schools' mean LSAT Forum

[Tex_Mex13]

Texas A&M - 155

[n4sir1999]

...

[wakama]

I think it's hilarious that a bunch of closed-minded Mormons at BYU beat out the rich pricks at USC.

HILARIOUS

[Go Bears]

I can't believe Yale and Harvard are only 165 and 166!

I thought the same exact thing. Almost makes me mad I didn't apply myself in high school more. I had just always assumed there was no way little old blue-collar me could compete with the smarties who went to places like Harvard, Princeton, UChicago and Yale.

When I have children, the biggest thing I'm going to do is instill in them the idea that no doors are closed to them. I think my parents implied that they were.

[ari20dal7]

I think it's hilarious that a bunch of compulsive, hard working, self-selecting Mormons at BYU beat out the rich pricks at USC.

Fixed right up. As mentioned earlier in this thread, BYU undergrad and law has its share of people who could have gone anywhere they pleased. I wouldn't ever go to BYU, but there are some plenty smart people there, and they're not going to be any more closed minded than the country club Republicans that populate the legal community. Fit right in, if you ask me.

[nailbiter]

Country club Republicans? I thought that law firms skewed heavily Democratic, eg by campaign contributions.

[vtjas81]

Towson University: 148

[Sammyler]

I think I have the lowest

Southern Illinois University-146

Edit: Didn't see valdosta state

[n4sir1999]

...

[kill the headlights]

I think it's hilarious that a bunch of closed-minded Mormons at BYU beat out the rich pricks at USC.

HILARIOUS

Close-minded? Apparently different beliefs than one's own are close-minded. I think it is pretty close minded to claim that other ideologies are close-minded. I completely disagree with many other religions viewpoints but I don't consider them close-minded. It is funny that people are upset at others for not accepting their beliefs but those same people are not accepting the people's beliefs they are criticizing. I think Stanley Fish calls that "Boutique Multiculturalism".

Also, why would that be hilarious, are close-minded people notorious for poor test scores?

[Hitachi]

Not to say that I necessarily think this about BYU, but I think it's possible to say that students at a particular religious-based institution are close-minded without intending to single out any ideology. One could have the opinion that people who choose to attend any mono-religious school, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon, Muslim etc. are more close-minded, since they are unwilling to encounter the wider range of opinions at a non-denominational university like Harvard or Yale.

Similarly, the mere fact that someone accuses students at a school of being close-minded, and that school happens to be a certain religion, doesn't mean that they are claiming that religion to be close-minded. Students at Regent or Bob Jones tend to be very close-minded, but that doesn't mean Protestants or all Protestant schools are inherently so.

[ari20dal7]

Oh, BYU is certainly closed-minded. I don't think there's any question about that. But I'd say the average student there isn't any less open than anyone else: it's just that others have shut down over different things. People aren't really going to BYU to experience different cultures: they're going to get more into their own, and I see no problem with that. Regent has its place as well: at least BYU's a good school......

[kill the headlights]

Not to say that I necessarily think this about BYU, but I think it's possible to say that students at a particular religious-based institution are close-minded without intending to single out any ideology. One could have the opinion that people who choose to attend any mono-religious school, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon, Muslim etc. are more close-minded, since they are unwilling to encounter the wider range of opinions at a non-denominational university like Harvard or Yale.

Similarly, the mere fact that someone accuses students at a school of being close-minded, and that school happens to be a certain religion, doesn't mean that they are claiming that religion to be close-minded. Students at Regent or Bob Jones tend to be very close-minded, but that doesn't mean Protestants or all Protestant schools are inherently so.

I disagree. When someone says that someone is close-minded it is almost always referring to that person, or people, not accepting a belief that the person who is claiming close-mindedness believes in. So when someone says that someone is close-minded it is really saying, they won't accept things that I believe in. If the person claiming this was really open-minded they would allow the other people to have their own opinion without calling it close-minded. Usually when people say someone is close-minded they are just saying someone has different beliefs, and since these different beliefs don't match up with theirs they just throw them into the category of close-minded, instead of acknowledging that people have different ideologies.

I think being close-minded is when you have a belief and you won't listen to reason on why it is wrong. I think, by and large, people at BYU are willing to listen to other viewpoints, but none of them are convincing. BYU is just as close minded as Harvard and the other schools you list. BYU is seemingly close-minded about religious issues, and Harvard is just as close-minded in not listening to them also, just in different directions.

But again, most people just lump someone with different religious perspectives into the group "close-minded" because it is easier than having to hear them out. Just brush them off as irrational, then we don't have to think about anything.

