Why are so many college students far-left liberals or socialists?

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you mean "disciplined".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you want to know why entry level analysts at banks make so much, it is because they are willing to pull several all nighters in a row and give up their weekends because their boss says so and they get gigantic bonuses. It is not because they are really really smart. It is because when the bank needs something done, and if everyone just worked 9-5 their competition would steamroll them.

[ QUOTE ]
lol, yeah, these hedge-funds, I-banking and law-firms "won't spend time" looking at candidates because it's "inefficient". Do you think they're operate like a McDonalds and just pour through resumes? Their head-hunting typically involves a lengthy and time-consuming search where they painstakingly interview candidates for hours, often multiple times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am well aware of how the interview process works. The point is that those multiple rounds of interviews only occur once the employer has cut the field down to a reasonable size by using a set of filters, ones which are strongly tied to "obedience" and following directions. To get to these multiple hours of interviews you speak of, people have to A. get into an elite school, B, get a competitive GPA, and C, spend enough time talking to other students learning the how the interview/internship/job offer process works so they know the framework of everything.

I do not know how things work at your school, but at my school, students who are interested in competitive finance and similar jobs spend a huge amount of time talking to other students figuring how out to get a summer internship so they can get a job offer after. you have to be extraordinarily smart and impressive if you dont want to spend a lot of time worrying about these things and being obedient to employers. This is a stupid argument and I am busy doing something else so my answers have turned into generalizations, so I am going to stop posting about this because its not productive.

[owsley]

I suggest you spend some time at this magical place known as the Wharton school if you don't think obedience is important to what we are talking about. People who succeed there do it because they figure out exactly what the professors and employers want, and spend thousands of hours matching it. In most ways it is a very anti intellectual school, creativity is not really going to help you very much there.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hint: the more extreme forms of socialism, like Communism, call for extreme, violent revolution and social upheaval. Some strands of communism, like Maoism, call for constant, never-ending revolution and bloodshed. In other words, the exact opposite of "obedience".

[/ QUOTE ]

Hint: calling for strict adherence to doctrine IS obedience. Never ending revolutoin isn't revolution, it just makes a state of war the status quo. Communism and socialism are authority based contructs that always call for obeidience, just a lot of the time they call for obedience to a piece of paper instead of a living human leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is nothing but a ridiculous circular narrative. Anyone could make similar claims about any other ideology; anarcho-capitalist must remain "obedient" to market fundamentalism, or else, of course, they wouldn't be anarcho-capitalists anymore. To claim that socialists are "obedient" to the ideology of socialism is nothing but circular. If they didn't follow or subscribe the philosophy, they wouldn't be socialists anymore, QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you demonstrate your ignorance of capitalism. Communism and Socialism are doctorines because they set forth rules for how the originators felt that people should act. Marx wrote about how the workers should do X, Y, and Z (specific actions) to accomplish goals A, B, and C. Rules are set forth as to how society should be structured. Capitalism is about as close to the antithesis of this as can be. The market is just a description of how people act upon the choices that they perceive as being availible. It doesn't put profits ahead of people or people ahead of profits, its an observation based upon then axiom that "people act". The predictions from a an ACists (or capitalists) perspective are on how they anticipate people acting of their own accord which is a stark contrast to communism which tells people how they ought to act.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ummm, the school provides a meal plan and dining halls that are owned and operated by the school (not an outside company).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really have an opinion about this specific issue, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Most schools have contracts with private companies to provide food service.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this really isn't any different. Privitized operations are not free market, capitalist operations. The school still controls who provides the service and how they provide it, ultimately.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, I am asking why they are liberal. They are not stupid because they are liberal; many are stupid, and they are also liberal due to being easilly influenced and unexperienced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Circular logic FTW!

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't circular at all.

They are not X because they are Y.

Many are X, and are also Y because they are X.

Where's the circularity?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, just look how much more money people would have if we didn't live in a welfare-warfare state.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you mean "disciplined".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you want to know why entry level analysts at banks make so much, it is because they are willing to pull several all nighters in a row and give up their weekends because their boss says so and they get gigantic bonuses. It is not because they are really really smart. It is because when the bank needs something done, and if everyone just worked 9-5 their competition would steamroll them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know who else pull all nighters in a row and give up their weekends? Nurses. Sometimes delivery guys. Other occupations.

Why are I-banking headhunters going to Wharton and willing to pay good students $100k+ if the only special skill is the ability to stay up all night and follow simple directions? Why go to Wharton at all?

