How to get into HLS? Forum

[gnomgnomuch]

Who is Michael Savage?

I am so sick and tired of everyone with their complaints about PTSD, depression. Everyone wants their hand held, and a government check.... Everyone has depression in their life. But if the whole nation is told, “boo-hoo-hoo, come and get a medication, come and get treatment, talk about mental illness.” You know what you wind up with? You wind up with Obama in the White House and liars in every phase of the government. That’s what you wind up with. It’s a weak, sick, nation. A weak, sick, broken nation. And you need men like me to save the country. You need men to stand up and say stop crying like a baby over everything.

Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, "Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot."

Barack Obama is elected for another four-year term, he’ll be president for life. He’ll be the new Hugo Chavez. He’ll do away with the two-term limit and win the 2016 election with 90 percent of the vote. We have less than six months to make sure this doesn’t happen.

The employment figures released by federal government agencies are fraudulent. Real unemployment in the United States is not under 7 percent; it’s closer to 37 percent, despite what the White House, the Fed, and the U.S. Treasury try to tell you.

Nebby, you're a champ. Yep, Vulpes, this sums him up well. Think of him as a slightly more extreme Rush Limbaugh. Daniel Tosh used to have a funny standup joke about how he starts with something that has mass appeal and keeps going until only one person has a clue about what he's talking about. Michael Savage is like that politically. He'll start with something that many people would agree with, like from the above, many would agree that autism has been somewhat overdiagnosed. Then he keeps going more and more out there until only extremists agree with him. Also, I don't know if you can tell, since he's very subtle about it, but he's not Obama's biggest fan.

OP, as for you, no one's asking you to become a liberal. But if you're conservative, go to a conservative college, then a conservative law school, and then a conservative firm, you're really missing out on half of life. Some beliefs can be powerful tools for you, while others will constantly hold you back from your full potential. At those schools, you'll never find anyone to challenge your beliefs. Challenging your beliefs is by no means easy. Holding onto them can make you feel safe and stable in a difficult time. It can be difficult recognizing that the ideas you trust could be false; but, if you think about it clearly and objectively, you’ll realize that a true belief will always stand up to even the strictest scrutiny. Expanding your horizons can actually strengthen your preexisting notions, but if you fail to do so, those beliefs are no better than fairy tales to you. If you go to a public school like one of the three I mentioned, then you're not only saving valuable money, you're constantly coming in contact with others (faculty and students) with a wide variety of beliefs and backgrounds, causing you to constantly reevaluate your own, making you a better person.

And before you scream at me for being a pompous, gay-marrying elitist heathen, know I was raised Christian and that I'm pretty much politically moderate.

Think of him as a slightly more extreme Rush Limbaugh.

o_______________O

[A. Nony Mouse]

I never said I wanted to go to a conservative law school. My dream is HLS, and that's certainly not conservative. PHC sends students to Harvard and Yale Law every year. I don't see why going there for UG is such a bad idea.

Students who have a great GPA and LSAT are going to get in almost anywhere, regardless of school. There are high achievers everywhere. The problem with PHC is that it looks extreme - it's new, it's tiny, it's openly evangelical, it doesn't take federal funding so it doesn't have to comply with any federal reporting requirements or Title IX (there is apparently a concern that there has been a coverup of sexual assaults). It screams "this school was founded because all the other schools out there are too liberal/secular" (you can't claim that there was some kind of lack of colleges/universities around in 2000, which suggests it was founded for an ideological purpose). I'm sure some high-performing people have attended, but it gives off an extreme, anti-government kind of vibe. I'm not saying the problem is that it's conservative, it's that it's THAT conservative, especially combined with the evangelical approach. In some circles, people will think it's great, but they will probably be small circles. People are going to lump it with Liberty and Bob Jones - extremist religious-based education opposed to mainstream culture.

Again, some people will think this all makes you great. But if you change your politics in future this will follow you for the rest of your life. And even if you don't, people who aren't like-minded will have the kind of negative reaction people here are having. You can call that closed-minded and maybe it is, but you will still have to deal with it - whereas if you go to a more "neutral" school, you won't get such a strong reaction before people even meet you, just based on where you went to school.

To the extent the academic side is what's really drawing you, look into St. John's University. That's still probably going to signal conservative, but not quite so extreme.

