Posted on 03/30/2006 8:40:03 AM PST by Attillathehon
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Study Casts Doubt on Claims That Conservative Students Face Discrimination in Classes By JENNIFER JACOBSON
A study showing that conservative and liberal students do equally well in courses with politically charged content casts doubt on conservative activists' claims that liberal faculty members routinely discriminate against their conservative students.
The study found no difference in the grades conservative and liberal students receive in sociology, cultural anthropology, and women's-studies courses. It also found that conservative students tend to earn higher grades than their liberal classmates in business and economics courses.
Titled "What's in a Grade? Academic Success and Political Orientation," the study was conducted by Markus Kemmelmeier, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Nevada at Reno, who was the lead author; Cherry Danielson, a research fellow at Wabash College; and Jay Basten, a lecturer in kinesiology at the University of Michigan.
The researchers published their paper in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin last October, but it has attracted little attention, even as activists like David Horowitz continue to press state legislatures to adopt a so-called academic bill of rights to make college campuses more "intellectually diverse" and more tolerant of conservatives.
Mr. Kemmelmeier's study follows two others, published within the past seven years, that found that conservative students tended to earn slightly lower grades in majors such as sociology and anthropology. The professor, who describes his politics as slightly left of center, says he did not undertake the study to contribute to the ongoing discussion of political bias on college campuses, but to address ongoing questions in social psychology about the choices people make regarding their interaction with organizations and what personal characteristics contribute to their success within those organizations.
The earlier studies are "consistent with what Horowitz might suggest -- that conservative students are actually not doing all that well in fields that are thought more left-leaning," says Mr. Kemmelmeier. But there's a problem with that argument, he says: The students' performance "has nothing to do with bias" on the part of their professors.
In a four-year longitudinal study that began in the late 1990s, he surveyed 3,890 students at a major public university in the Midwest. Asked to describe their political orientation, 2.7 percent identified themselves as far left, 34.6 percent as liberal, 42 percent as middle of the road, 20 percent as conservative, and 1.2 percent as far right.
Mr. Kemmelmeier then compared the transcripts of a variety of students taking the same courses, specifically courses taught in the economics department and the business school (which Mr. Kemmelmeier considered "hierarchy-enhancing," or conservative) and those taught in American culture, African-American studies, cultural anthropology, education, nursing, sociology, and women's studies (which he considered "hierarchy-attenuating," or liberal).
He found that in the latter courses, students' political orientations had no effect on their grades -- which, the study says, suggests that disciplines such as sociology and anthropology "might be more accepting of a broad range of student perspectives," while economics and business classes "appear to be more sensitive to whether student perspectives are compatible with those of the academic discipline."
In economics and business classes, the study found, conservative students earned better grades. It also found that conservative students were likely to graduate with higher GPA's in those courses than liberal students who entered college with similar SAT scores.
According to the study, conservative students might have an advantage over their peers in such courses because the conservative students might view the courses as more relevant to their future careers and therefore might be motivated to work harder.
Also, the study notes, conservative students might be "more comfortable" with such subjects "because making money is more likely to be a personal goal for them than for liberal students." Moreover, in economics and business courses, "teaching methods and classroom structure might be more amenable to conservative than liberal students, for example, by emphasizing competition over cooperation."
But the study's authors say that liberal students are unlikely to face discrimination from conservative faculty members in such courses. To discriminate against liberal students, professors would need to know the political views of individual students in what are typically large classes; it's unlikely that professors would know their students that well, Mr. Kemmelmeier says. He adds that many professors who teach big courses don't grade their students' papers themselves -- teaching assistants do.
Mr. Kemmelmeier and his colleagues acknowledge that instructors sometimes do grade students to reward or punish them for behavior not at all related to their academic performance.
Still, he does not deny that conservative students -- and sometimes liberal students -- feel sidelined by their professors' views, if those views are openly expressed. "I'm not yet clear that this means the professor will really grade them down," Mr. Kemmelmeier says. "I find it plausible, but I’ve seen no evidence of it."