It's quite easy to go find any guy off the street to pull all nighters for huge sums of money. Why do they go looking for students who are products of good schools if 'schooling' is so valueless?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol, yeah, these hedge-funds, I-banking and law-firms "won't spend time" looking at candidates because it's "inefficient". Do you think they're operate like a McDonalds and just pour through resumes? Their head-hunting typically involves a lengthy and time-consuming search where they painstakingly interview candidates for hours, often multiple times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am well aware of how the interview process works. The point is that those multiple rounds of interviews only occur once the employer has cut the field down to a reasonable size by using a set of filters, ones which are strongly tied to "obedience" and following directions. To get to these multiple hours of interviews you speak of, people have to A. get into an elite school, B, get a competitive GPA, and C, spend enough time talking to other students learning the how the interview/internship/job offer process works so they know the framework of everything.

I do not know how things work at your school, but at my school, students who are interested in competitive finance and similar jobs spend a huge amount of time talking to other students figuring how out to get a summer internship so they can get a job offer after. you have to be extraordinarily smart and impressive if you dont want to spend a lot of time worrying about these things and being obedient to employers. This is a stupid argument and I am busy doing something else so my answers have turned into generalizations, so I am going to stop posting about this because its not productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I don't even understand your argument anymore. You seem to concede that these students needed special talents and skills to succeed in school; doesn't this contradict the notion that all you need to do is be obedient?

There's literally millions, if not hundreds of millions of Americans that can follow simple directions and work long hours. I-banking firms, though, look for high-GPA graduates to fill their high-paying positions: why? In fact, having a high-GPA and graduating from a good school is literally (as you concede) the FIRST criteria they look for in applicants. You can't even get an interview without meeting the requisite GPA requirements.

Am I supposed to believe the only skill necessary to get hired at $100k out of college is the ability to "be obedient"? If not, then surely the market is placing great value on good students, likely because their success in school demonstrates talent and skills above and beyond the ability to follow directions.

[NickMPK]

There are a lot more socialists and a lot more libertarians among college professors than among the general population. I would imagine the political demographics of professors would closely resemble the political demographics of the country as a whole minus all of the religious people.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Again you demonstrate your ignorance of capitalism. Communism and Socialism are doctorines because they set forth rules for how the originators felt that people should act. Marx wrote about how the workers should do X, Y, and Z (specific actions) to accomplish goals A, B, and C. Rules are set forth as to how society should be structured. Capitalism is about as close to the antithesis of this as can be. The market is just a description of how people act upon the choices that they perceive as being availible. It doesn't put profits ahead of people or people ahead of profits, its an observation based upon then axiom that "people act". The predictions from a an ACists (or capitalists) perspective are on how they anticipate people acting of their own accord which is a stark contrast to communism which tells people how they ought to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is silly.

"Communism" doesn't "tell" people how to act, anymore than ACism does. Surely, we could say ACism 'tells' people not to initiate force against someone else, but this is just crude lexicon, just as it would be to claim communism "tells" people to revolt against the bourgeois. You would instantly recognize the semantic trick if I were to claim this -- that is, you would recognize the fallacy if I were to say "ACism is an ideology that requires obedience!: see how it 'tells' people not to initiate force against someone else! LDO!".

Similarly, claiming communism "tells" people things and then concluding it's an ideology centered around obedience is nothing short of fallacious. Again, any ideology can be described as "needing obedience to the doctrine", because anyone who violates the precepts are by definition no longer consist ideologues. By definition, you wouldn't be a communist if you didn't believe that workers should revolt against capitalists, but I fail to see how this makes communism an ideology of "obedience to a piece of paper" because Communists adhere to Marx's principles, anymore than capitalists are "obedient" to Adam Smith or Milton Friedman or von Mises.

To reiterate, there's nothing about "communism" or "socialism" that requires obedience to the state, or some other group that "knows best" like Ron Burgundy claimed. In fact, much of the ideology is predicated on revolution against entrenched powers that are themselves demanding obedience.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Where's the circularity?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was taking into account the context of the OP.

The OP asks "why are college students so liberal?" and gives us this context:

1) He's a libertarian, and doesn't understand why his liberal peers don't agree with him:

"I try to explain that if you are paying 30% taxes to the government that you are basically a slave for 1/3 of the year and they look at me like I am crazy."

2) He thinks these liberals are stupid:

"No one even has common sense."
"If these retards..."
"I can't even destroy their ignorant liberal attitudes"

Then asks: "why are these people so liberal?"

Later he expounds further:

"many are stupid, and they are also liberal due to being easilly influenced and unexperienced."



So you're right, his argument here isn't really circular, it's merely begging the question: He explicitly assumes all his liberal peers are stupid, ignorant, immature, and indoctrinated, then wonders aloud how they got that way. His conclusion as to how they got that way? Well, they're stupid, ignorant, immature, and indoctrinated.

On second thought, I think this is still circular logic, but the line between begging the question and circular logic is pretty gray anyway. Either way, the whole OP/thread is awash in this type of fallacious nonsense.