Almost 80% of philosophy majors favor socialism, poll finds (US)

[C C]

https://www.newsweek.com/socialism-philo...ll-1449238

EXCERPT: Overall, socialism isn't winning over the majority of college students. When broken down by major, though, its popularity doubled with philosophy students. [...] Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, is gaining momentum among college students. ... While Sanders is coming out as a 2020 frontrunner, a recent poll by College Pulse, a survey and data analytics company, found socialism isn't favored by the overall majority.

Only 39 percent of the 10,590 undergraduates polled had a favorable view of socialism, and the same percentage responded that they had an unfavorable view. When respondents were broken out by major views of capitalism shifted considerably. Philosophy majors were most likely to view socialism positively, with 78 percent of those polled saying they had at least a somewhat favorable view of it. Anthropology majors were a close second at 64 percent, followed by English majors at 58 percent and international relations, sociology and music majors all at 57 percent.

Least likely to view socialism favorably were accounting and finance majors at 20 percent and 22 percent respectively. Only 12 percent of respondents said they would be enthusiastic about a presidential candidate who described themselves as a socialist, compared to the 22 percent that would be very uncomfortable. (MORE)

[Seattle]

Interestingly enough, 80% of all philosophy majors agree that Amazon pays better than Burger King.

[Syne]

So those whose careers will rely on government subsidies, in the form of student loan guarantees, want the government to have money money to redistribute. While those who can compete in an open market don't. The difference is that the former has relatively useless skills/knowledge with little inherent market value (read no one wants it enough to pay for it) and the latter provides things people want. Basically, people wanting to get paid to pursue their hobbies like taking the hard-earn money of others to do so. Selfish pricks.

[Seattle]

So those whose careers will rely on government subsidies, in the form of student loan guarantees, want the government to have money money to redistribute. While those who can compete in an open market don't. The difference is that the former has relatively useless skills/knowledge with little inherent market value (read no one wants it enough to pay for it) and the latter provides things people want. Basically, people wanting to get paid to pursue their hobbies like taking the hard-earn money of others to do so. Selfish pricks.

That's a rather harsh view of others isn't it? People major in what they want to major in and if it isn't as marketable, if they are intelligent, they usually do fine. If not, Burger Kind and Amazon warehouses.

The way I read that survey though is that most college students aren't very well informed regarding "socialism". The ones who were for it were largely liberals and those who were against it were conservatives. If the international relations majors were for it, that's surprising since they should be knowledgeable regarding socialism. The business majors, not so much.

I'm guessing the wording of the questions was messed up. There aren't really many socialistic countries anymore and usually what is being discussed are higher taxing capitalistic economies that provide more of a safety net. That's not socialism in reality and those who are for that (many students who aren't conservative) aren't really for socialism if they knew what socialism really was. They just want to have healthcare.

I don't see how an intelligent reading of all this results in the "selfish pricks" comment however.

[Syne]

So those whose careers will rely on government subsidies, in the form of student loan guarantees, want the government to have money money to redistribute. While those who can compete in an open market don't. The difference is that the former has relatively useless skills/knowledge with little inherent market value (read no one wants it enough to pay for it) and the latter provides things people want. Basically, people wanting to get paid to pursue their hobbies like taking the hard-earn money of others to do so. Selfish pricks.

That's a rather harsh view of others isn't it? People major in what they want to major in and if it isn't as marketable, if they are intelligent, they usually do fine. If not, Burger Kind and Amazon warehouses.

The way I read that survey though is that most college students aren't very well informed regarding "socialism". The ones who were for it were largely liberals and those who were against it were conservatives. If the international relations majors were for it, that's surprising since they should be knowledgeable regarding socialism. The business majors, not so much.

I'm guessing the wording of the questions was messed up. There aren't really many socialistic countries anymore and usually what is being discussed are higher taxing capitalistic economies that provide more of a safety net. That's not socialism in reality and those who are for that (many students who aren't conservative) aren't really for socialism if they knew what socialism really was. They just want to have healthcare.

I don't see how an intelligent reading of all this results in the "selfish pricks" comment however.