[landshoes]

If I found out that someone went to PHC it would make me hesitate before hiring them. I would have to consider whether that person chose PHC because they were willing to pay a very high cost in order to completely avoid people with differing beliefs. Then I would consider what it says about someone that they care so much about completely avoiding people with differing beliefs. Then I would consider what social skills they missed out on while being immersed in an environment that was purposefully socially unchallenging in a way that was unreflective of a work environment, and what it means about their ability in the future to deal with people with different beliefs and backgrounds.

Or, in other words, I wouldn't want to hire someone who was going to say some crazy shit the first time they found out that a coworker or a client was a single mother, or Jewish, or an athiest, or whatever. Both for liability/HR reasons and because they would be insufferable.

So if you do go to PHC, you should find some way to signal that you can deal with different types of people and that you have the ability to STFU when it's wise to do so. That might mitigate a lot of the negative shit that people may assume about you for going there.

[BigZuck]

How the hell does someone become "fiscally conservative" at 18?

Do 18 year olds fiscal anything in their life? Don't their parents mostly pay for their dumb crap? Or they have some crappy job they work at to buy their dumb crap?

I don't get how someone could possibly have any frame of reference or a well-developed viewpoint on anything when they're still in high school. And to say "I'll never do or be _______" is just super bizarro to me. Not that I wasn't there at some point myself. But now that I am an old, that type of statement seems ridiculous to me.

[landshoes]

strong identification with political beliefs (think bumper stickers) always kinda makes me "meh" about a given person

it seems pretty foolish given how much politicians and other people with political power give a shit about you (not at all)

[totesTheGoat]

If I found out that someone went to PHC it would make me hesitate before hiring them. I would have to consider whether that person chose PHC because they were willing to pay a very high cost in order to completely avoid people with differing beliefs. Then I would consider what it says about someone that they care so much about completely avoiding people with differing beliefs. Then I would consider what social skills they missed out on while being immersed in an environment that was purposefully socially unchallenging in a way that was unreflective of a work environment, and what it means about their ability in the future to deal with people with different beliefs and backgrounds.

Or, in other words, I wouldn't want to hire someone who was going to say some crazy shit the first time they found out that a coworker or a client was a single mother, or Jewish, or an athiest, or whatever. Both for liability/HR reasons and because they would be insufferable.

Not trying to be a dick, but would you do the same analysis for an Oberlin grad? Or is it just rabid conservatives that are an HR liability?

A lot of times this "differing beliefs" schtick rubs me a bit funny. Coming from a STEM background, I couldn't have cared less about the beliefs of my classmates and professors. I was there to learn engineering, not to have my "mind expanded" by people whose values and principles were nothing like my own.

Point being that anybody who will reject (or be highly skeptical of) a law resume simply based on the applicant's UG college's political leanings is much more of an HR issue than the applicant, IMO.

[basedvulpes]

Post removed.

[landshoes]

If I found out that someone went to PHC it would make me hesitate before hiring them. I would have to consider whether that person chose PHC because they were willing to pay a very high cost in order to completely avoid people with differing beliefs. Then I would consider what it says about someone that they care so much about completely avoiding people with differing beliefs. Then I would consider what social skills they missed out on while being immersed in an environment that was purposefully socially unchallenging in a way that was unreflective of a work environment, and what it means about their ability in the future to deal with people with different beliefs and backgrounds.

Or, in other words, I wouldn't want to hire someone who was going to say some crazy shit the first time they found out that a coworker or a client was a single mother, or Jewish, or an athiest, or whatever. Both for liability/HR reasons and because they would be insufferable.

Not trying to be a dick, but would you do the same analysis for an Oberlin grad? Or is it just rabid conservatives that are an HR liability?

A lot of times this "differing beliefs" schtick rubs me a bit funny. Coming from a STEM background, I couldn't have cared less about the beliefs of my classmates and professors. I was there to learn engineering, not to have my "mind expanded" by people whose values and principles were nothing like my own.

Point being that anybody who will reject (or be highly skeptical of) a law resume simply based on the applicant's UG college's political leanings is much more of an HR issue than the applicant, IMO.

