David Horowitz writes about the two Universities of Texas:

Graduate students in an Introduction to Women's and Gender Studies course, for example, are provided with a reading list that includes scores of texts written from a radical viewpoint. Only one text blatantly criticizes the radical feminist perspective. This is a book written by two founders of women's studies who subsequently left the field, because they felt it had become totally devoted to a political ideology to the point that its practitioners regularly denied scientific findings that conflicted with their political agendas.

This is the way the course syllabus for the introductory class refers to the book: "Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, professing feminism, passim (note that this represents anti-women's studies - prepare to refute it)." This is the instruction of a political ideologue, not an academic scholar.

This is one example, but a glance at other curricular offerings in this and related programs reveals similarly unprofessional agendas. Many of the professors who teach these courses are neither trained historians nor sociologists nor economists, yet the subject matter they teach will often be, such as courses on the history of radical movements, globalization, race or all three.

Communications and Social Change, taught by a professor of communications studies, is such a course. It has no academic rationale except to recruit students to the causes favored by its Marxist instructor: "After the historical survey of social movements, the second part of the course asks you to become involved as an observer and/or as a participant in a local social movement."

The course requires only two texts, naturally by two Marxists (Howard Zinn and UT's own Robert Jensen), both situated on the far left of the political spectrum. There's no harm in reading Zinn or Jensen, but a properly academic course would include their critics on the right and left.

There are enough such courses at the University of Texas that students can enroll in a degree-granting curriculum which has no academic component, but is a comprehensive training program in the theory and practice of radical politics.

How many parents are unwittingly contributing to their offspring's maleducation, and enabling the continuation of such nonsense, by paying the outrageous tuitions at institutions like this?

It is sad people are shelling out tens of thousands of dollars to turn their daughters into unhappy, dysfunctional man-haters.

I can only imagine the thoughts running through an interviewer's mind when the candidate has one of those "studies" degrees (e.g. women's studies, minority studies, etc.). Who would want to hire a trained malcontent? What do they have to offer to any company or organization?

Some college graduates are upset that their degree doesn't automatically entitle them to a cushy job. The sad fact is that too many of them have no marketable skills or anything positive to offer. They'd better get used to asking, "Would you like a muffin with your latte?"

Mike,
by the time they get to the college level they been hearing for 18 years that women are great, children are their source of strength and that other than for cutting the grass and as sperm donors men are extraneous. Courses like this are just the "proof" of what they've been taught.

"After the historical survey of social movements, the second part of the course asks you to become involved as an observer and/or as a participant in a local social movement."

What is the end of class score if the student comes to class, contributes, turns in all the assignments and then as a social movement goes out and joins the Republican, Libertarian or Constitutional Party?

There is no alternative to throwing tuition money on one of these institutions, because there are no other inistitutions.

As for the employment, graduates of those programs do not go into companies (except narrow fields where they fit like hand in glove: Org Com people go into PR/Consulting/Ads, etc.). All those man-hating waste products of society go to community colleges and spread da word there.

It's sort of funny to see how they evolve... First they want to defend the thesis. Then, they think that it's too hard and switch to comps. And they say, "I want to be an activist and teach at a community college, why bother with thesis anyway".

There is no alternative to throwing tuition money on one of these institutions, because there are no other inistitutions.

Well, if parents quite paying tuition for their kids who wanted to take these nutty majors, the departments would probably dry up. I doubt if they could subsist on scholarships alone.

Another reason to develop substitutes for fossil fuels, given the role of the oil-based Permanent University Fund in keeping UT going. If there were only some way of disentangling McDonald Observatory from this mess ...

There is no alternative to throwing tuition money on one of these institutions, because there are no other inistitutions.

Sadly, A&M use to be an exception, but that's changing.

There is no alternative to throwing tuition money on one of these institutions, because there are no other inistitutions.

There are the 'assessment schools' of Excelsior College, Charter Oak State College and Thomas Edison State College. These are regionally accredited schools (the "good" accreditation) and an undergraduate degree from Excelsior can be had for considerably less than ten large. The external degree from Ohio University is also an option.

Depending on the student's ultimate educational goal, the above schools can be a quite good option. Followed with a graduate degree from a name school...well, you know.