifteen points for a possible total of 500.[3]
Priority 1, absolute priority: comprehensive approach to education reform
Priority 2, competitive preference priority: emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (This priority was worth 15 points, bringing the “selection criteria” total to 500 points)
Priority 3, invitational priority: innovations for improving early learning outcomes
Priority 4, invitational priority: expansion and adaptation of statewide longitudinal data systems
Priority 5, invitational priority: P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment
Priority 6, invitational priority: school-level conditions for reform, innovation, and learning
The applications for Race to the Top were bolstered by local involvement: states were incentivized to get buy-in from school district superintendents and teacher unions; applications required signatures from the states’ education chiefs, governors, and attorneys general in order to qualify.[3]
Are you able to provide a source with liberals doing the same thing in their favor?
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/7/13/faculty-survey-political-leaning/
2% of the harvard faculty identify as conservative, and only 16% are moderate. it’s a problem.
years ago it was more like 20% conservative, still a minority but way more representative of the general population.
some of my best professors were ‘conservative’ in my time at uni. In today’s environment they’d have never been allowed to hired because they would have ‘disqualifying’ beliefs. That’s messed up.
there is also systematic problem with these kinds of incredibly lopsided faculty environments that create a orthodoxy that is inherently problematic to have at an institution of inquiry and learning. exposure to different ideas allows you to challege such orthodoxy. I don’t want anyone going to uni to be subject an orthodoxy.
Are you saying that Obama and Biden stacked the university’s hiring practices in favor of liberals?
Can you provide a source for this?
you need a source for a common practice?
search “federal research funding priorities by administration” will yield numerous articles and government reports on how funding gets handled by different presidents. each admin will fund what they want and put allies in place to get paid with that money.
As I said, the only difference here is that Trump is stating this shit out right publicly.
This is a classic grift and each administration gets its turn to milk it.
Examples:
Obama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Top
States and school districts competed for funding based on implementing specific education reforms aligned with the Obama administration’s priorities.
Biden: https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/ige/updates/advancement-stem-graduate-education-diversity
Grant proposals are often evaluated not only on scientific merit, but also on their potential to advance diversity and equity goals.
There is also private funding issues. Look at the funding of university-affiliated think tanks and research centers – many receive substantial donations from liberal foundations and individuals, such as the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, and various family foundations.
Race to the Top isn’t binding funding to promoting liberal ideals and that second link is broken.
The devil is in the grant process
Look into grants for special populations and which they skew
What’s your problem with this?
Personally i don’t have a problem per se with “liberal” angles, but the entire program was a grift for obama admin and his crew.
Usage of specific consultants for grant writing and strategy.
Classic grifters like Pearson and McGraw-Hill
Tech contracting going to MSPs aligned with the Obama’s team along with big tech contracts.
There were also consultants who trained teachers and school admins.
Results were at best dubious. But billions flowed to Obama’s people.
Like i said above, ideology is secondary, this is about money flows.
Do you have anything that backs up your claims on the money flows?
Joanne Weiss, James Blew, Laura Schifter and Andrew Smarick careers among hundreds of others.
Look into Bellwether Education Partners and how much obama alumni ended up up grifing there.
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning is another example.
I’m not sure what to look for do you have a source for your claims?