The international relations majors were 58% favorable(7%)/somewhat favorable(51%) and only 42% unfavorable(21%)/somewhat unfavorable(10%)/unsure(11%) (source). IOW, they're more favorable to socialism than not. That doesn't bode well for them being "knowledgeable regarding socialism", and still comports with my assumption that careers that rely on government largess favor socialism for that precise reason.

The wording doesn't matter, as most people mistakenly accept mixed economies with strong social safety nets as socialist. And the strong social safety nets do mean higher taxes and more money for government to redistribute. So even if their understanding of socialism is flawed, my view doesn't seem fazed.

If you think you can simply "follow your bliss" or "find yourself" and expect to make a good living, without accounting for marketable value, you are, whether conscious of it or not, expecting someone to force others to pay you, through taxation. Majors whose only viable career path is becoming a professor are either relying on government bolstering colleges or expecting to similarly sponge off their parents. Now whether that is intentional selfishness or just youthful ignorance and irresponsibility is up for debate. They're pricks either way.

[Seattle]

So those whose careers will rely on government subsidies, in the form of student loan guarantees, want the government to have money money to redistribute. While those who can compete in an open market don't. The difference is that the former has relatively useless skills/knowledge with little inherent market value (read no one wants it enough to pay for it) and the latter provides things people want. Basically, people wanting to get paid to pursue their hobbies like taking the hard-earn money of others to do so. Selfish pricks.

That's a rather harsh view of others isn't it? People major in what they want to major in and if it isn't as marketable, if they are intelligent, they usually do fine. If not, Burger Kind and Amazon warehouses.

The way I read that survey though is that most college students aren't very well informed regarding "socialism". The ones who were for it were largely liberals and those who were against it were conservatives. If the international relations majors were for it, that's surprising since they should be knowledgeable regarding socialism. The business majors, not so much.

I'm guessing the wording of the questions was messed up. There aren't really many socialistic countries anymore and usually what is being discussed are higher taxing capitalistic economies that provide more of a safety net. That's not socialism in reality and those who are for that (many students who aren't conservative) aren't really for socialism if they knew what socialism really was. They just want to have healthcare.

I don't see how an intelligent reading of all this results in the "selfish pricks" comment however.

The international relations majors were 58% favorable(7%)/somewhat favorable(51%) and only 42% unfavorable(21%)/somewhat unfavorable(10%)/unsure(11%) (source). IOW, they're more favorable to socialism than not. That doesn't bode well for them being "knowledgeable regarding socialism", and still comports with my assumption that careers that rely on government largess favor socialism for that precise reason.

The wording doesn't matter, as most people mistakenly accept mixed economies with strong social safety nets as socialist. And the strong social safety nets do mean higher taxes and more money for government to redistribute. So even if their understanding of socialism is flawed, my view doesn't seem fazed.

If you think you can simply "follow your bliss" or "find yourself" and expect to make a good living, without accounting for marketable value, you are, whether conscious of it or not, expecting someone to force others to pay you, through taxation. Majors whose only viable career path is becoming a professor are either relying on government bolstering colleges or expecting to similarly sponge off their parents. Now whether that is intentional selfishness or just youthful ignorance and irresponsibility is up for debate. They're pricks either way.

It's an erroneous conclusion however. How many liberal arts majors are in management, corporate sales, law, etc? Many. The idea used to be to get a well-rounded education. Today, it's turning collage into a high level vo-tech institution in many cases.

Most people, regardless of degree, do find careers, don't live with their parents and don't work for the government any more than any other group. There are plenty of people with technical degrees working at government expense as well as many that are not. It's the same for any degree holder.

I agree, it is easier today to get a technical degree and to get a good paying job right out of college. Not everyone is interested in technical degrees (or any other specific degrees). IMO people should study what they are interested in (no one goes to collage and only studies philosophy) and people with a collage degree (in anything) generally find a career to their liking or at least at a similar frequency to anyone else. It's not uncommon for people with any degree to not really love their jobs after all.

The idea that liberal arts majors are selfish and dependent on the government is uninformed IMO.

As far as called a "bigger government" socialist. That's uninformed on many levels. It's hard to find a major country with "small government". Many people who call higher taxes and a larger safety net for everyone, socialism, are all for funding the largest military, by far, in the world. You don't get more socialistic than the military.