No, I probably wouldn't do the same analysis for an Oberlin grad. My argument rests on the fact that Patrick Henry is inherently unappealing unless you are the kind of person who really values being in a belief bubble and who is trying to avoid experiencing diverse values and beliefs. That kind of person is the kind of person who consequently might be assumed to not value working in a diverse environment, and not have the skills necessary to do so.

Oberlin is appealing regardless of whether a person values a belief bubble, and, frankly, it is likely to be significantly more diverse than Patrick Henry, so a given person's attending Oberlin does not provide the same kind of evidence about that person as a potential employee as does that person choosing to attend Patrick Henry. In fact, someone might attend Oberlin and in their heart of hearts hate diversity. But them going to Oberlin doesn't indicate that in any serious way.

In other words, I'm not saying that someone going to Duke would lead me to assume that they're likely to be a conservative frat bro who only wants to hang with other conservative frat bros. That would be sort of dumb given that Duke has a lot of other things going for it. Duke is a great school, gives big scholarships to select in-state students, has a wide variety of programs, has a great local reputation and a good national reputation, provides substantial financial aid, I could go on and on. However, it's clear that most of Patrick Henry's appeal is its ideology and its unwillingness to admit challenges to that ideology--and in fact, OP has specifically stated that homogeneity of ideology is a huge factor in his desire to attend Patrick Henry.

Do you get what I am saying about the evidentiary value of knowing that someone has purposefully chosen to attend Patrick Henry, and why that decision might give HR departments pause?

[totesTheGoat]

No, I probably wouldn't do the same analysis for an Oberlin grad. My argument rests on the fact that Patrick Henry is inherently unappealing unless you are the kind of person who really values being in a belief bubble and who is trying to avoid experiencing diverse values and beliefs. That kind of person is the kind of person who consequently might be assumed to not value working in a diverse environment, and not have the skills necessary to do so.

Oberlin is appealing regardless of whether a person values a belief bubble, and, frankly, it is likely to be significantly more diverse than Patrick Henry, so a given person's attending Oberlin does not provide the same kind of evidence about that person as a potential employee as does that person choosing to attend Patrick Henry.

You're concerned about a "belief bubble" at Patrick Henry, but not at Oberlin? I have to question your objectivity.

Just like Patrick Henry, you can get a more respected education for less money than Oberlin at various public and private schools. Just like Patrick Henry, you're telegraphing your politics if you go to Oberlin.

Just because Oberlin has a longer history and is a ton more prestigious than a brand new "evangelical" school doesn't mean they don't suffer from the same exact problem. Despite Oberlin's quality as a liberal arts school, an Oberlin degree, just like a Patrick Henry degree, says more (on a national stage) about one's politics than their qualifications.

It just seems really odd to me that you think that Patrick Henry is some intellectually isolated conservative bubble, but Oberlin is some paragon of diversity. Sure, there are probably people of every skin color and sexual orientation at Oberlin, but beyond URM diversity Oberlin is as monolithic and isolated as Patrick Henry.

[landshoes]

No, I probably wouldn't do the same analysis for an Oberlin grad. My argument rests on the fact that Patrick Henry is inherently unappealing unless you are the kind of person who really values being in a belief bubble and who is trying to avoid experiencing diverse values and beliefs. That kind of person is the kind of person who consequently might be assumed to not value working in a diverse environment, and not have the skills necessary to do so.

Oberlin is appealing regardless of whether a person values a belief bubble, and, frankly, it is likely to be significantly more diverse than Patrick Henry, so a given person's attending Oberlin does not provide the same kind of evidence about that person as a potential employee as does that person choosing to attend Patrick Henry.

You're concerned about a "belief bubble" at Patrick Henry, but not at Oberlin? I have to question your objectivity.

Just like Patrick Henry, you can get a more respected education for less money than Oberlin at various public and private schools. Just like Patrick Henry, you're telegraphing your politics if you go to Oberlin.

Just because Oberlin has a longer history and is a ton more prestigious than a brand new "evangelical" school doesn't mean they don't suffer from the same exact problem. Despite Oberlin's quality as a liberal arts school, an Oberlin degree, just like a Patrick Henry degree, says more (on a national stage) about one's politics than their qualifications.

It just seems really odd to me that you think that Patrick Henry is some intellectually isolated conservative bubble, but Oberlin is some paragon of diversity. Sure, there are probably people of every skin color and sexual orientation at Oberlin, but beyond URM diversity Oberlin is as monolithic and isolated as Patrick Henry.

