14 Comments

Meredith,Can you provide examples of models which do better than economists' models at analyzing the indirect effects of, say, changes in income tax rates or the minimum wage?What is better about the models you prefer? In what way do they "go beyond basic algebra and calculus"?

Expand full comment

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 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.

Expand full comment

Meredith, this was not a post on how liberal academia is, so five comments on that topic here is a bit much. No more please.

Expand full comment

The survey the Klein study used was not sent to liberal arts colleges rather than business colleges but to professional associations. It even included people outside of academia, who tend to be less left-leaning.

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.

Expand full comment

It seems to me that the caliber of comments on this blog is declining. More moderation please, while it's still worth reading comments.

Expand full comment

The survey the Klein study used was not sent to liberal arts colleges rather than business colleges but to professional associations. It even included people outside of academia, who tend to be less left-leaning.

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.

Expand full comment

Meredith, I posted last November on studies showing academia tends liberal.

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.

Expand full comment

Meredith, I posted last November on studies showing academia tends liberal.

Expand full comment

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

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.

Expand full comment

Meredith,

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

Expand full comment

Call me crazy, but I'm a bit skeptical of evidence coming from Cato and a openly libertarian journal -- especially when only 260-some odd economists bothered returning the survey. As far as I can tell, it's just another shoddy study overhyped by the right-wing noise machine.

The big problem with research on academics' political leanings is that the people who care enough to research it are guided by a very specific agenda.

Expand full comment

Regarding Lakoff, this post from Mixing Memory about his feud with Pinker is quite good.

Expand full comment

Economics is not a conservative profession. The average economist is a moderate democrat (as pointed out by Bryan Caplan). They are simply less left-leaning than other parts of academia. This is not due merely to heaps of libertarian economists being "socially liberal", they really are few on the ground but noisy on the internet. See this by Daniel Klein that restricts its analysis to social scientists but does a cluster analysis of political opinions. They only seem prevalent because there as many of them as there are conservatives, but there are a lot fewer conservatives within academic economics than the general population.

Expand full comment

he shows no familiarity with most of the relevant science of complex effects of human action (e.g. economics, especially public choice economics).

If economics really were about studying the "complex effects of human action," they'd be using far more complex mathematical models. Instead, economists rarely go beyond basic algebra and calculus: simple, direct mathematical models that are only helpful for studying society if you presume society operates exclusively by simple, direct causation.

It seems that the conservatives self-selection into economic academia ultimately buttresses Lakoff's point, albeit at a subtle, methodological level.

Expand full comment