I wouldn't categorize a whole school or religion as close-minded, I think it is a rather close-minded approach.

[kill the headlights]

Oh, BYU is certainly closed-minded. I don't think there's any question about that. But I'd say the average student there isn't any less open than anyone else:

If they aren't any more close-minded than anyone else is it worth saying they are close-minded. I don't think so.

[ari20dal7]

KTH: I think it's fair to note that the range of opinions you can express at BYU is more limited than at other universities, but you're right that BYU kids aren't necessarily going to be less reasonable than any others. The key difference in my mind is that the number of sacred cows at BYU is much, much higher than at some random university, and the penalties for dissent much more harsh.

But, again, you know that going in. I'm Mormon and I would never attend BYU, just because I don't feel my beliefs are welcome. That's a good argument against going to BYU, but it's not a particularly good reason to look down on those who do.

[kill the headlights]

KTH: I think it's fair to note that the range of opinions you can express at BYU is more limited than at other universities, but you're right that BYU kids aren't necessarily going to be less reasonable than any others. The key difference in my mind is that the number of sacred cows at BYU is much, much higher than at some random university, and the penalties for dissent much more harsh.

But, again, you know that going in. I'm Mormon and I would never attend BYU, just because I don't feel my beliefs are welcome. That's a good argument against going to BYU, but it's not a particularly good reason to look down on those who do.

That doesn't make it close-minded. Having many "sacred cows" at BYU doesn't make it close-minded either. There being penalties for violations of these "sacred cows" isn't close-minded either. We would think it was ridiculous if a country called us close-minded for us penalizing thieves. Well, that is because we don't think having thieves helps us as a society, and similarly, BYU doesn't think violations of its sacred cows helps its community. People valuing different things doesn't make them close-minded, it makes them different. Again, I think it is close-minded to call others close-minded.

People are willing to accept differences as long as those differences don't go against their own, as soon as they do they pull back their allowance for difference.

[kill the headlights]

Read this article, it is eye-opening and will let many of us recognize that while we claim we allow for difference, we actually don't.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-1 ... 2.0.CO;2-B

[ari20dal7]

OK, but there's a major difference between punishing thieves and punishing critics of the campus' policies on homosexuality. I'm not criticizing BYU for that, but silencing speech seems to be the essence of what being closed-minded means: a desire to stifle dialogue rather than confront it.

BYU has its place, and if one wishes to play their game, it's a fine school. But let's not pretend that BYU is no different than any other institution. Its policies are distinctive and offer clear advantages and disadvantages to prospective students, and one of those disadvantages is the administration's clear willingness to silence speech that it does not like. Silencing speech is not the same thing as punishing behavior, and I believe that this should be fairly clear.

[wardboro]

...

[nailbiter]

[edit]

[ari20dal7]

Yes, actually, they are. A conservative Mormon will not be kicked out of school for declaring his/her religious beliefs. A gay person who thinks BYU should accept homosexuals just might have to leave. This is a huge difference and I'm shocked that people can't see it. It's the difference between the landlord not liking you because of your religion and the landlord evicting you because of your beliefs.

This isn't about whether or not there's a mutual respect on campus: it's about whether the administration will do things to coerce you into not saying what you think. All universities do this with hate speech, but beyond that, BYU is a rare institution in its willingness to keep people on the margins quiet by coercive means. Again, for the fourth time, I'm not against going to BYU, but it's a very different place with very different standards. Whether this is a good thing is entirely up to you, but one absolutely cannot argue that BYU is just as open as Cornell. That's not true and the administration is proud of that. Why can't we acknowledge something in which the university takes pride?

[nailbiter]

[edit]

[ari20dal7]

OK, I might concede that student bodies are less tolerant of rightists than lefties in many cases. But, three key distinctions:

1) "Chilled" is not "silenced", particularly when it's not the administration doing the chilling. Seriously, have you ever heard of an administration stopping the College Republicans or the local right to life group from meeting? Have you ever seen an evangelical group on campus stripped of its right to meet, or have people thrown out of the school for that? OU is pretty friendly to conservatives, and liberals are mocked fairly frequently. I imagine the reverse is true at NYU. But kicking students out isn't a difference of means: it's a whole new ballgame, the difference between criticizing and deportation.

2) The whole notion of enforcing standards of speech is pretty extreme. We've seen hate speech curtailed everywhere, so to some extent this is a matter of degree. But the idea that homosexuals ought to have equal access to campus strikes me as a pretty mainstream position, or at least is no more liberal than "stop abortion now!" is conservative. Can you show me an example of mainstream rhetoric like this that's been banned by a school administration? Short of neo-Nazi rhetoric, I can't think of any university that is silencing rightists in any way (neo-Nazis are, of course, not to be equated with garden variety conservatives). You might argue that faculty hires are predominantly liberal, but I'd say that's more a matter of self-selection than conscious policy.

