More Educated = More Liberal?

[barfbag]

I'd say Malcolm X and Vladimir Lenin has plenty of "life experiences".

Life experiences can make someone more liberal or more conservative and if dramatic enough, push one far to one side or the other. After all, look at Saul Alinski. It's living in the real world and understanding how things work as opposed to sitting and learning it from someone else that makes someone conservative. I'm not trying to be biased. If you think about it, doing it on your own reflects more of the Republican Party when dealing with free enterprise while receiving something from someone else is more reflective of the Democratic Party when dealing with government programs.

[MalaspinaGold]

That's not really accurate though, and I will give an example as to why:

Did you know Elizabeth Warren was once a Republican? Even after she became an academic, she believed for instance that people who got foreclosed on were in general delinquent, and it was not the banks fault. Then she set out to prove this. It was by performing an extensive study, interviewing and meeting with foreclosed homeowners in the 1990's that she came to the realization that many of those who were foreclosed on because of lax regulation and predatory lenders.

I am just trying to show that your  generalization is inaccurate. There are many other examples (for instance Joe Sestak) that I could name, so it is not only Elizabeth Warren.

[eric82oslo]

That's not really accurate though, and I will give an example as to why:

Did you know Elizabeth Warren was once a Republican? Even after she became an academic, she believed for instance that people who got foreclosed on were in general delinquent, and it was not the banks fault. Then she set out to prove this. It was by performing an extensive study, interviewing and meeting with foreclosed homeowners in the 1990's that she came to the realization that many of those who were foreclosed on because of lax regulation and predatory lenders.

I am just trying to show that your  generalization is inaccurate. There are many other examples (for instance Joe Sestak) that I could name, so it is not only Elizabeth Warren.

I think the assertions that Amy Klobuchar would be a better general election nominee than Warren is just crazy. For this and for many other reasons. I think the average voter loves politicians with passion for the middle class like the one Warren has got.

[TeePee4Prez]

I think some people put too much weight on the "education" argument.

For one, as much as this will disturb the paternalists who want to think they are naturally better than everyone (ie those who can't just be in a better moral position than those they disagree with), there are a lot of degreed jobs that are just naturally biased towards certain political philosophies.  Speaking firsthand as a left wing Accounting major, I can't imagine that there will be any serious trend amongst General Business types to vote Democrat.  Considering how many jobs there are in business environments that involve degrees like Marketing, Advertising, Finance, yada yada it's not surprising why there is a high number of Republican graduates.  And given the amount of student loan debts many have, I doubt there is that much incentive for a business grad to further their education beyond the typical "license" tests like the CPA exam or what have you.  Likely, they'll just get their 150 hours down, take the test, and then call it a day.  Many people don't see the point of having a Masters in Accountancy when a CPA license will make them 70% more sellable to employers at a fraction of the cost.  But of course, you also need a years worth of workplace experience before you get the license so I digress.

I imagine that for fields like Liberal Arts or advanced sciences that a Masters degree or higher is a lot more of a necessity, thus probably why postgrads are so Democratic.

What I'm seeing isn't really measurement of intelligence between parties, just the difference between the parties on the economic front.  A Psych major is likely going to approve more of lenient debt policies than a Marketing major because a Pscyh student is more likely going to need more debt than a Marketing student in order to get into their field.

Just my two cents.

I'm a left wing CPA myself.  Didn't think there were many of us.

[barfbag]

That's not really accurate though, and I will give an example as to why:

Did you know Elizabeth Warren was once a Republican? Even after she became an academic, she believed for instance that people who got foreclosed on were in general delinquent, and it was not the banks fault. Then she set out to prove this. It was by performing an extensive study, interviewing and meeting with foreclosed homeowners in the 1990's that she came to the realization that many of those who were foreclosed on because of lax regulation and predatory lenders.

I am just trying to show that your  generalization is inaccurate. There are many other examples (for instance Joe Sestak) that I could name, so it is not only Elizabeth Warren.