"besides literal diversity, there's no diversity at oberlin"

fucking duhhhhhhhh

this argument is not credible. and it's not responsive, either, because you are just completely failing to follow my argument. IT DOESN'T MATTER (to my argument) IF OBERLIN IS MORE OR LESS DIVERSE THAN PATRICK HENRY. What matters is that a person could very easily decide to attend oberlin without caring about its political/ideological diversity (or lack thereof). The same argument applied to Patrick Henry is not at all credible because its major draw is its ideology.

what is actually true in the real world is that patrick henry signals a fuckton of things about OP, one of them being "this person might not be willing or able to work well with people who aren't evangelicals".

(the counterexample you're looking for would be Smith or Mt Holyoke or similar schools that purposefully limit the diversity of their student body in order to create a certain experience for their students)

[RaceJudicata]

Don't truly know much about Oberlin or PHC. And without trying to get into a philosophical debate, lets look at them from surface level ... i.e. their websites.

Of course, they can put anything they want on there, but i think they are telling:

Oberlin's slogan headline on site: (home.oberlin.edu)

OBERLIN IS A PLACE OF
INTENSE ENERGY AND CREATIVITY,
built on a foundation of
academic, artistic, & musical excellence.
With its longstanding commitments to
access, diversity, & inclusion,
Oberlin is the ideal laboratory in which to
study and design the world we want.

...fine, your typical liberal arts type nonsense, seemingly normal.


VS.

PHC (phc.edu)

"Patrick Henry College: for Christ and for Liberty"

....not normal, whatsoever

[A. Nony Mouse]

Fair or not, most people are going to view a new school that refuses federal funding so it isn't required to comply with federal reporting requirements under various civil rights statutes, which is expressly Christian, and which is tiny and only offers majors in Government (American politics and policy, international politics and policy, or political theory), Strategic Intelligence in National Security, Economics & Business Analytics, Journalism, History, Literature, or Classical Liberal Arts differently from a liberal arts college which has been around since 1833, has a long-standing reputation for academic excellence, as well as a reputation for being liberal, and is nondemoninational. Maybe eventually PHC will get develop such a reputation, but they're not currently comparable.

[totesTheGoat]

"besides literal diversity, there's no diversity at oberlin"

fucking duhhhhhhhh

Yes, millions of naive white suburban kids pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to be exposed to black and brown people.

Maybe, just maybe, "diversity" in the context of "expanding minds" and "differing beliefs" means intellectual diversity. Just a thought.

this argument is not credible. and it's not responsive, either, because you are just completely failing to follow my argument. IT DOESN'T MATTER (to my argument) IF OBERLIN IS MORE OR LESS DIVERSE THAN PATRICK HENRY. What matters is that a person could very easily decide to attend oberlin without caring about its political/ideological diversity (or lack thereof). The same argument applied to Patrick Henry is not at all credible because its major draw is its ideology.

I follow perfectly. I just disagree with the bolded part. Oberlin is where rich yuppies send their kids when they think the Ivies are too conservative.

Oberlin is $50k a year. Some kid isn't just waltzing in to Oberlin because of their Chemistry or Biology program when they can go down the street to OSU or Kent State or Toledo and pay less than half as much for a better degree. Kids go to Oberlin because either their parents are paying their way for a "proper liberal education" or because they want to take majors like Africana Studies, East Asian Studies, Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies, Comparative American Studies, or Environmental Studies.

My entire point and why I brought Oberlin up is that the major draw to Oberlin is its ideology, but somehow you're willing to treat Oberlin differently. I can't tell if it's "icky conservative" syndrome or that you just don't know that much about Oberlin and who attends Oberlin.

what is actually true in the real world is that patrick henry signals a fuckton of things about OP, one of them being "this person might not be willing or able to work well with people who aren't evangelicals".

What is actually true is that your judgment of the OP solely based on his potential UG school shows more about you than it does about the OP.

(the counterexample you're looking for would be Smith or Mt Holyoke or similar schools that purposefully limit the diversity of their student body in order to create a certain experience for their students)

I don't know those places, so I can't comment.