I find this statement an indication of bias in the article.
Absolutely. The Clintons never had any problem at all with making as much money as they could. Wasn't that what Whitewater was all about?
I wonder who runs,and writes for,The Chronicles of Higher Education?
Ever notice how liberal academics always find a way to create a "study" that says what they want it to say?
I had lots of leftist professors, but I never got a bad grade because of my views. I was harangued once by a prof in class (he apologized and I got the A in that one, though).
Conservative students definately face discrimination in class, but whether it affects their grades or not is another matter. The discrimination is usually verbal in nature. I know firsthand as a freshman in college, even at a very conservative school, we still have our liberal idiots.
Could it be that conservative students, who are naturally smarter, would have received higher grades than the liberal students? Time to independently test the abilities of conservatives versus liberals.
I failed a class last semester because i wrote that W should not be tried as a war criminal. Silly me, the assingment was why he should be, not if he should be. damn liberals!
I could be wrong, but I imagine that number is pretty low.
Where are they going to find a control group of conservative students in a lefty-discipline class to judge their results against?
Honestly, though, of my liberal colleagues, I see very little GRADE discrimination, and never have. That's not the problem: it's the indoctrination.
And the very fact that there are such courses as "Women's Studies" and "African American Topics" demonstrates a bias.
I never considered grades to be a big point. I just hate the environment and indoctrination.
At Columbia Law School, I was identifiably and vocally conservative in classes where it warranted it (Constitutional law, criminal law, for example, but not Securities law, which is apolitical). The professors were uniformly liberal, uniformly argued with me, and uniformly gave me good grades in the courses.
At the Sorbonne, I was identifiably conservative and pro-American in courses where there was interaction with the professors, and in oral examinations. And I generally received good grades there too, for knowledge of the material. Where I didn't receive good grades, it was due to lack of subject matter knowledge.
My experience in the law, anyway, is that law school professors in France and America, at the schools I have attended, are very intelligent people, generally to the left (or far left) in their opinions, not shy about their opinions, but that when they grade students, it is on knowledge of the course material and on the logic and style of their arguments.
This was also my experience in undergraduate courses in Paris and in America, with the exception of an English teacher in university who was horrified by an intentionally immoral position I took in a daring paper defending an evil character in Shakespeare. The professor announced himself "unconvinced" by my argument and gave me a "D" on the paper (and a C in the course as a result).
The argument WAS immoral and offensive, although it was quite well written, if I recall, so it was a clear case of censorship-by-grade. But that was the only time it ever happened, in years and years of education, on two continents.
I don't think the bias is as strong when it comes to grading as it is when it comes to professors stating their opinions.
From Kammelmeier's website:
Research interests:
My current research interests include the study of culture in its various facets. This includes patterns of individualism-collectivism across various societies, as well as influences of cultural values on the framing of public policy issues, e.g., assisted death or affirmative action policies.
Further, I am studying the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) influence of cultural symbols on self-related thoughts and behavior (e.g., the American flag).
I have always been involved in intergroup research in one form or another. My focus has been how stereotypes and intergroup attitudes tend to be influenced by, but also recreate social hierarchy between different groups on society. Occasionally, I find somewhat paradoxical effects such that individuals with an egalitarian orientation are more likely to show biases than those who do not share such value commitments. And don't underestimate the influence the impact of apparently unifying political and cultural icons, which turn out to facilitate the rejection, rather than inclusion of those on the fringe of society! Other current interest include attitudes between the hearing and the deaf, Americans' responses to the Abu Ghraib abuses (and the framing thereof).
And the titles of some of his papers:
The effects of race and social dominance orientation in simulated juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Authoritarianism and candidate support in the U.S. presidential elections of 1996 and 2000.