This is very interesting. I may have overstated the relationship between real life experience and conservatism. However, sometimes life experiences can deceive someone if they're too close to a situation. For example, let's look at a woman who grew up in a racist family. She grew up hating black people and wanting to poke them with sticks. However, in college this girl is nearly raped by a dozen members of the English club when a black man saves her. From there on, this girl and the black man fall in love and move to a home in the city. While living together in the city, they experience several accounts of racism leading the girl not only to realize blacks are no different from whites but also that there is racism out there which hurts her directly now. Now, not only does she see racism as real but as commonplace and everywhere. Her views have gone from that of a racist who wanted to poke black people with sticks to someone who thinks her own race is racist against blacks. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes life experiences can be similar to the lack thereof and deceive us. It takes a strong mind to rise above experiences and rationalize what is and what is exaggerated. It also takes a strong mind to rise above the bias of their professor and rationalize that some people have an agenda or think they know it all. Moderation is key.

[MalaspinaGold]

That's not really accurate though, and I will give an example as to why:

Did you know Elizabeth Warren was once a Republican? Even after she became an academic, she believed for instance that people who got foreclosed on were in general delinquent, and it was not the banks fault. Then she set out to prove this. It was by performing an extensive study, interviewing and meeting with foreclosed homeowners in the 1990's that she came to the realization that many of those who were foreclosed on because of lax regulation and predatory lenders.

I am just trying to show that your  generalization is inaccurate. There are many other examples (for instance Joe Sestak) that I could name, so it is not only Elizabeth Warren.

This is very interesting. I may have overstated the relationship between real life experience and conservatism. However, sometimes life experiences can deceive someone if they're too close to a situation. For example, let's look at a woman who grew up in a racist family. She grew up hating black people and wanting to poke them with sticks. However, in college this girl is nearly raped by a dozen members of the English club when a black man saves her. From there on, this girl and the black man fall in love and move to a home in the city. While living together in the city, they experience several accounts of racism leading the girl not only to realize blacks are no different from whites but also that there is racism out there which hurts her directly now. Now, not only does she see racism as real but as commonplace and everywhere. Her views have gone from that of a racist who wanted to poke black people with sticks to someone who thinks her own race is racist against blacks. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes life experiences can be similar to the lack thereof and deceive us. It takes a strong mind to rise above experiences and rationalize what is and what is exaggerated. It also takes a strong mind to rise above the bias of their professor and rationalize that some people have an agenda or think they know it all. Moderation is key.

I'm not convinced.

First of all, you could say Elizabeth Warren switched from being a conservative to a main-stream economic liberal. She never said she wanted to stop all foreclosures, or break up banks. Certainly nothing like your "hypothetical" woman. She is no communist. Your use of "moderation" is vague.

Finally, your blurb about Saul Alinsky does not make sense whatsoever. I have researched him and cannot find anything saying he became a conservative. He was always a left-leaning radical.

(Since I don't want discussing Saul Alinsky to be where this conversation ends, I will give you the freebie liberal-to-conservative Henry Wallace.)

The title of this thread is "More Educated = More Liberal?". This should have been fairly simple, based on the "C-Curve", that the least-educated voters (primarily black and latino) lean Democratic, with subsequent Republican gains in "High School Diploma" and "Some College". The "College Graduate" vote is roughly tied, while Democrats lead big once again amongst "Postgrads". I think the bottom half of the "C" is fairly obvious, those at the bottom vote democratic not because they are poorly-educated, but because they are minorities. I think what this discussion should be about is the top of the "C" where highly educated voters lean democratic. You have attempted to assert that "real life educated" people tilt conservative. You have not been able to do so.

This politifact article may come in useful in discussion.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/

[barfbag]

That's not really accurate though, and I will give an example as to why:

Did you know Elizabeth Warren was once a Republican? Even after she became an academic, she believed for instance that people who got foreclosed on were in general delinquent, and it was not the banks fault. Then she set out to prove this. It was by performing an extensive study, interviewing and meeting with foreclosed homeowners in the 1990's that she came to the realization that many of those who were foreclosed on because of lax regulation and predatory lenders.

