The progressives’ somewhat antidemocratic impulses also led them tobelieve that academic experts were both sufficient and necessary forthe task of wise public administration, because they could and wouldsuspend their own interests to transcend the messy business of democratic politics. As one widely readeugenics[G]overnment and social control are in the hands of expertpoliticians who have power, instead of expert technologists who havewisdom. There should be technologists in control of every field of human need and desire” (asquoted from Albert Wiggam’s New Decalogue 1923, in Ludmerer, 1972, pp.16–17). The case for technocratic governance was put baldly by Irving Fisher (1907, p. 20):“The world consists of two classes—the educated and the ignorant—and itis essential for progress that the former should be allowed to dominatethe latter...
sounds familiar?? :-)

"what do you think about the notion that today there is a lotanti-wisdom in the intellectual circles...studies, articles, opinions,but wisdom, proven experienced, all are not embraced among the modernintellectuals."
- Sveta, I have no idea how you came up to this conclusion...
How many academic intellectuals do you hang out with?
I have fairly limited experience as well, only my son is in academia, one of my husband's uncles is physics professor, one of his tennis buddies is philosophy professor, well, I know a bunch of medicine academics, hang out with them a lot.
So - this group is as diverse as any.... there are all kinds, boring and eccentric, ultra-whatever, slightly more to the left, some with libertarian trends...Recently went to a lecture oninternational trade in one of our local Universities - speakers trends were rather to the Right, protectionists....
The point is - it is hardly fair to paint ALL academia the way you do

The point is - it is hardly fair to paint ALL academia the way you do
Julia, com'n, you have to know that, since it's a well-known fact that more than 90% of the humanity and social-science professor are ultra-liberal..moreover, there is a trend to disenfranchise the students with different views as long as their fellow professors..if you need proof, I will cite you many polls and articles on the issue..and to do it is very unintellectual from my point view, because it gives birth to group thinking as opposed to thinking people where different opinions are introduced and make you explore all different sides..
and when students are exposed in school to this kind of environment (where decent is not welcome), what do you think it does to their desire to pursue careers in those fields??

hmmmm..... let's see.
My kids are grown.
I watched their classmates go to Yale, NYU, Cornell, Harvard, MIT, Stamford, UPenn, etc..etc... My kids went to Wellseley and Caltech for undergrad. Let's see, now... one of their friends works at Amazon, one at Microsoft, one at some hegde fund, one at a law firm in NY, many are in medschools and PhD programs, a couple got some startup companies. Only one is a "tree-hugger" works for some environmental agency, but is going to open a restaurant next year, and one is in a rabbinical school ( my daughter's best friend, and my favorite "adoptive" daughter). Oh, yea, one guy who was the most liberal in college, now is a croupier in Vegas. Are most of them liberally minded? - Yes, but they are all young, 25-25 y.o... and I am sure will go into a 50-50 split in the future.
So, what I am trying to say - even those who got liberal education change with life... totally expected and nothing to fear

are your kids conservative? (ch)
it's not what I was saying at all - that conservatives are prevented from getting an education..they are, however, discouraged from expressing their views in many cases in the mostly liberal college environment, and it also discourages many students with conservative views from wanting to work in the academia and pursue careers where liberals dominate..

where did I say that conserv. are prevented from getting an education? anyone can get an education, just show your grades and effort.
What I am saying is that young people tend to be more liberally minded just because they are young. Liberal idealism appeals to youth more then conservative idealism. When people age, their value systems develop and shift their idealism as well. This is just a natural evolution of ideals, when you are young, you tend to be more outward-goodness oriented, when people age - it shifts for many , and there is nothing wrong with it.
None of those value systems is inherently wrong, they both have their strong merits.
And there is always place for all kinds of academics.
I remember meeting two of my daughter's college professors and ( this is not on topic , just an example) and they were arguing about theories of learned optimism vs realistic pessimism. They both taught in her college, totally different styles.

totally agree that that..especially with the point that life very often changes people's views - which kinda proves my point that conservative views are more realistic because they come not from theories, but from something that's proven to work or not..
and it also proves my point that if the majority of academia is liberal, their views are mostly theoretical that a lot of times never worked, but because many intellectuals don't like to be challenged, they don't tolerate dissent...and punish their (some) students from not following the indoctrination..
Julia, I was in college..I didn't have set political views back then, but now remembering some of the things my professors were saying, believe me - they were not conservative (ch) , and I was not even a social science major...(ch)

Ladies, read this - it fits well with this discussion
***********.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

or, rather, how much cynicism we are willing to mix into our realism and in what realms.(ch)
And , how healthy this is - individually and socially.

Realism, socialism, capitalism.. it is all too boring...
Lets talk about wild sex with bi sexual lesbians...