Racial-ethnic self-schemas
Individualism, collectivism and authoritarianism in seven societies
Individualism and attitudes toward affirmative action: Evidence from priming studies.
Individualism, authoritarianism and attitudes toward assisted death: Cross-cultural, cross-regional and experimental evidence.
hostile environment for people not as outspoken as you are, however.
It is a study in which its authors claim that "conservative and liberal students do equally well in courses with politically charged content", but it is not clear that the auhors of the study and the data in the study "show" or substantiate that claim.
Therefore, the study cannot definitively "cast doubt" on anything, other than maybe the study itself.
To say at one point "The study found no difference in the grades conservative and liberal students receive in sociology, cultural anthropology, and women's-studies courses." and then acknowledge, further down in the report that the author of the study, Mr. Kemmelmeier, simply "compared the transcripts of a variety of students taking the same courses". "A variety" is not ALL the students in his study taking the same courses. In other words, his "study" was not science.
Kemmelmeier admits that earlier studies are "consistent with what Horowitz might suggest -- that conservative students are actually not doing all that well in fields that are thought more left-leaning". But he wants to claim the differences are due to some embeded, innate difference in the minds of "conservative" students that predisposes them, adversely, in the subjects of the "social" sciences.
The basis of his non-study begins on his own biased theory and premise - both business and "conservative" always and automtically equal "hierarchy-enhancing" thinking and the social sciences and liberals both always and automatically equal "hierarchy-attenuating" thinking.
He then unscientifically spins conjecture after conjecture, such as:
"conservative students might have an advantage over their peers in such courses because the conservative students might view the courses as more relevant to their future careers and therefore might be motivated to work harder" [an awful ot of "might" in those non-facts]
or
"conservative students might be 'more comfortable' with such subjects 'because making money is more likely to be a personal goal for them than for liberal students.' " [In other words, he doesn't have a clue.]
or, as in:
"in economics and business courses, 'teaching methods and classroom structure might be more amenable to conservative than liberal students, for example, by emphasizing competition over cooperation.' " [Anything in the study that quantifies and qualifies the actual teaching methods employed by the professors of the students in the study????? No. Again, the author demonstrates his work is not a study of anything, it is from begining to end no more than a premise]
Next, Mr. Kemmelmeier makes us question his intellectual honesty. He and his co-authors ask their readers to believe their statements, to the affect that
"students are unlikely to face discrimination"...[political]..from.."faculty members"...because..."professors would need to know the political views of individual students in what are typically large classes"...and..."it's unlikely that professors would know their students"...political points of view.
I see - Marxist sociology professor A asks conservative student B why he opposes same-sex marriage, or free market economics professor C asks liberal student D why he supports nationalized health care - and the professors, after a few weeks of class, DO NOT KNOW THE POLITICAL VIEWS OF THEIR STUDENTS???? Mr. Kimmelmeier is not a social "scientist", he is a scientific joke.
At least, Mr. Kemmelmeier and his colleagues acknowledge [oh how big of them] "that instructors sometimes do grade students to reward or punish them for behavior not at all related to their academic performance."
Yes, we know, they use the Marxist "dispositions theory" to amend the academic grade [the student's thinking does not conform to the values required by the mission statement of the curriculum for the course]. Arrrrrgggg
There's more forms of discrimination than just grades.
"A conservative student could very well earn a high grade in a class where only liberal claptrap is being taught, and where dissension is either discouraged or ignored."
Here is what happened to my wife in a major California university that supports your contention:
Tasked to write an essay, she chose the 2nd amendment. Being a gun-owning family, she choose to represent the pro side with citations from the constitution, the federalist papers, and other writings. Upon submitting the thesis along with her sources, the professor wrote back that, "No reasonable person could hold this opinion." and included several anti-gun editorial cartoons from the local paper.
Outraged, my wife thought long and hard about what to do. She could stick to her guns (pun intended) and get a bad grade or choose to write about something else. She chose something else because she couldn't afford a bad grade just to make a point. By the way, she wrote about marajuana legalizattion (pro) and got an A.