I am just trying to show that your  generalization is inaccurate. There are many other examples (for instance Joe Sestak) that I could name, so it is not only Elizabeth Warren.

This is very interesting. I may have overstated the relationship between real life experience and conservatism. However, sometimes life experiences can deceive someone if they're too close to a situation. For example, let's look at a woman who grew up in a racist family. She grew up hating black people and wanting to poke them with sticks. However, in college this girl is nearly raped by a dozen members of the English club when a black man saves her. From there on, this girl and the black man fall in love and move to a home in the city. While living together in the city, they experience several accounts of racism leading the girl not only to realize blacks are no different from whites but also that there is racism out there which hurts her directly now. Now, not only does she see racism as real but as commonplace and everywhere. Her views have gone from that of a racist who wanted to poke black people with sticks to someone who thinks her own race is racist against blacks. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes life experiences can be similar to the lack thereof and deceive us. It takes a strong mind to rise above experiences and rationalize what is and what is exaggerated. It also takes a strong mind to rise above the bias of their professor and rationalize that some people have an agenda or think they know it all. Moderation is key.

I'm not convinced.

First of all, you could say Elizabeth Warren switched from being a conservative to a main-stream economic liberal. She never said she wanted to stop all foreclosures, or break up banks. Certainly nothing like your "hypothetical" woman. She is no communist. Your use of "moderation" is vague.

Finally, your blurb about Saul Alinsky does not make sense whatsoever. I have researched him and cannot find anything saying he became a conservative. He was always a left-leaning radical.

(Since I don't want discussing Saul Alinsky to be where this conversation ends, I will give you the freebie liberal-to-conservative Henry Wallace.)

The title of this thread is "More Educated = More Liberal?". This should have been fairly simple, based on the "C-Curve", that the least-educated voters (primarily black and latino) lean Democratic, with subsequent Republican gains in "High School Diploma" and "Some College". The "College Graduate" vote is roughly tied, while Democrats lead big once again amongst "Postgrads". I think the bottom half of the "C" is fairly obvious, those at the bottom vote democratic not because they are poorly-educated, but because they are minorities. I think what this discussion should be about is the top of the "C" where highly educated voters lean democratic. You have attempted to assert that "real life educated" people tilt conservative. You have not been able to do so.

This politifact article may come in useful in discussion.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/

There's so much more to one's education than the grades they receive as a kid. Life has more education to offer than school. We've all learned more life skills as adults than as children. You don't seem to have commented on my example though.

[pbrower2a]

All that is utterly beside the point CP.  I do agree however that welfare is not the right approach - we should be eliminating private property and guillotining the rich.  Giving welfare just reinforces capitalism, and after all slavery is still the problem.

We eliminated slavery in 1865 as a condition of the Civil War. You'd like to behead those who have more money than you? This thread is about education.

No, capitalism still enslaves in a functional sense all who are not owners.  Yes, this thread is about education, but like all other issues, the 'problems' of education are imposed by the ruling class.

Redistribution of the wealth enslaves those dependent on welfare to the Democratic Party. Democrats impose the problem of slavery on the poor by getting them addicted to welfare.

Redistribution of wealth and income is going on, and over the past three decades, but almost as a strict rule toward fewer people. Real wages have been in decline. Welfare of any kind is becoming harder to get.

Big Business, whether as tycoons or as executives, has been exploiting the disappearance of meaningful choice between jobs and has exploited such to the fullest. Add to that it has gotten Congress to enact tax changes that favor monopolization of business and reward people for having economic advantages.

[barfbag]

All that is utterly beside the point CP.  I do agree however that welfare is not the right approach - we should be eliminating private property and guillotining the rich.  Giving welfare just reinforces capitalism, and after all slavery is still the problem.

We eliminated slavery in 1865 as a condition of the Civil War. You'd like to behead those who have more money than you? This thread is about education.