[landshoes]

you literally think that patrick henry and oberlin have similar amounts of "intellectual diversity"?

that is just an embarrassing belief, dude. it's really really embarrassing.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I actually don't think people send their kids to Oberlin because the Ivies are too conservative. They send their kids to Oberlin because they want the small liberal arts experience for them, and they highly value that form of education, and it may be a better location/they have a better shot of getting in/etc. The major draw is that it's highly ranked. I think it gets its extra-liberal vibe particularly because it's historically been strong in music and the arts, which tend toward the boho and so on. But for plenty of people, Oberlin isn't a liberal boogieman, it's just another SLAC like Kenyon or Amherst or Grinnell or whatever. To the extent you think all those are liberal boogiemen - eh. Academia generally skews liberal. They're academic institutions. (Claiming to know Oberlin but not knowing Smith/Holyoke doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, to be honest.)

[libertttarian]

If I found out that someone went to PHC it would make me hesitate before hiring them. I would have to consider whether that person chose PHC because they were willing to pay a very high cost in order to completely avoid people with differing beliefs. Then I would consider what it says about someone that they care so much about completely avoiding people with differing beliefs. Then I would consider what social skills they missed out on while being immersed in an environment that was purposefully socially unchallenging in a way that was unreflective of a work environment, and what it means about their ability in the future to deal with people with different beliefs and backgrounds.

Or, in other words, I wouldn't want to hire someone who was going to say some crazy shit the first time they found out that a coworker or a client was a single mother, or Jewish, or an athiest, or whatever. Both for liability/HR reasons and because they would be insufferable.

So if you do go to PHC, you should find some way to signal that you can deal with different types of people and that you have the ability to STFU when it's wise to do so. That might mitigate a lot of the negative shit that people may assume about you for going there.

(Liberal arts grad making sweeping generalizations about the productivity of students based on the political and religious ideologies of the school they attend, while simultaneously touting the ability of liberal arts grads to engage fairly with others regardless of political or religious differences.)

[gnomgnomuch]

I don't get the Oberlin/PHC comparsion.

Oberlin is undoubtedly a liberal school, but it's nowhere near the rabid level of conservatism (but for the left) that PHC has. I'm 100% sure that there are conservatives at Oberlin, I know this because I have conservative friends who went there - and Bryn Maw, and Amherst and Wesleyan. These are small LAC's that are considered good, if not necessarily great, schools. (Granted, I'm sure that my saying this means jack, but there it is.)

PHC is a far right school, that does everything it can to avoid any semblance of diversity. It's not considered a good school - from my limited knowledge, I could be wrong there - and I'm almost positive that a liberal would not go, no matter how excellent a university it might be, because it would be an environment that ONLY a conservative - and by that I mean far right - could be comfortable in.

Also, I have met SO many people who turned town full rides at "lower" state schools for the privilege of racking up 200k in debt to go to an "elite" school. I've also had friends transfer out from my undergrad and go to Cornell, UCLA/USC, Vanderbilt, Berk, etc. They ended up with 100k+ of debt. People everywhere are chasing prestige - fuck, that's what half of this entire website is, people telling people to take the money and then watching people make decisions that can ruin them financially. And these are frequently ADULT'S we're talking about, forget about when you're a 17 year old.

[totesTheGoat]

you literally think that patrick henry and oberlin have similar amounts of "intellectual diversity"?

that is just an embarrassing belief, dude. it's really really embarrassing.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

I actually don't think people send their kids to Oberlin because the Ivies are too conservative. They send their kids to Oberlin because they want the small liberal arts experience for them, and they highly value that form of education, and it may be a better location/they have a better shot of getting in/etc. The major draw is that it's highly ranked. I think it gets its extra-liberal vibe particularly because it's historically been strong in music and the arts, which tend toward the boho and so on. But for plenty of people, Oberlin isn't a liberal boogieman, it's just another SLAC like Kenyon or Amherst or Grinnell or whatever. To the extent you think all those are liberal boogiemen - eh. Academia generally skews liberal. They're academic institutions. (Claiming to know Oberlin but not knowing Smith/Holyoke doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, to be honest.)

It's not about "liberal boogiemen," it's about intellectual diversity. landshoes made the claim that s/he would be skeptical of a PHC candidate because they may be a liability/HR issue (due to the college's ideological bias or "belief bubble"). When I presented a college (Oberlin) that is notoriously ideologically biased in the opposite direction, the goalposts started moving. To restate my original question (and the entire reason for bringing up Oberlin): Setting aside whether a degree from PHC is worth a lick, why is a PHC grad an HR issue, but an Oberlin grad isn't?

