[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
dvault,

I said that success in school requires and rewards obedience, and does not require or reward creativity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woah, wait. You said just a little more than this. To repeat what you said:

[ QUOTE ]
What does succes in school require? Creativity? Free thinking? Entrepreneurial talent? Any kind of real talent or skills? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's clear success in school requires 'real' talent and skill outside of obedience, a fact made clear when we consider that "obedient" people are everywhere and essentially provide little value to employers merely by their obedience, yet well-educated people have skills and talents the labor market DOES value.

So it's nothing but hand-waving to claim that all you said was "success in school requires and rewards obedience, and does not require or reward creativity", because you ALSO said success in school requires no real talent or skill. I think it's clear the labor market disagrees.

As others have pointed out, the very first thing many firms look for when filtering applicants for high-paid, valuable jobs they're offering is GPA. Given the almost indisputable fact that many high-paying jobs in the labor marketplace are predicated upon success in school, I think you're either forced to concede that success in school requires "real talent and skill" outside of obedience, or that obedience is in fact a valuable talent/skill in the marketplace, given that firms are willing to pay alot of money to their workers possess this skill.

Again, the hiring behavior of firms in the legal, finance, and software industries (just to name a few) contradicts the notion that success in school requires no real talent or skill, QED. Either that or the labor market is completely irrational.

[ QUOTE ]
People who are obedient enough to be very successful in school are more likely to be socialist (and I'm not going to get into a debate about the definition of socialist. It should be obvious what the OP was talking about, even if he used the wrong terminology).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so you're sure that you're claim is correct, yet you won't even define your conclusion? Your claim is completely meaningless then.

Similarly, I could claim that people who are obedient enough to be very successful in school are more likely to be quarks...but I'm not going to get into a debate about the definition of quark. Is this a meaningful claim for you?

This doesn't fly. If you refuse to define what you mean when say "socialist", then this just became alot more inane.

[ QUOTE ]
They are also more likely to be attracted to, and qualified for, the profession of teaching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since you won't define what a socialist is in your world, I guess socialists could be attracted to or be repulsed by teaching. Who's to know?

[ QUOTE ]
Professors tend to be the ones who don't have the other skills to do those jobs well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe they just like pedagogy and research.

Do you have kids? Nephews? Nieces? Ever taken them to a baseball game? Like to teach them about the game? Does that make you some kind of socialist?

The strat forums are full of people who like to "teach". Are they all socialists?

Some people get a satisfaction out of teaching people other things. Some people like working with youthful, inquisitive minds. I don't get what's so special about "teaching" that makes teachers inexorably more likely to support egalitarian wealth distribution schemes.

[ QUOTE ]
Then they teach the students their socialist ideas, and I believe those socialist ideas are mainly a product of their obedient personalities. The students in the professor's classes are more open to believing these socialist ideas, because the fact that they made it into a prestigious college, means they are at least somewhat obedient.

[/ QUOTE ]

So teachers become teachers...because the only skill they possess is an inherently obedient personality. They then teach their 'socialist' ideas to students, because this what their inherently obedient personalities compel them to do.

The students, who are only at college because they themselves are inherently obedient and were able to succeed by appeasing other obedient-personality type teachers they had in the past -- they are able to continue succeeding at school because of their aforementioned inherently obedient personality?

Did I catch that correctly? Let me know if I've "misinterpreted" anything. I want to be clear on this before I continue.