So, in light if this study's conclusions, yes, her grade did not suffer. The discrimination and bias all occoured well before the grades were handed out. My wife simply went along with the professor's political point of view and wrote about something she didn't believe in just for the grade.
"hostile environment for people not as outspoken as you are, however."
That's possible. I had a classmate yell at me, in class, that I was a "psychopath!" for something I said. Hackles were raised.
Of course, immediately after class, I invited her out for a drink.
(Of course she accepted.)
The enemy is always the most fascinating person in the room.
A third option would have been to stick to her guns and take the chance that the professor was a reasonable academician who exercised some of the integrity for which that profession is credited. However, she certainly made a workable choice in what she did.
My wife simply went along with the professor's political point of view and wrote about something she didn't believe in just for the grade.
And just the fact that the professor so roundly rejected her original thesis -- even if he gave her a decent grade on it -- makes me believe that he would have applied a higher level of scrutiny to it than to one more commensurate with his own views, and that he was sending a not-so-subtle message that opposing points of view were not welcome.
That is the very definition of bias.
Why no link?
I've had discussions with kids in this bind. They don't agree with the "right" answer, and yet they need the credit.
Some profs respect a well argued position they don't agree with. If the prof will accept a well-explained dissent, fine. With profs who won't, the kids learn to give him what he wants. In a way, these kids are smarter than their peers, they are capable of explaining a view they don't agree with, well enough to get a good grade, and yet they are able to dissect it and refute it.
But someone doing a "study" will miss what is happening, which is that certain subjects are themselves distorted by a leftist bias, and brook no dissent. If you disagree with the "science", you go against all the specialists in the field, who are themselves leftists, of course. You can't win. My advice is to skip those courses, but often they are required.
Another thing I hear quite often is that profs will go on a rant about Bush, or oil companies, or the war, in classes where such a rant has no connection with the subject matter. If you disagree with the prof, it can get ugly (remember the age difference). Most kids don't have the confidence to argue oil politics with an english professor looking for a fight. So they keep quiet. The idea that these profs don't judge the kids who disagree is silly; these guys are generally nasty little pipsqueaks who wouldn't stand up to you or me, but with a kid who hasn't been around much, and needs the grade, they can be positively arrogant.
Situation #1 (Under Grad) Regarding a paper on Scientific Management and Frank Gilbreath (1868-1924).
Prof,"You have not been critical enough in this paper."
Self,"I was critical where I saw that it warranted critique. I found great benefits in its implementation from a business perspective and also found benefit from the human perspective. I have supported what I stated in my thesis.
Prof,"You need to write more about how this system has destroyed labor unions, people, etc . . . "
Self to self, "Hmmm, who is writing this paper anyway? This may affect my grade on the paper."
Note: There was always attacks on my sources when I had differing opinions, than the faculty. They would then orient me towards extreme liberal, socialist, communist authors and articles--no matter how appropriate my sources were. Of course, when my stand and sources agreed with theirs, I became an 'excellent student', 'highly intelligent', and quite honestly their little liberal darling.
Situation #2: (Master's Program) After listening to a rant against the movie, The Passion and a character assassination against Mel Gibson--and what a horrible director and actor he is--in a literature class for at least 40 minutes.
Me,"Have you seen The Passion?"
Faculty, with shock and distain,"What!?"
Me, "Have you seen The Passion?"
Prof, again with shock and distain, "No, I haven't."
Me,"Well, it is difficult to listen to this critique when someone has not seen the work, especially in an upper grad. College classroom."
Prof, "What are you religious or something?" Prof, pointing at the door, "Get out of my classroom."
Me,"This is not communist China at least the last I looked. This is an upper level graduate program, in which I assume discussing such an issue would be appropriate."
