"Left Pipeline: Why Conservatives Don't Get Doctorates"

Back in November, Andrew and I read a November 14, 2007, academic study, “Left Pipeline: Why Conservatives Don’t Get Doctorates”, with great interest. The paper was jointly authored by Matthew Woessner, Assistant Professor Of Public Policy at Penn State University, Harrisburg, and April Kelly-Woessner, Associate Professor of Political Science at Elizabethtown College.

A Professor at the University Of Minnesota had given a copy of the paper to Andrew’s father a day or two after the paper was released, and Andrew’s father immediately gave the paper to Andrew and me to read.

The paper is not to be cited without permission of the authors. Last week, Andrew received permission from Professor Kelly-Woessner, via email, to discuss the paper on one of our blogs.

The study asserts that the under-representation of conservatives in higher education may largely be the result of self-selection. The study notes that conservative students proceed to professional schools in overwhelming numbers, while Leftist students more often choose the route of graduate school.

The study presents evidence that these differing educational paths are based upon the values and political beliefs of the students. In essence, conservative students place a higher value upon raising families and making money than their Leftist counterparts. This discrepancy in values shows itself early in college—it shows itself through students’ choices of majors. Conservative students chose majors in fields leading to professional fields at a much higher rate than Leftist students.

The discrepancy is wide, wider than most persons who have been out of school for many years often realize. Only 18 per cent of students who identify with the Left go to professional schools, and only nine per cent of students who identify with the Far Left go to professional schools. By contrast, 33 per cent of students who identify with the Right go to professional schools, and 37 per cent of students who identify with the Far Right go to professional schools. At the far ends of the political spectrum, this discrepancy is extremely pronounced: students from the Far Right go to professional schools at more than four times the rate of students from the Far Left.

This is an astonishing divergence, and intuitive to anyone, like Andrew and me, who recently matriculated. This study merely confirmed, for us, what we ourselves had experienced during our own undergrad years: conservative students proceeded to professional schools in overwhelming numbers, while Leftist students did not.

The study does not contest that conservatives are under-represented in the academy—in fact, the authors acknowledge that there is a serious imbalance, that this imbalance is problematic, and that this imbalance may be the result of bias (which the authors in no way attempt to prove or disprove)—and the study concludes that, owing to self-selection, conservatives have chosen to bypass the academy entirely.

This, too, is intuitive to anyone who recently matriculated through American colleges and universities. Conservative students do not view the academy as an “open” forum; they view the academy as a closed, Leftist enclave, tenaciously beholden to the dogmas of the late 1960’s. Conservative students do not view the academy as a welcome place for scholarship. They also do not view the academy as a viable place for rewarding, decades-long careers.

Is there any means to attract conservatives back into the academy and, given current conditions, is there even a point I doing so?

The authors of the study reach no firm conclusions, other than to recommend, strongly, that politics be removed from the classroom. The authors acknowledge, with reluctance, that the ideological imbalance that permeates much of academia may be intractable.

One of the reasons I chose law school over graduate school is because the academy has been unable to break away from the dogmas of the 1960’s for almost forty years. Would I be happy devoting forty years of my own life to working in such an oppressive, if not ridiculous, environment? For me, that would not be possible.

It would be interesting if some enterprising individuals were to conduct a comprehensive study tracing the pay scales of university professors over the last forty years, comparing university pay scales to the pay scales of persons holding J.D. and M.B.A. degrees over this same period.

I suspect that this study would confirm that, forty years ago, university professors had roughly the same earning power as persons holding J.D. and M.B.A. degrees. Today, persons holding J.D. and M.B.A. degrees command salaries far higher than university personnel.

This suggests two things: that professional school education is far more demanding and rigorous than graduate school education; and that the skills acquired in professional school are more highly-valued in the marketplace than the skills acquired in graduate school.

Is this not an implicit recognition by the free market that the work produced by the academy has become starkly devalued? I think it is.

As always, workers are paid what they are worth—and the work coming out of the academy today is not worth much.