But you don’t have a problem with the two separate forms of self-selection in Klein’s study (i.e., self-selection in returning the survey and the self-selection inherent in which individuals choose which professional organizations)?

My problem with the Rothman study is that the 1987 study surveyed a completely different set of professors than the 1999 study. When you start excluding half of the previous sample — and when that half of the sample was decidedly more conservative — you’re still going to get extremely biased results.

I would have thought education and nursing would have been more left leaning due to their stereotypical “caring” nature, but things aren’t always as you assume.

That’s pretty much what I suspected. It’s not a question of the “caring” nature of the field so much as it is a question of the female-dominated nature of the field. Liberal women tend to think of settling down in their mid-to-late thirties, while more conservative women think of settling down in their mid-to-late twenties. I suspect it’s why more liberal women tend to become doctors and professors, while more conservative women become nurses and teachers.

Meredith, this is not a political blog where dismissing a study based on who its authors are associated with or your personal observation is par for the course. Read it, note its failings, and then feel free to conjecture that the reason for those failures is bias on the part of the authors.

I did. Wonder why I made detailed comments in response to your comments, but not TGGP and RWP? It’s because I’m an old pro when it comes to academic blogs, and I’m quite familiar with the telltale signs of a troll. I thought I was doing you a favor when it came to cutting their little trollish legs out from under them, but if you don’t want me here, fine. Point taken.

Ostensibly yes, but realistically, no. I’ve noticed that LAS econ profs join the AEA, but b-school econ profs usually join NABE and/or NBEA. In addition to the serious problems with sample size and self-selection he acknowledges, I think Klein seriously misunderstood the strength and nature of self-selection for the professional organizations he chose. It seems that he’s perpetuating Horowitz’s error, just in a more subtle manner at the professional organization level.

Meredith, this is not a political blog where dismissing a study based on who its authors are associated with or your personal observation is par for the course. Read it, note its failings, and then feel free to conjecture that the reason for those failures is bias on the part of the authors.

I place less weight on this study (I don’t think conservatives/christians are being locked out, I think self-selection is the biggest factor) than the other one, but it has wider scope and notes that among business professors the liberal conservative split is 49-39. I would have thought education and nursing would have been more left leaning due to their stereotypical “caring” nature, but things aren’t always as you assume.

Re-read my comments. First of all, I’m not talking about academia generally. Secondly, I’m not doubting that these studies come to this conclusion. What I am saying is that it’s important to put this in context. The context is leading toward a very peculiar kind of bias, and the studies you cite don’t transcend this bias — they merely reflect it.

What I find interesting is that the studies conservatives are particularly fond of (e.g., Horowitz, Klein) focus exclusively on programs located within Universities’ “Humanities and Social Sciences” divisions — but a lot of economists get tenure in business schools. The competition between the two is getting pretty intense, but I’d imagine that B-schools’ dramatically higher starting pay attracts the more conservative economists right out of school.

I just wonder whether a) this isn’t just my school and really is as widespread as the Chronicle makes it appear, and if so b) whether this could be the root of the center-left bias reported among economists in Klein.

Are you capable of making a legitimate argument instead of stringing together strawmen and ad homs?

In my experience, those who cite Cato and Critical Review aren’t interested in legitimate debate — they’re interested in personal attacks dressed up in the intelligentsia’s clothes. (Which your comment beautifully illustrates, BTW.)

Frankly, I don’t see any point in feeding trolls.

Do you see the world as ‘us’ and ‘them’? Why don’t you pick apart the study on its merits? Or can’t you?