Educating and providing healthcare to your citizens is hardly "socialism". The liberal arts is largely about teaching people to think outside the box. That's something that is generally in short supply.

[Syne]

The international relations majors were 58% favorable(7%)/somewhat favorable(51%) and only 42% unfavorable(21%)/somewhat unfavorable(10%)/unsure(11%) (source). IOW, they're more favorable to socialism than not. That doesn't bode well for them being "knowledgeable regarding socialism", and still comports with my assumption that careers that rely on government largess favor socialism for that precise reason.

The wording doesn't matter, as most people mistakenly accept mixed economies with strong social safety nets as socialist. And the strong social safety nets do mean higher taxes and more money for government to redistribute. So even if their understanding of socialism is flawed, my view doesn't seem fazed.

If you think you can simply "follow your bliss" or "find yourself" and expect to make a good living, without accounting for marketable value, you are, whether conscious of it or not, expecting someone to force others to pay you, through taxation. Majors whose only viable career path is becoming a professor are either relying on government bolstering colleges or expecting to similarly sponge off their parents. Now whether that is intentional selfishness or just youthful ignorance and irresponsibility is up for debate. They're pricks either way.

It's an erroneous conclusion however. How many liberal arts majors are in management, corporate sales, law, etc? Many. The idea used to be to get a well-rounded education. Today, it's turning collage into a high level vo-tech institution in many cases.

Uh, liberal arts are a well-rounded education. https://mycollegeguide.org/articles/libe...beral-arts

lib·er·al arts
/ˈlib(ə)rəl ärts/
noun
plural noun: liberal arts; noun: liberal art

North American
academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, and social and physical sciences as distinct from professional and technical subjects.

So I'd hazard that you may be a bit confused. But yes, many people with general BA/BLA degrees end up in a very wide variety of professions. And? Trying to take the specific majors mentioned in that socialism poll and extrapolate to an entire education program is rather silly and unjustified.

Most people, regardless of degree, do find careers, don't live with their parents and don't work for the government any more than any other group. There are plenty of people with technical degrees working at government expense as well as many that are not. It's the same for any degree holder.

Have any numbers to back that up, especially on those majors specified in this poll?

I agree, it is easier today to get a technical degree and to get a good paying job right out of college. Not everyone is interested in technical degrees (or any other specific degrees). IMO people should study what they are interested in (no one goes to collage and only studies philosophy) and people with a collage degree (in anything) generally find a career to their liking or at least at a similar frequency to anyone else. It's not uncommon for people with any degree to not really love their jobs after all.

Topping the list at No. 1, anthropology and archeology represent the worst choice of college major in economic terms. Recent college graduates of the major, those ages 22 to 26, can expect an unemployment rate of 10.5%, well above the national average. When they do land a job, the median salary is just $28,000, compared to a mechanical engineer’s initial earnings of $58,000.
...
Non-technical majors--the arts (11.1%), humanities and liberal arts (9.4%), social sciences (8.9%) and law and public policy (8.1%)--generally have higher unemployment rates.
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudre...d07b4c2586

You were saying? O_o

The idea that liberal arts majors are selfish and dependent on the government is uninformed IMO.

Saying something is wrong without any argument is not a refute.

As far as called a "bigger government" socialist. That's uninformed on many levels. It's hard to find a major country with "small government". Many people who call higher taxes and a larger safety net for everyone, socialism, are all for funding the largest military, by far, in the world. You don't get more socialistic than the military.

Educating and providing healthcare to your citizens is hardly "socialism". The liberal arts is largely about teaching people to think outside the box. That's something that is generally in short supply.

Who said larger social safety nets were mutually inclusive of "bigger government"? That's your own "uninformed" straw man.

Many countries that do have large social safety nets can only afford to do so because they are not responsible for their own military security...because one country is disproportionately carrying that burden. You seem to be confused about the association of socialism to military too, but maybe you'd like to share some links to make that connection. National security is a proper task for federal government, where taking care of neighbors is a task better suited to local government or social groups.