[landshoes]

you literally think that patrick henry and oberlin have similar amounts of "intellectual diversity"?

that is just an embarrassing belief, dude. it's really really embarrassing.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

I actually don't think people send their kids to Oberlin because the Ivies are too conservative. They send their kids to Oberlin because they want the small liberal arts experience for them, and they highly value that form of education, and it may be a better location/they have a better shot of getting in/etc. The major draw is that it's highly ranked. I think it gets its extra-liberal vibe particularly because it's historically been strong in music and the arts, which tend toward the boho and so on. But for plenty of people, Oberlin isn't a liberal boogieman, it's just another SLAC like Kenyon or Amherst or Grinnell or whatever. To the extent you think all those are liberal boogiemen - eh. Academia generally skews liberal. They're academic institutions. (Claiming to know Oberlin but not knowing Smith/Holyoke doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, to be honest.)

It's not about "liberal boogiemen," it's about intellectual diversity. landshoes made the claim that s/he would be skeptical of a PHC candidate because they may be a liability/HR issue (due to the college's ideological bias or "belief bubble"). When I presented a college (Oberlin) that is notoriously ideologically biased in the opposite direction, the goalposts started moving. To restate my original question (and the entire reason for bringing up Oberlin): Setting aside whether a degree from PHC is worth a lick, why is a PHC grad an HR issue, but an Oberlin grad isn't?

the goalposts didn't move. I have been saying the exact same shit the entire time. you have poor reading comprehension.

like, let's assume that you're right about oberlin and PHC in reality. Let's assume that they are both equally intellectually diverse (or not). You still have to argue against the perception that exists about people who go to oberlin vs people who go to PHC. Regardless of whether or not you think the difference in perception is unfair, it still exists.

Unless you think people literally see oberlin as the same as PHC but just liberal, in which case, I would say that you hang around some truly deluded and/or sheltered people.

[totesTheGoat]

you literally think that patrick henry and oberlin have similar amounts of "intellectual diversity"?

that is just an embarrassing belief, dude. it's really really embarrassing.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

I actually don't think people send their kids to Oberlin because the Ivies are too conservative. They send their kids to Oberlin because they want the small liberal arts experience for them, and they highly value that form of education, and it may be a better location/they have a better shot of getting in/etc. The major draw is that it's highly ranked. I think it gets its extra-liberal vibe particularly because it's historically been strong in music and the arts, which tend toward the boho and so on. But for plenty of people, Oberlin isn't a liberal boogieman, it's just another SLAC like Kenyon or Amherst or Grinnell or whatever. To the extent you think all those are liberal boogiemen - eh. Academia generally skews liberal. They're academic institutions. (Claiming to know Oberlin but not knowing Smith/Holyoke doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, to be honest.)

It's not about "liberal boogiemen," it's about intellectual diversity. landshoes made the claim that s/he would be skeptical of a PHC candidate because they may be a liability/HR issue (due to the college's ideological bias or "belief bubble"). When I presented a college (Oberlin) that is notoriously ideologically biased in the opposite direction, the goalposts started moving. To restate my original question (and the entire reason for bringing up Oberlin): Setting aside whether a degree from PHC is worth a lick, why is a PHC grad an HR issue, but an Oberlin grad isn't?

the goalposts didn't move. I have been saying the exact same shit the entire time. you have poor reading comprehension.

like, let's assume that you're right about oberlin and PHC in reality. Let's assume that they are both equally intellectually diverse (or not). You still have to argue against the perception that exists about people who go to oberlin vs people who go to PHC. Regardless of whether or not you think the difference in perception is unfair, it still exists.

Unless you think people literally see oberlin as the same as PHC but just liberal, in which case, I would say that you hang around some truly deluded and/or sheltered people.

This isn't about a general perception (another goalpost shift). This is entirely about the fact that you wouldn't hire somebody because you're afraid they're a closet bigot. You're supposed to be defending this:

Or, in other words, I wouldn't want to hire someone who was going to say some crazy shit the first time they found out that a coworker or a client was a single mother, or Jewish, or an athiest, or whatever. Both for liability/HR reasons and because they would be insufferable.