(Faculty was freaked out and flustered for not just the rest of the class, but would never engage in any type of conversation despite kind attempts on my behalf, for the rest of the semester.) Notes: I didn't leave the room that day. My grade was not as high at the end of the semester, despite excellent comments on my paper and superior grades. Sure I got an A, but an A-, which numerically is much less than an A. The only reason for the minus was personal. HMMMM.
Situation #3: Another Prof, looking around the group of students from one eye to the other, "I hope there are no closet Republicans in this class." This faculty too was always making fun of Christians and even eyed me once and asked if I agreed with him. I said I did not. He dropped it. I am a devout Christian. Maybe he could tell by my strength, kindness and peace. Who knows, but he asked no one else in the room. I had pretty severe stomach problems during the program that have cleared up upon graduation.
You may ask why didn't you build a case and sue their butts. Unfortunately the part of the career I'm in depends upon the contacts of these faculty and all it would take is a whisper campaign to not allow me to do part of what I adore and love and feel God has gifted me to do.
I certainly have mixed feelings about not holding their feet to the fire legally though. Especially the religious comments.
Sorry so long. But I felt this depth of description was warranted to accentuate my point that in spite of all additional stress and itimidation, conservatives excel in school and contrary to the article I did pay an occasional price with my grade and would have more if I wasn't as cautious as I eventually became. I believe the latter based on previous grading reductions at the end of the semester where I expressed my conservative views and stood by them. Not big as I said, but reduced none-the-less. In the top ten universities, there is a big difference over time with the adding up of A-, versus straight A s. This could affect my chances if I apply to highly competitive PHD programs, which they all are in my field.
copyright 2006 GOP Poet. This post is for the express use of dialogue, discussion as well as cutting and pasting for such a use on Free Republic Internet Blog only. Thank you for respecting this limited use of the content.
"...he was sending a not-so-subtle message that opposing points of view were not welcome...That is the very definition of bias."
Agreed. That is why a study that only looks at grade outcome is more or less bull. A better study might be one where students are asked if they have ever changed their academic behavior based on the professor's expressed political point of view.
Absolutely! This point is right on. If any faculty out there are willing to do such a study, please contact me.
You are so right. In the early nineties I remember arguing with some of my fellow college students after a class about the Cuban immigrants who left when Castro took over. A few of my fellow classmates agreed with what our cultural geography professor had said about them to wit that they were basically trash that Cuba was fortunate to get rid of. I reminded my friends that our professor was a left-wing Castro backer. They still believed him over me. I was unable to convince them that Castro was the criminal and not the Cubans who fled after he took power.
The tendency of many students is to regard the professor as being the supreme source for unimpeachable information. I could see then what damage leftist professors do to impressionable minds.
Could be that those conservatives who remain in class--remember most schools allow you to drop classes because of low grades--are those who can either work so well as to hold off downgrading or those who can fake it well.
Students are very good at figuring out what professors want to hear.
McVey
Attila: I find this statement an indication of bias in the article.
This isn't biased. I have a classmate who was apologized because she was taking a job as an insurance defense lawyer. Seems she felt like she was "selling out" because she was defending insurance defense companies, rather than working for the ACLU (which was her dream). Similarly, I know a lot of law students who studied environmental law only to find out that the only way it pays is to represent corporations (i.e., polluters).
Now, that said, as regards the thesis of this article - that conservative and liberal students do equally well in courses with politically charged content. That was my experience. Now, when I started law school, my political stances pretty much were generic for Free Republic. Now that I'm almost done with my 2nd year of law school, I have moved towards the center somewhat and became a Progressive - not in the silly sense that the Ralph Naderites think "Progressive" meant, but in the old Teddy Roosevelt style - believing the place of government is to act on behalf of the average, hard-working, blue-collar, law-abiding citizen. That said, while there are people to the right of me in the law school, I'm still further right than most of the students. I've taken quite unpopular stances in the law school (anti-abortion, pro-war but admitting Bush has screwed it up, law-and-order, and to an extent pro-corporate). I've never, ever felt pressure from the faculty, even though they're quite to the left of me. They've always encouraged me to take the opposite stand, and as long as I defended it well, they didn't care.