No everyone will benefit equally from education or healthcare, in the cases of low IQ and bad health habits respectively. So taxing everyone to pay for things some people benefit from more than others is just inherently unfair.

And again, no one said liberal arts, in general, had anything to do with socialism. That's an association you've made all on your own.

[Seattle]

The international relations majors were 58% favorable(7%)/somewhat favorable(51%) and only 42% unfavorable(21%)/somewhat unfavorable(10%)/unsure(11%) (source). IOW, they're more favorable to socialism than not. That doesn't bode well for them being "knowledgeable regarding socialism", and still comports with my assumption that careers that rely on government largess favor socialism for that precise reason.

The wording doesn't matter, as most people mistakenly accept mixed economies with strong social safety nets as socialist. And the strong social safety nets do mean higher taxes and more money for government to redistribute. So even if their understanding of socialism is flawed, my view doesn't seem fazed.

If you think you can simply "follow your bliss" or "find yourself" and expect to make a good living, without accounting for marketable value, you are, whether conscious of it or not, expecting someone to force others to pay you, through taxation. Majors whose only viable career path is becoming a professor are either relying on government bolstering colleges or expecting to similarly sponge off their parents. Now whether that is intentional selfishness or just youthful ignorance and irresponsibility is up for debate. They're pricks either way.

It's an erroneous conclusion however. How many liberal arts majors are in management, corporate sales, law, etc? Many. The idea used to be to get a well-rounded education. Today, it's turning collage into a high level vo-tech institution in many cases.

Uh, liberal arts are a well-rounded education. https://mycollegeguide.org/articles/libe...beral-arts

lib·er·al arts
/ˈlib(ə)rəl ärts/
noun
plural noun: liberal arts; noun: liberal art

   North American
   academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, and social and physical sciences as distinct from professional and technical subjects.

So I'd hazard that you may be a bit confused. But yes, many people with general BA/BLA degrees end up in a very wide variety of professions. And? Trying to take the specific majors mentioned in that socialism poll and extrapolate to an entire education program is rather silly and unjustified.

Most people, regardless of degree, do find careers, don't live with their parents and don't work for the government any more than any other group. There are plenty of people with technical degrees working at government expense as well as many that are not. It's the same for any degree holder.

Have any numbers to back that up, especially on those majors specified in this poll?

I agree, it is easier today to get a technical degree and to get a good paying job right out of college. Not everyone is interested in technical degrees (or any other specific degrees). IMO people should study what they are interested in (no one goes to collage and only studies philosophy) and people with a collage degree (in anything) generally find a career to their liking or at least at a similar frequency to anyone else. It's not uncommon for people with any degree to not really love their jobs after all.

Topping the list at No. 1, anthropology and archeology represent the worst choice of college major in economic terms. Recent college graduates of the major, those ages 22 to 26, can expect an unemployment rate of 10.5%, well above the national average. When they do land a job, the median salary is just $28,000, compared to a mechanical engineer’s initial earnings of $58,000.
...
Non-technical majors--the arts (11.1%), humanities and liberal arts (9.4%), social sciences (8.9%) and law and public policy (8.1%)--generally have higher unemployment rates.
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudre...d07b4c2586

You were saying? O_o

The idea that liberal arts majors are selfish and dependent on the government is uninformed IMO.

Saying something is wrong without any argument is not a refute.
I refute it. How's that?

As far as called a "bigger government" socialist. That's uninformed on many levels. It's hard to find a major country with "small government". Many people who call higher taxes and a larger safety net for everyone, socialism, are all for funding the largest military, by far, in the world. You don't get more socialistic than the military.

Educating and providing healthcare to your citizens is hardly "socialism". The liberal arts is largely about teaching people to think outside the box. That's something that is generally in short supply.

Who said larger social safety nets were mutually inclusive of "bigger government"? That's your own "uninformed" straw man.

Many countries that do have large social safety nets can only afford to do so because they are not responsible for their own military security...because one country is disproportionately carrying that burden. You seem to be confused about the association of socialism to military too, but maybe you'd like to share some links to make that connection. National security is a proper task for federal government, where taking care of neighbors is a task better suited to local government or social groups.