Again I ask:

Setting aside whether a degree from PHC is worth a lick, why is a PHC grad an HR issue, but an Oberlin grad isn't?

The answer may be as simple as "I think Oberlin is more hospitable to conservatives than PHC is to liberals, so Oberlin grads are going to be better able to handle themselves as adults in the real world." However, you haven't said that. You've just gone off on how PHC's degree isn't worth crap, and they're geared towards an ideology.

[landshoes]

you literally think that patrick henry and oberlin have similar amounts of "intellectual diversity"?

that is just an embarrassing belief, dude. it's really really embarrassing.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

I actually don't think people send their kids to Oberlin because the Ivies are too conservative. They send their kids to Oberlin because they want the small liberal arts experience for them, and they highly value that form of education, and it may be a better location/they have a better shot of getting in/etc. The major draw is that it's highly ranked. I think it gets its extra-liberal vibe particularly because it's historically been strong in music and the arts, which tend toward the boho and so on. But for plenty of people, Oberlin isn't a liberal boogieman, it's just another SLAC like Kenyon or Amherst or Grinnell or whatever. To the extent you think all those are liberal boogiemen - eh. Academia generally skews liberal. They're academic institutions. (Claiming to know Oberlin but not knowing Smith/Holyoke doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, to be honest.)

It's not about "liberal boogiemen," it's about intellectual diversity. landshoes made the claim that s/he would be skeptical of a PHC candidate because they may be a liability/HR issue (due to the college's ideological bias or "belief bubble"). When I presented a college (Oberlin) that is notoriously ideologically biased in the opposite direction, the goalposts started moving. To restate my original question (and the entire reason for bringing up Oberlin): Setting aside whether a degree from PHC is worth a lick, why is a PHC grad an HR issue, but an Oberlin grad isn't?

the goalposts didn't move. I have been saying the exact same shit the entire time. you have poor reading comprehension.

like, let's assume that you're right about oberlin and PHC in reality. Let's assume that they are both equally intellectually diverse (or not). You still have to argue against the perception that exists about people who go to oberlin vs people who go to PHC. Regardless of whether or not you think the difference in perception is unfair, it still exists.

Unless you think people literally see oberlin as the same as PHC but just liberal, in which case, I would say that you hang around some truly deluded and/or sheltered people.

This isn't about a general perception (another goalpost shift). This is entirely about the fact that you wouldn't hire somebody because you're afraid they're a closet bigot. You're supposed to be defending this:

Or, in other words, I wouldn't want to hire someone who was going to say some crazy shit the first time they found out that a coworker or a client was a single mother, or Jewish, or an athiest, or whatever. Both for liability/HR reasons and because they would be insufferable.

Again I ask:

Setting aside whether a degree from PHC is worth a lick, why is a PHC grad an HR issue, but an Oberlin grad isn't?

The answer may be as simple as "I think Oberlin is more hospitable to conservatives than PHC is to liberals, so Oberlin grads are going to be better able to handle themselves as adults in the real world." However, you haven't said that. You've just gone off on how PHC's degree isn't worth crap, and they're geared towards an ideology.

No, I said I would hesitate because I wouldn't want to hire someone who would have difficulty dealing with a diverse work environment, with the implication that I consider attending PHC to be evidence that a given person might have difficulty dealing with a diverse work environment (and I do think it's good evidence, frankly). I then went on to talk about how someone who attended PHC could overcome that hesitation, meaning that I think that it's possible to both go to PHC and get a job from my theoretical company where I'm a theoretical HR person.

If I were a theoretical HR person at a company that needed someone who could work with, I don't know, a bunch of hardcore conservatives, I might look for some evidence on their resume that they could deal with that particular group of people, so in that case, yes, I might actually have a similar response to someone from Oberlin (although they might have to do more than just attend Oberlin in order to make me worry about their ability to fit into the work environment because--although you are oddly unwilling to admit this--there are lots of reasons why someone might attend Oberlin besides wanting to avoid conservatives. That said, yes, I would worry much less about hiring an Oberlin grad for a diverse workplace than I would a PHC grad. You can act like this is super unfair if you want, but that is stupid.)