Some of the professors with whom I had the most fun were quite to the left of me. For instance, my Evidence professor was also a forensic psychiatrist who usually testifies on behalf of defendants. As a law-and-order type, we rarely saw the issues the same way. He never cared. He would call on me for the opposite perspective. He never belittled my arguments - though he would ruthlessly point out any holes in my reasoning.
I go to a law school where the faculty is almost uniformly liberal. The most conservative faculty members I am aware of are the one who calls himself "the last big-government Republican," and the other who calls himself a "Kennedy-style Democrat." Still, even where the professors themselves were members of the ACLU or were just quite liberal, I never, ever had a professor do anything but commend a well-explained argument.
Heck - my Constitutional law professor gave me an A in an exam where one of the questions was to pick a Con Law case we read, explain its reasoning, and explain why we thought it was wrongly decided. I picked Bush v. Gore and argued that it was a political question the Court should have deferred to the Constitutional process, and left it to the House. One of the few A's in that class.
There's hope for you yet. :-)
When I was in law school I was asked to do a law review comment on Wallace v. Jaffree. I expressed my utter disdain for the whole idea of the Lemon test and how it was unworkable and ought to be scrapped. Amazingly it got published without a single edit.
The next class that I have to take is "Public Speaking." I have already purchased the text book.
Thank goodness I will be in a class with a semi-conservative professor, in an apolitical (tech) school, in the conservative city of Colorado Springs. This textbook is, um, textbook indoctorination.
It is titled "Public Speaking," by Osborn and Osborn, ISBN 0-618-53195-5. This book is the biggest piece of PC propaganda that I have ever seen in my life.
When addressing "ethical public speaking," they bemoan the fact that some have taken Martin Luther King Jr.'s "content of their character" line out of context in opposing affirmative action. They praise Nancy Reagan as "prestige testimony," but only because she championed embryonic stem-cell research, and (conservatively) 90% of the photos depicting a person giving a persuasive, successful speech depict either a woman or an ethnic minority.
Reading this book is like being hit in the head with a 15 pound P.C. sledgehammer.
I can laugh it off because I'm old and set in my ways. But this book is targeted for traditionaly-aged college students. It is obviously written in an attempt to influence opinion and shape viewpoints in the minds of those just entering the real (voting) world.
No S**t Sherlock.
Maybe she graded her conservative/capitalist students fairly, I don't know. She should not have been permitted to use her classes for rank leftist political indoctrination.
Lest anyone believe that forcing students to mouth beliefs they don't hold is harmless, remember that that is one of the most basic brainwashing techniques used by enemy captors. If you can be made to parrot opinions others give you, pretty soon the line blurs, and you no longer know which opinions are yours and which come from outside.
Grade discrimination is a problem in ed schools (you know, the college where credential students get "educated" on how to teach).
Conservative students are generally made aware their views are not welcome in liberal classes regardless of discipline. The conservative student is therefore faced with a choice in choosing his or her discipline of study:
Cover up their own reasoned opinions in the pursuit of knowledge in their academic field?
Stay in the field, but risk being sanctioned and discriminated against for their reasoned opinions?
Or change their academic field to something where they know they will have less problem with political correctness?
The study appears to ignore cause and effect.
It should say that most (not all) conservative students are smart enough to keep their mouths shut, or speak/write what the prof wants to hear.