No, capitalism still enslaves in a functional sense all who are not owners.  Yes, this thread is about education, but like all other issues, the 'problems' of education are imposed by the ruling class.

Redistribution of the wealth enslaves those dependent on welfare to the Democratic Party. Democrats impose the problem of slavery on the poor by getting them addicted to welfare.

Redistribution of wealth and income is going on, and over the past three decades, but almost as a strict rule toward fewer people. Real wages have been in decline. Welfare of any kind is becoming harder to get.

Big Business, whether as tycoons or as executives, has been exploiting the disappearance of meaningful choice between jobs and has exploited such to the fullest. Add to that it has gotten Congress to enact tax changes that favor monopolization of business and reward people for having economic advantages.

I'll agree with you on changing tax structure. We should all be taxed at 6% for each corporation. Politicians are trying to please those who fund their campaigns.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Getting back on topic....

My impression is that the most liberal voters tend to be lower-income/economic status voters with high educational attainment. Conversely, the most conservative voters tend to be higher-income/economic status voters with lower educational attainment.

Of course, there are other factors at work here as well. The former group of voters trends younger, more urban, more racially and ethnically diverse, and less male than the latter group.

[barfbag]

Getting back on topic....

My impression is that the most liberal voters tend to be lower-income/economic status voters with high educational attainment. Conversely, the most conservative voters tend to be higher-income/economic status voters with lower educational attainment.

Of course, there are other factors at work here as well. The former group of voters trends younger, more urban, more racially and ethnically diverse, and less male than the latter group.

Pretty close, but I think the most conservative voters on economics tend to have professional degrees.

[MalaspinaGold]

That's not really accurate though, and I will give an example as to why:

Did you know Elizabeth Warren was once a Republican? Even after she became an academic, she believed for instance that people who got foreclosed on were in general delinquent, and it was not the banks fault. Then she set out to prove this. It was by performing an extensive study, interviewing and meeting with foreclosed homeowners in the 1990's that she came to the realization that many of those who were foreclosed on because of lax regulation and predatory lenders.

I am just trying to show that your  generalization is inaccurate. There are many other examples (for instance Joe Sestak) that I could name, so it is not only Elizabeth Warren.

This is very interesting. I may have overstated the relationship between real life experience and conservatism. However, sometimes life experiences can deceive someone if they're too close to a situation. For example, let's look at a woman who grew up in a racist family. She grew up hating black people and wanting to poke them with sticks. However, in college this girl is nearly raped by a dozen members of the English club when a black man saves her. From there on, this girl and the black man fall in love and move to a home in the city. While living together in the city, they experience several accounts of racism leading the girl not only to realize blacks are no different from whites but also that there is racism out there which hurts her directly now. Now, not only does she see racism as real but as commonplace and everywhere. Her views have gone from that of a racist who wanted to poke black people with sticks to someone who thinks her own race is racist against blacks. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes life experiences can be similar to the lack thereof and deceive us. It takes a strong mind to rise above experiences and rationalize what is and what is exaggerated. It also takes a strong mind to rise above the bias of their professor and rationalize that some people have an agenda or think they know it all. Moderation is key.

I'm not convinced.

First of all, you could say Elizabeth Warren switched from being a conservative to a main-stream economic liberal. She never said she wanted to stop all foreclosures, or break up banks. Certainly nothing like your "hypothetical" woman. She is no communist. Your use of "moderation" is vague.

Finally, your blurb about Saul Alinsky does not make sense whatsoever. I have researched him and cannot find anything saying he became a conservative. He was always a left-leaning radical.

(Since I don't want discussing Saul Alinsky to be where this conversation ends, I will give you the freebie liberal-to-conservative Henry Wallace.)

The title of this thread is "More Educated = More Liberal?". This should have been fairly simple, based on the "C-Curve", that the least-educated voters (primarily black and latino) lean Democratic, with subsequent Republican gains in "High School Diploma" and "Some College". The "College Graduate" vote is roughly tied, while Democrats lead big once again amongst "Postgrads". I think the bottom half of the "C" is fairly obvious, those at the bottom vote democratic not because they are poorly-educated, but because they are minorities. I think what this discussion should be about is the top of the "C" where highly educated voters lean democratic. You have attempted to assert that "real life educated" people tilt conservative. You have not been able to do so.