3) Are other schools openly proud of the fact that they silence conservatives? Can you show me anything like BYU's "institutional academic freedom" statement from "leftist" universities?

[kill the headlights]

I think it stems from beliefs. Cornell doesn't think that homosexuality is wrong. If it doesn't think it is wrong why would they try to stop it? (Quick side note: it is funny how far this thread has wandered--acknowledging it was largely my doing by commenting on a comment that was a side note). I don't think that trying to stop speech is close-minded either. If someone believes a mentality to be harmful--and believes advocating that mentality is harmful--then it isn't being close-minded to try and stop it, it is being intelligent (not commenting on the mentality, just on their desire to stop something they believe is harmful).

I readily acknowledge that BYU doesn't allow free speech as much as others, but that doesn't make them close-minded. I think EVERY school limits speech on things that they think are harmful, like hate speech. I don't consider schools close-minded when they limit hate speech, that is their ideology (that it is wrong) and they don't want it advocated. Same for any other institution. BYU just believes that many more things are harmful than other institutions. People let schools that limit hate speech get by without being close-minded because they AGREE with limiting hate speech. But if it is something that they disagree with they call it close-mindedness.

Yes, actually, they are. A conservative Mormon will not be kicked out of school for declaring his/her religious beliefs. A gay person who thinks BYU should accept homosexuals just might have to leave. This is a huge difference and I'm shocked that people can't see it. It's the difference between the landlord not liking you because of your religion and the landlord evicting you because of your beliefs.

I am surprised you can't see the similarity between actions and beliefs. Advocating homosexuality is an ACTION. They think it is just as harmful as committing the act, as it leads others to commit the act. They consider this harmful, just like they would consider a thief harming someone. To go along with your landlord analogy, this is like someone stealing from the landlord, and someone else going around telling people to steal from the landlord. While they are not committing the act, they are committed to advocating something that the institution deems harmful. Why would you let someone advocate something that you believe is going to hurt others (hate speech)? Other schools just don't consider many things harmful (and I am not judging them), but BYU does, it would be open-minded to allow them their mentalities without crying foul.

Now, to be fair, some people might consider BYU's decision to not allow practicing homosexuals admittance as harmful, and I think they would have the right to cry foul on it. And I wouldn't consider that close-minded, I would consider crying foul about something you consider harmful as good common sense. Just as BYU does about many things.

[kill the headlights]

OK, I might concede that student bodies are less tolerant of rightists than lefties in many cases. But, three key distinctions:

1) "Chilled" is not "silenced", particularly when it's not the administration doing the chilling. Seriously, have you ever heard of an administration stopping the College Republicans or the local right to life group from meeting? Have you ever seen an evangelical group on campus stripped of its right to meet, or have people thrown out of the school for that? OU is pretty friendly to conservatives, and liberals are mocked fairly frequently. I imagine the reverse is true at NYU. But kicking students out isn't a difference of means: it's a whole new ballgame, the difference between criticizing and deportation.

2) The whole notion of enforcing standards of speech is pretty extreme. We've seen hate speech curtailed everywhere, so to some extent this is a matter of degree. But the idea that homosexuals ought to have equal access to campus strikes me as a pretty mainstream position, or at least is no more liberal than "stop abortion now!" is conservative. Can you show me an example of mainstream rhetoric like this that's been banned by a school administration? Short of neo-Nazi rhetoric, I can't think of any university that is silencing rightists in any way (neo-Nazis are, of course, not to be equated with garden variety conservatives). You might argue that faculty hires are predominantly liberal, but I'd say that's more a matter of self-selection than conscious policy.

3) Are other schools openly proud of the fact that they silence conservatives? Can you show me anything like BYU's "institutional academic freedom" statement from "leftist" universities?

Your argument seems somewhat unfair. If it isn't mainstream silencing then it shouldn't be allowed. I disagree with that completely, because that means that only those groups that are moderate in their viewpoints can have opinions. And again, it seems like you allow for people to silence things YOU AGREE with, but if you don't agree then you cast it off. That is cafeteria tolerance (which I don't think is necessarily wrong, but I think it needs to be admitted--and therefore acknowledged as being just as close-minded as those who you are calling close-minded).

Sorry, this thread has been severely hijacked. I must say, this is why I am leaving Provo to go to school somewhere else, I love the dialogue when there is a difference of opinions.