Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
I would say their students are more programmed than taught and thinking for yourself is frowned upon these days, unless of course you are with the program. Of course they are intelligent kids, just like the Soviet and Red Chinese kids were intelligent.
|
What's your evidence to suggest that Princeton "students are more programmed than taught?"
<<Yet at Princeton, conservative students and faculty alike said that the great deal of political diversity was what separated Princeton from more liberal schools like the University of California, Brown or SDSU. It is unclear whether Princeton is truly “the most conservative Ivy,” but members of the conservative community signaled repeatedly that they feel comfortable on campus.
...
Nevertheless, no conservative campus leader with whom The Daily Princetonian spoke could recall any firsthand instances of receiving an unfair grade or being singled out in the classroom due to their political views. Instead, most students found that professors and preceptors tended to be very welcoming of challenges when they discovered conservative students’ views.>>
Conservative comfort at the
Those aware of Princeton's somewhat unique undergraduate educational system, with a heavy emphasis on precepts and independent study, understand that Princeton undergraduates are deliberately NOT programmed, as noted in the above article:
<<Politics professor emeritus Paul Sigmund, who taught a course on conservatism from 1980 to 2006, credited the precept system with encouraging critical thinking and providing liberal professors with an opportunity to elicit conservative critiques, preventing a single viewpoint from becoming oppressive.>>
Few institutions in the world foster independent and critical thought to the extent of Princeton.
As a result, if you haven't noticed, Princeton has a strong conservative bent. Check out the alma maters of Sen. Ted Cruz and Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito. Donald Rumsfeld is a graduate, as is Meg Whitman, whom you also perhaps consider a RINO. Jeff Bezos, one of the most successful entrepreneurs and wealthiest individuals in the U.S., is a Princeton alumnus that may be the ultimate role model for many of today's Princeton undergraduates.
Princeton has perhaps the best undergraduate economics education in the U.S., and a large percentage of its students are well versed in market forces and probably well understand the U.S. political system and macro economics better than you.
Does this recent editorial from the "Daily Princetonian" student newspaper represent what you would expect from a flock of "programmed" liberal fledglings?
<<Princeton University is an educational institution, not a political advocacy organization. Decisions made by the University must further educational goals, not political ends. The Princeton University Investment Company has a core mission to make investments that will produce high and reliable returns on the endowment, which in turn provide the University with the financial stability necessary to spend money on financial aid, new facilities, and other educational necessities.
Many corporations sell items that are highly objectionable to some members of the community. Environmentalists might object to oil drilling companies and vegetarians to meat-packing companies. Still, it would be false to construe an investment in, for example, ExxonMobil or Tyson Foods, as a moral stance in favor of oil or meat consumption. It simply reflects PRINCO’s understanding that investment in these firms will yield higher or more reliable returns than alternative investments. PRINCO makes investments based on financial considerations, and the decision to invest is made independent of the University.>>
Editorial: The importance of opposing divestment | The Princetonian
That editorial represents a degree of sophisticated thought unlikely to be found at many U.S. undergraduate institutions.
Yet a large majority of Princeton undergraduates may be appalled by Trump policies.
Consider that Trump and his Trumpies generally believe that man-made climate change (including easily measured ocean warming and acidification) isn't a significant problem, despite overwhelming scientific evidence and clear empirical evidence, such as rapid global ice melt and disappearing and impaired flora and fauna species globally (check out the devastation being caused by the pine beetle in N. America as freezing winter temperatures have lessened).
For informed young people, this may be the most consequential issue of their lives as they will have to deal with a myriad of consequences of the failure of Republicans, especially Trump, to understand (admit) the seriousness of this problem and to deal with it.
Much as with Vietnam when I was a kid, personally I easily understand how intelligent, young Americans are appalled by the positions of the Republican Party on this and other issues.
Those of us who once admired Republican leadership, were heartened that the Republican "Old Guard," led by James Baker, has finally joined in the climate change debate. Baker's service to our nation dwarfs in accomplishments that of any 21st Republican statesman.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ut-regulations
If you're a typical Trumpie, you'll now perhaps offer the ridiculous charge that Baker (check out Baker Botts), one of America's most preeminent corporate lawyers, also is a RINO (Republican in Name Only). I suppose this is true if the ravaging of our environment is a key mantra of being a Republican in 2017.
Those who are programmed IMO are the small-minded lemmings who are following the current Republican leadership, who either are ignorant or liars, over the cliff on issues such as climate change.
If anything, after spending some time noodling through the Daily Princetonian website, I was struck by the absence of outrage over climate change. What I detected was a sense of resigned realization.
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/art...wf-ceo-roberts
Personally, I believe every American high school and university should have a course on climate change science, and I emphasize "science."
As for the controversy about the Woodrow Wilson legacy at Princeton University, anybody who has studied Woodrow Wilson, or even viewed "The Great War," could find many reasons to be disgusted by Woodrow Wilson and revolted by prominently honoring him.
Being from northeast Ohio, Woodrow Wilson's views on race compared to those of Republican James A. Garfield are appalling. See post 6 here:
//www.city-data.com/forum/cleve...-american.html
Here's an article discussing the Princeton University's position on Woodrow Wilson iconography, which is very prominent on the Princeton campus.
News and Notes: U. will not follow Yale in renaming of controversial buildings | The Princetonian
Note that there apparently aren't massive student protests against the university's position, and a large majority of the Princeton student body is indifferent to the issue.
Anyway, labeling Princeton undergrads as "programmed," is nothing more than hurling uninformed insults against what will likely be many of America's greatest leaders in coming decades, and their leadership likely will result from a dynamism made possible by a concerted absence of programming and excellence in critical thinking. Jeff Bezos increasingly appears to be the Henry Ford of the early 21st century, and I suspect that his Princeton education played a significant role in his success -- "disagree and commit."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...y-1/100418722/