If you use the word "hella" then your IQ is confirmed to be below 65.
Doesn't matter what you think. One person has a career in a trade and is making a decent wage, the other is working minimum wage after sinking themselves into 40k in debt with a degree that they will never use. Which one is smarter?
Damn I'm dumb as forget you got me there
That's sort of a loaded question. You're making lots of presumptions. Like that
1. all/most people in academia end up with useless degrees
2. you cant get a degree without putting yourself into massive debt (this is pretty Americentric and its not even true in America)
3. working minimum wage means you're not smart. if you can stay alive working at a low wage and your life is otherwise fine then it's not necessarily a bad or even worse option. musicians are a good example of people with fulfilling work that doesn't pay very well. but your life can be fulfilling without making a stuffload of money.
4. smart people can't make "bad" decisions (your definition of bad, not mine)
You also ignored the argument that rich people would probably like the Republican ideology of less taxation / government control of markets
I mean when people say stuff like "oh yeah reality definitly swings conservative forget the libs"
Wait that's a Matthew impression
I can do one too. "Emails"
I think people are getting their terms mixed up.
When everyone says "liberal", I hear "libertarian". I understand "classic liberalism" is a thing but the term has taken on a much different meaning given how those that identify as liberals act. Someone who was not deeply educated might want to see things they don't like be eliminated (authoritatively), but as a scholar, you learn more about the world and come to appreciate the diversity of thought and everything else that comes with it, making you more libertarian in leaning. Political opinion outside of that has nothing to do with it.
That being said, your political outlook, even the authoritative/libertarian part of it, depends on what you are taught. If you're taught like the Riddler Youth was, you're bound to have different opinions than the regular American college student at the time. Political opinions of the teachers, like it or not, affect the students. The Riddler Youth was probably being taught the same material as the regular American student, but laced with a deep dose of anti-Semitism and general hatred of anyone who didn't follow their political beliefs. Was their education on things like science and math stunted? Probably not. Was their outlook on the world stunted? Definitely.
This is why you hear people call for teachers to keep their political beliefs a secret and not to "y'know the rules say I can't do this but y'know I just gotta" their way out of it. Students are supposed to come to political decisions on their own, given information about the world. Considering that, it's easy to see the libertarian ideological leaning higher-educated people have.
I've always thought of libertarian to mean someone who is mainly concerned with letting the free market sort everything out. I'm not sure if I've ever heard it used to describe something more philosophical like you're saying.
It seems like you're attributing the left-lean of academia to the left-lean of the professors and teachers. But why do the professors and teachers lean left?
I'm also not sure if I agree with the argument that libertarianism (your definition) springs naturally from becoming smarter. That's sort of a big leap to make with the vague hand-waving you justified it with
except that is exactly what they are: radical leftists
have radical feminists or tumblr-kins ever substantially supported right-leaning people? I only know one, and even he's off and on the fence
I never said that those kinds of people couldn't be considered leftists. They may be radical and on the left, but that doesn't make them representative of actual "radical leftists",
which is the point I was making. (namely, socialists, communists, anarchists, and all folks in between)