This politifact article may come in useful in discussion.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/

There's so much more to one's education than the grades they receive as a kid. Life has more education to offer than school. We've all learned more life skills as adults than as children. You don't seem to have commented on my example though.

I did not comment on your example because I still do not get what you are trying to say. Are you implying that my Elizabeth Warren example is biased because she switched to an "extreme position"? I don't really see any other point in your example. Similarly, I could make a point of a unionist going in to see On the Waterfront and coming out wanting to abolish unions. I would not attack his position because it is not moderate; I would attack his position because it is wrong.

So basically, I am asking you to clarify your point, mainly because I do not see what purpose it serves.

Also, education is like wealth. Most people agree that money is not the only aspect to a person's wealth; one could go into abstracts such as health, family, etc. But those are almost impossible to quantify. Hence, money wealth is what is used.

Same thing for education. Obviously, academic education is not all there is to education. However, to consider all the aspects of education, such as cooking, household tasks, job abilities, requires data that, if not unquantifiable, is extremely hard to gather and is certainly gathered right now. This makes it harder for you to defend your case because it is hard to find data to support your assertions.

One set of data I would like to see is the political affiliations amongst whites based on educational attainment.

Progressive Realist, I think your statement is right on the mark. This is essentially what I think the trend boils down to:
higher academic educational attainment = more socially liberal
higher income = more economically conservative.

This means that:
Wealthy educated people would be socially liberal and economically conservative (think Shelly Adelson and Michael Bloomberg)

Similarly, poorer less educated people would trend economically liberal and socially conservative (think the state of Arkansas with a sprinkle of Collin Peterson).

[barfbag]

That's not really accurate though, and I will give an example as to why:

Did you know Elizabeth Warren was once a Republican? Even after she became an academic, she believed for instance that people who got foreclosed on were in general delinquent, and it was not the banks fault. Then she set out to prove this. It was by performing an extensive study, interviewing and meeting with foreclosed homeowners in the 1990's that she came to the realization that many of those who were foreclosed on because of lax regulation and predatory lenders.

I am just trying to show that your  generalization is inaccurate. There are many other examples (for instance Joe Sestak) that I could name, so it is not only Elizabeth Warren.

This is very interesting. I may have overstated the relationship between real life experience and conservatism. However, sometimes life experiences can deceive someone if they're too close to a situation. For example, let's look at a woman who grew up in a racist family. She grew up hating black people and wanting to poke them with sticks. However, in college this girl is nearly raped by a dozen members of the English club when a black man saves her. From there on, this girl and the black man fall in love and move to a home in the city. While living together in the city, they experience several accounts of racism leading the girl not only to realize blacks are no different from whites but also that there is racism out there which hurts her directly now. Now, not only does she see racism as real but as commonplace and everywhere. Her views have gone from that of a racist who wanted to poke black people with sticks to someone who thinks her own race is racist against blacks. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes life experiences can be similar to the lack thereof and deceive us. It takes a strong mind to rise above experiences and rationalize what is and what is exaggerated. It also takes a strong mind to rise above the bias of their professor and rationalize that some people have an agenda or think they know it all. Moderation is key.

I'm not convinced.

First of all, you could say Elizabeth Warren switched from being a conservative to a main-stream economic liberal. She never said she wanted to stop all foreclosures, or break up banks. Certainly nothing like your "hypothetical" woman. She is no communist. Your use of "moderation" is vague.

Finally, your blurb about Saul Alinsky does not make sense whatsoever. I have researched him and cannot find anything saying he became a conservative. He was always a left-leaning radical.

(Since I don't want discussing Saul Alinsky to be where this conversation ends, I will give you the freebie liberal-to-conservative Henry Wallace.)