[landshoes]

also didn't I say that if you look at the club pages you can see the difference in how open they are to different beliefs? (ETA: I maybe didn't actually say this, I can't be assed to go back and look though)

if you did look on their webpages, you could see that oberlin has a republican club and PHC has nothing at all like a democratic club

but that is not even my main argument at all, which is that normal people can tell/will assume that PHC is not hospitable to diversity and that will make them consider the possibility that PHC grads might not be all that great at functioning in a work environment that isn't Evangelical Christian and based on the Word of Jesus Christ.

I have no idea why you're pushing so hard against the idea that it is reasonable to assume things about people based on where they chose to go to college. Like you're sort of implying this weird argument that if I were hiring someone, I should treat someone who went to MIT exactly the same as someone who went to West Point, and both of them exactly the same as someone who went to Hampshire. Maybe I shouldn't draw inferences from their GPA or major, either. Or maybe you are for banning putting school names on resumes or something so no one can ever draw any inferences about anyone based on their alma mater. Would that make you happy and satisfied that people weren't unfairly being biased against PHC grads?

[totesTheGoat]

I consider attending PHC to be evidence that a given person might have difficulty dealing with a diverse work environment (and I do think it's good evidence, frankly).

Which I find absurd and somewhat ignorant. Do you really dehumanize conservatives so much that you think they would have trouble working with single moms, Jews, and atheists? Do you actually know any conservatives, or do you just know conservatives through caricatures you see on TV?

I then went on to talk about how someone who attended PHC could overcome that hesitation, meaning that I think that it's possible to both go to PHC and get a job from my theoretical company where I'm a theoretical HR person.

"Conservative! Show me that you're not a bigot or I won't hire you!"

If I were a theoretical HR person at a company that needed someone who could work with, I don't know, a bunch of hardcore conservatives, I might look for some evidence on their resume that they could deal with that particular group of people, so in that case, yes, I might actually have a similar response to someone from Oberlin (although they might have to do more than just attend Oberlin in order to make me worry about their ability to fit into the work environment because--although you are oddly unwilling to admit this--there are lots of reasons why someone might attend Oberlin besides wanting to avoid conservatives. That said, yes, I would worry much less about hiring an Oberlin grad for a diverse workplace than I would a PHC grad. You can act like this is super unfair if you want, but that is stupid.)

Personally, I think it's ridiculous for both Oberlin and for PHC. Neither are bigot factories, despite your personal biases. I may question the intelligence of a decision to go to a college based on ideology over quality. I may question whether they're qualified based on the quality of their UG. I'm not going to assume that they're bigots just because they telegraphed an ideology I don't agree with.

[totesTheGoat]

I have no idea why you're pushing so hard against the idea that it is reasonable to assume things about people based on where they chose to go to college. Like you're sort of implying this weird argument that if I were hiring someone, I should treat someone who went to MIT exactly the same as someone who went to West Point, and both of them exactly the same as someone who went to Hampshire. Maybe I shouldn't draw inferences from their GPA or major, either. Or maybe you are for banning putting school names on resumes or something so no one can ever draw any inferences about anyone based on their alma mater. Would that make you happy and satisfied that people weren't unfairly being biased against PHC grads?

That's a great beatdown you put on that strawman. There's a difference between saying that a PHC grad is unqualified and saying that they're so bigoted that they're going to be a liability/HR issue. You argued the latter and then proceed to say I'm an idiot because I don't agree with the former. It's just the opposite. I probably wouldn't hire somebody from PHC because they're probably not qualified for the job. However, I probably wouldn't assume that they're a bigot just because they went to PHC.

[landshoes]

dude just lol. you really can't tell the difference between a conservative and a conservative who chooses to go to PHC? Because those are two different sets of people. They overlap, but they are different. That is why I have never once said that my judgment is based on a given person being conservative, rather it's based on them choosing to go to a school that seems to have ideological purity as its major goal. Two enormously different things. Nor is it "dehumanizing" someone to assume that they might have a problem with a diverse workplace, given that they purposefully chose an undergraduate experience that is a huge outlier in terms of its lack of diversity.

speaking of strawmanning, you are strawmanning the fuck out of my arguments and have been doing so this whole time. I don't think it's purposeful so much as I think that you are just bad at reading/arguing and literally can't understand my arguments. so, you know, tough luck for you, but I'm pretty much done.