No everyone will benefit equally from education or healthcare, in the cases of low IQ and bad health habits respectively. So taxing everyone to pay for things some people benefit from more than others is just inherently unfair.

And again, no one said liberal arts, in general, had anything to do with socialism. That's an association you've made all on your own.

A liberal arts grad would know not to start a sentence with "Uh" or to simply quote a definition of the subjects included under the banner of liberal arts as any kind of a response. You can "hazard" that I may be confused but, again, you would be incorrect.

You like your numbers don't you? I'm trying to have a conversation. I'm not writing a research paper. Do you know many adults that have any college degree that are frequently out of work if they want to be working?

Who is talking about which fields pay more? If someone is interested in art and finds a job as a graphic artists, for instance, what difference does it make that a computer programer makes a different salary? They don't want to be a computer programmer.

Are you a cheerleader for technical jobs for some reason? If you had a liberal arts degree you might be more open-minded, don't you think?



That's not uninformed. You are mistaking your own political views with facts and with economics. Now we are talking about what is a "proper" task for federal government? Socialism is a proper task for a socialist government, so what? If it was "proper" you would be for universal healthcare and education?

Not everyone benefits from spending 600 billion a year on the military, childless renters don't benefit from tax deductions for children or mortgage interest but again to use your line of reasoning...so what?

We don't get to decide what we personally like and don't like. You have an issue, it seems, with the "low IQ" and those whose eating habits you don't approve of. Do you think the demands you place on the government are the same as the those of the "low IQ"?

[Syne]

A liberal arts grad would know not to start a sentence with "Uh" or to simply quote a definition of the subjects included under the banner of liberal arts as any kind of a response. You can "hazard" that I may be confused but, again, you would be incorrect.

Cute. People who have no refute often do need to get pedantic over irrelevant red herrings.

You like your numbers don't you? I'm trying to have a conversation. I'm not writing a research paper. Do you know many adults that have any college degree that are frequently out of work if they want to be working?

So you're "trying to have a conversation" but you criticize someone writing like they talk, e.g. "Uh"?
If you can't support your claims, I can only assume you're talking out of your ass. C'est la vie.

Who is talking about which fields pay more? If someone is interested in art and finds a job as a graphic artists, for instance, what difference does it make that a computer programer makes a different salary? They don't want to be a computer programmer.

Are you a cheerleader for technical jobs for some reason? If you had a liberal arts degree you might be more open-minded, don't you think?

Straw man overload.
No one has said people should prefer fields that pay more nor anything against liberal arts degrees. You're arguing with yourself, mate.

That's not uninformed. You are mistaking your own political views with facts and with economics. Now we are talking about what is a "proper" task for federal government? Socialism is a proper task for a socialist government, so what? If it was "proper" you would be for universal healthcare and education?

More straw men, huh?

Not everyone benefits from spending 600 billion a year on the military, childless renters don't benefit from tax deductions for children or mortgage interest but again to use your line of reasoning...so what?

You're right, many other people than the ones paying the taxes benefit from huge military spending that protects much of the Western world.
No one "pays" for tax deductions. Those exist to incentivize pro-society behaviors, like settling down with children (future tax base) and a home (property taxes).

We don't get to decide what we personally like and don't like. You have an issue, it seems, with the "low IQ" and those whose eating habits you don't approve of. Do you think the demands you place on the government are the same as the those of the "low IQ"?

No idea what you're on about now. Weak attempts at ad hominem or poisoning the well? Who knows.

[Seattle]

Is it really necessary to quote all the way back to the beginning of time?

You (Syne) sound like a philosophy major with your philosophy debate lingo...strawman, ad hominem, etc. "Where's your link, that's not a refute" "The Earth is flat and you can't prove it..."

Regarding talking out of my ass, unlike you possibly? that's not where my mouth is. I'm getting the feeling that you just like to bully/argue and aren't particularly interested in any kind of meaningful, intelligent, discourse.

I get it, you like to wave the flag, salute the military, you are concerned about yourself but not so much about others, change is not your thing and black and white TV's were the best TV's, am I right!

If a dingo ate your baby, I apologist in advance.