The title of this thread is "More Educated = More Liberal?". This should have been fairly simple, based on the "C-Curve", that the least-educated voters (primarily black and latino) lean Democratic, with subsequent Republican gains in "High School Diploma" and "Some College". The "College Graduate" vote is roughly tied, while Democrats lead big once again amongst "Postgrads". I think the bottom half of the "C" is fairly obvious, those at the bottom vote democratic not because they are poorly-educated, but because they are minorities. I think what this discussion should be about is the top of the "C" where highly educated voters lean democratic. You have attempted to assert that "real life educated" people tilt conservative. You have not been able to do so.

This politifact article may come in useful in discussion.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/

There's so much more to one's education than the grades they receive as a kid. Life has more education to offer than school. We've all learned more life skills as adults than as children. You don't seem to have commented on my example though.

I did not comment on your example because I still do not get what you are trying to say. Are you implying that my Elizabeth Warren example is biased because she switched to an "extreme position"? I don't really see any other point in your example. Similarly, I could make a point of a unionist going in to see On the Waterfront and coming out wanting to abolish unions. I would not attack his position because it is not moderate; I would attack his position because it is wrong.

So basically, I am asking you to clarify your point, mainly because I do not see what purpose it serves.

Also, education is like wealth. Most people agree that money is not the only aspect to a person's wealth; one could go into abstracts such as health, family, etc. But those are almost impossible to quantify. Hence, money wealth is what is used.

Same thing for education. Obviously, academic education is not all there is to education. However, to consider all the aspects of education, such as cooking, household tasks, job abilities, requires data that, if not unquantifiable, is extremely hard to gather and is certainly gathered right now. This makes it harder for you to defend your case because it is hard to find data to support your assertions.

One set of data I would like to see is the political affiliations amongst whites based on educational attainment.

Progressive Realist, I think your statement is right on the mark. This is essentially what I think the trend boils down to:
higher academic educational attainment = more socially liberal
higher income = more economically conservative.

This means that:
Wealthy educated people would be socially liberal and economically conservative (think Shelly Adelson and Michael Bloomberg)

Similarly, poorer less educated people would trend economically liberal and socially conservative (think the state of Arkansas with a sprinkle of Collin Peterson).

No your example wasn't biased. I was more or less implying that life experiences can change people just as much as education. There are a lot of ways to experience an education. Elizabeth Warren's position isn't something I hold as extreme either. Do you agree that there are countless ways to measure education as there are countless ways to measure intelligence? I'll be the first to say from personal experience that academic education can make one more liberal or moderate. Throughout college I went from a hardcore Republican to a moderate Republican with libertarian views on some issues. You could say I went from Pat Buchanan to Chris Christie.

[MalaspinaGold]

Of course there are myriad ways to measure education. What I am saying is that with current data, you cannot perform rigid analysis of other forms of education, considering we do not have figures for these.

Here's some data from previous elections that looks at white voting patters based on educational attainment. For mid-income whites, educational attainment seems directly proportional to the propensity to vote democratic. The same is true for high-income whites, discounting the rich whites without a HS degree category, which has a huge margin of error. For low-income whites we see the familiar C-curve.

http://andrewgelman.com/2012/03/23/voting-patterns-of-americas-whites-from-the-masses-to-the-elites/

I think a better question would be not if, but WHY the highly educated skew democratic. I think a lot of it is due to the democrats being perceived as the party the intellectuals call home (I mean, we did have Adlai Stevenson). Social issues, as I have stated before, are also a big reason.

[barfbag]

Of course there are myriad ways to measure education. What I am saying is that with current data, you cannot perform rigid analysis of other forms of education, considering we do not have figures for these.

Here's some data from previous elections that looks at white voting patters based on educational attainment. For mid-income whites, educational attainment seems directly proportional to the propensity to vote democratic. The same is true for high-income whites, discounting the rich whites without a HS degree category, which has a huge margin of error. For low-income whites we see the familiar C-curve.

http://andrewgelman.com/2012/03/23/voting-patterns-of-americas-whites-from-the-masses-to-the-elites/

I think a better question would be not if, but WHY the highly educated skew democratic. I think a lot of it is due to the democrats being perceived as the party the intellectuals call home (I mean, we did have Adlai Stevenson). Social issues, as I have stated before, are also a big reason.