And another thing, academics are notably poor in self-regulation, as well as self-monitoring of their own performance. Most academics don't seem to attend each other's classes. I think the reason why is that they don't want to be perceived as even attempting to infringe on each others' "academic freedom" in regard to curriculum and teaching style. Performance seems strictly at departmental discretion, which means (in liberal dominated departments, at colleges whose faculty senate committees are similarly dominated by liberals, for grade appeals) the inmates are running the asylum, and no one can really say what is going on. One doesn't know one's performance if one lacks the tools and the oppportunity to measure. One can only express a general perception, which is what profs generally do on the topic of grade discrimination. The perception is then generally passed off as representative of fact-- voila, institutional bias.
Yah, I might agree there---but obviously I'm not in the Ed School. It also appears in the "requirements" that everyone take "diversity" or "harassment" classes.
The problem is not so much with "enforcement" or "regulation" as it is with the very structure of the classes themselves ("The West and the World" or "World Civilization" rather than "U.S. History" or "Western Civ"; "Women in Society" rather than "The Napoleonic Era.")
Think Flannery O'Connor. Think Ayn Rand. Conservative plays or plays confronting spiritual dilemnas. Poetry (same emphasis). The Visual Arts. There is a whole areana the conservative community is missing out on. Because the socialist, liberals control the areana where this talent is nurtured and also intially recognized. So what does a conservative artist do in a college level class? They pick up everything they can, try to be the best they can be and realize that in a profession where having the opportunity to have your work shown, published etc is already severly limited even for the most talented liberal artist, and that your best expressive work may never see the light of day and that is a sad, sad thing (because it may be considered extremely conservative or religious).
The conservative community is the one that pay the price-as the arts can bring much beauty into our lives and ask us to make connections we may otherwise not make and also allow us to think and feel in ways we don't in our daily lives. So we don't even engage in attendance at contemporary artist productions. Most of which are completely controlled and dominated liberal functions. Conservative artists in college pay a huge price and in order to get contacts, publication, must severly sublimate their conservative expression to rise up. Possibly planting a very conservative piece of work in an obscure publication or showing and hope like heck the liberal controllers of that industry don't spot it and decide upon another artist instead next time when picking an artist to represent. Some of the best work in history would be considered conservative and or religious now. So sad. Pray for the artists of tommorow that are conservatives. They need your prayers and your support. They won't be getting it from academia.
If I handed you one hundred dollars in small bills, would you count it?
Where are the professor's numbers in this report?
Even though they say they are anonymous, a student understands there is limits to this reliability. Unless you have 100 or so students filling out the evaluations, a student assumes if they write an evaluation that stands out, so will they and be spotted soon after as being the author. Until a system is created where evals are typed and placed in a box with a prof's name on it, unlinked to a specific class you won't get honest feedback. Period. Also the more the evaluator provides examples etc the more it can be tied back to who it may have been that wrote the eval.
Students these days are not only very savvy at surviving the thought police in academia, but paranoid as well and with good cause. The stakes can be very high. I think of the boy who recorded the professor in, what was it a junior high?, recently and the student, not the faculty ended up leaving the school.
Believe me the situation is very, very bad out there in academics right now. Our kids either drink the Kool Aid (unbeknownst even to them many times) or live a very cautious surreptitious existence or just pay a price-- go for it and express themselves--and sometimes that can turn out well for them. Lets hope the later is seen more often.
Most of the faculty at other schools I talk to report similar precautions.
In fact, I can say with some humility that I've had students write me later and list me . . . and an ultra leftie whom I know . . . as in the "top ten" influences on their lives. Again, in 25 years of experience, I have seen almost no grade retaliation, nor have I heard of any from four chairmen who served during this time and who were my friends. But you are welcome to believe what you want.
Clearly your department is not a field that depends on sustained faculty/student professional relationships that regardless of grades can make or break a career of the beginning of one. In many fields, not all obviously, who you know and your reputation within that field's community is critical to acceptance and success. Clearly, you are not in such a field.
It sounds as though you are proud of yourself and talk to a lot of faculty. This is only one side of the story. But hey, glad you feel good about yourself. In the end isn't this all that matters? I guess I am more of an idealist and believe education is not only for faculty but for students as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.