I don't think we can even measure education based on data.

[pbrower2a]

Of course there are myriad ways to measure education. What I am saying is that with current data, you cannot perform rigid analysis of other forms of education, considering we do not have figures for these.

Here's some data from previous elections that looks at white voting patters based on educational attainment. For mid-income whites, educational attainment seems directly proportional to the propensity to vote democratic. The same is true for high-income whites, discounting the rich whites without a HS degree category, which has a huge margin of error. For low-income whites we see the familiar C-curve.


http://andrewgelman.com/2012/03/23/voting-patterns-of-americas-whites-from-the-masses-to-the-elites/

I think a better question would be not if, but WHY the highly educated skew democratic. I think a lot of it is due to the democrats being perceived as the party the intellectuals call home (I mean, we did have Adlai Stevenson). Social issues, as I have stated before, are also a big reason.

I don't think we can even measure education based on data.

Critical thinking, a practice that allows people the knack for seeing through propaganda, is far more likely to be homed in advanced humanistic studies -- that is, the liberal arts in college. Although college students whose training is in more technical and vocational areas (engineering, accountancy, computer programming, and nursing) might not need much exposure to the liberal arts for their careers, about everyone else in the intelligentsia needs the capacity for critical thought.  Think of schoolteachers who get exposed to every permutation of thought that one can imagine. They must exercise critical thought without becoming excessively judgmental. Critical thought allows one to talk one's way out of trouble not of one's own making and can keep people from getting into trouble.

Critical thinking is good for detecting the speciousness of the statements of schemers, scammers, and demagogues. Such people appeal to mass greed, superstition, resentment, bigotry, and fear in people more likely to panic than to analyze a situation. Beyond doubt such people would gladly keep people either grossly ignorant or at least limited in knowledge to what is 'safe' for their position.   
     

[jaichind]

I think there was a study on this couple of years ago

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/political-orientations-intelligence-and-education.pdf

For a given level of IQ, higher education means people are more likely to tilt left. At a given level of education, a higher IQ means people are more likely to tilt right.  I suspect this has more to do with rightist views that results of competition are valid and should be respected while the left seeks to redress inequalities of outcomes of competition.  For a given educational level, people tends to compete with each other so those more successful as correlated with higher IQs tends to lean right. 

[Non Swing Voter]

"Although college students whose training is in more technical and vocational areas (engineering, accountancy, computer programming, and nursing) might not need much exposure to the liberal arts for their careers, about everyone else in the intelligentsia needs the capacity for critical thought."

Pretty sure engineers need to think critically.

[barfbag]

The more "educated" tend to be more liberal because those who go further with education do things in the liberal arts. Republicans tend to start their careers right after college because they can with the exception of doctors and lawyers for example.

[King of Kensington]

Seems to me that the effect of education is to move people leftward, but higher educated people also tend to have higher incomes which makes one more conservative. 

[Rockefeller GOP]

Guys, there's an obvious conclusion here: the most educated of us are obviously socially liberal, pro-business, moderate Republicans (from Maine).

[All Along The Watchtower]

Interesting article from a conservative Republican academic (a rare breed, as he calls himself. )

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.aaup.org/article/rethinking-plight-conservatives-higher-education#.U4TX2_ldWSo

[TJ in Oregon]

Anecdotally, amongst my classmates in engineering as an undergrad there seemed to be a definitely correlation between political views and academia vs. industry upon graduation. I suspect political views are more correlated than markers of success like grades. I imagine internship experience probably leads students to be more likely to take industry jobs as well.

[sg0508]

Libertarians.  Socially moderate/liberal and economically, moderate/conservative.

White collars still tend to favor the GOP though for tax reason and since their gross incomes are higher. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes, but so does less educated.  Those with moderate levels of education are the most conservative.