Sure it is. You can quantify many aspects of a president in office. You can also do binary tests like success of say a treaty or its failure to deliver. What most Presidential surveys I've seen do is little quantification, lots of opinion with no real attempt to measure anything.
Any port in a storm for you it seems...
You can measure such things, but that is not a measurement of the 'best' or 'worst' presidents. The problem is that such successes or failures might be counted as 'good' or 'bad' depending on who you're talking to.
In that sense, such lists based that way are worthless. They are nothing but opinion. Since you are asking academics in history at universities these questions, it means the results will be heavily skewed in favor of the Left / Progressives / Democrats as that is the bulk of those you are using in the survey to get results.
I love how you righties hate academia.
Exactly.
I don't. I hate what leftists have done to it.
I don't hate academia. I hate the Left and the Left has pretty much taken control of academia.
www.independent.org
Yep, that was a good one!
Yep, trump praising Hannibal Lector, or accusing Megyn Kelly of "having blood coming out of her whatever", or bragging how he can "grab women by the pussy"? That's so classy!
Academia is full of intelligent people. Historians are for the most part intelligent and learned people. You fear facing someone with real credentials You are more comfortable with Fox liars and far right loons. The left is in academia, because for the most part, rightys would not qualify. Listen to your favorite president talk history. He is your standard bearer.I don't hate academia. I hate the Left and the Left has pretty much taken control of academia.
Professors in colleges and universities are about 60% Leftist with another, roughly 25% being Left-of-center liberals. Even centrist academics are a rarity today.
The Hyperpoliticization of Higher Ed: Trends in Faculty Political Ideology, 1969Present | Phillip W. Magness, David Waugh
The archetype of the “radical tenured college professor” has long had an empirical basis in political surveys of academics. Since the earliest
More than 80 Percent of Surveyed Harvard Faculty Identify as Liberal | News | The Harvard Crimson
More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April.www.thecrimson.com
Research confirms that professors lean left, but questions assumptions about what this means for conservatives
DeVos accusation that faculty members seek to tell students what to think renews debate, on which research is plentiful. Studies say professors lean left but challenge idea that this results in indoctrination or harms conservatives.www.insidehighered.com
And, as with everything the Left gets control of, they're turning higher education into a pile of shit.
Boring read your posts. You hate the left.I don't hate academia. I hate the Left and the Left has pretty much taken control of academia.
Professors in colleges and universities are about 60% Leftist with another, roughly 25% being Left-of-center liberals. Even centrist academics are a rarity today.
The Hyperpoliticization of Higher Ed: Trends in Faculty Political Ideology, 1969Present | Phillip W. Magness, David Waugh
The archetype of the “radical tenured college professor” has long had an empirical basis in political surveys of academics. Since the earliest
More than 80 Percent of Surveyed Harvard Faculty Identify as Liberal | News | The Harvard Crimson
More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April.
Research confirms that professors lean left, but questions assumptions about what this means for conservatives
DeVos accusation that faculty members seek to tell students what to think renews debate, on which research is plentiful. Studies say professors lean left but challenge idea that this results in indoctrination or harms conservatives.
And, as with everything the Left gets control of, they're turning higher education into a pile of shit.
I regularly take on some of those loons in academica who are historians in areas I do research in. I usually get a whinny, irrelevant, appeal to authority in response from them.
Engineering students are more to the right and are far smarter than your average liberal arts student. Medical students tend to be more conservative also.
If you are doing research, you are reading books written by historians. You are so wrong. Debates and discussions are the bread and butter of historians. Your statement makes no sense . If you watch CSPAN, you will see lots of long discussions from historians. You are seeking info that feeds your biases.I regularly take on some of those loons in academica who are historians in areas I do research in. I usually get a whinny, irrelevant, appeal to authority in response from them.
For example, John Moiser, an English professor at Loyola who wrote this book:
I sent him a multi-page review / analysis of this shitty book and how wrong it is on almost everything. His response was he has a Ph D and I don't. That's typical of those in academia. When confronted by facts or someone who is knowledgeable but not an academic themselves, they fall back on their credentials rather than try and debate.
That's become the norm for the Left on campuses today.
I'm absolutely correct. Historians get it wrong all the time. They don't go into depth like they should. Moiser is a perfect example. At one point he credits the French in 1940 as having 12 "armored divisions." Among those he counts 5 Divisions Légères de Cavalerie. His research is horribly flawed and badly done. These divisions aren't even really what most historians would call a division. They're more akin to a brigade or reinforced regiment--about a third of a division. Worse, their entire tank complement amounts to just 13 light tanks, 13 armored cars, and 10 machinegun armed tankettes, about a tenth of what a typical German panzer division had.
Knowing about weapons is not knowing history. It is weird you do not understand.I'm absolutely correct. Historians get it wrong all the time. They don't go into depth like they should. Moiser is a perfect example. At one point he credits the French in 1940 as having 12 "armored divisions." Among those he counts 5 Divisions Légères de Cavalerie. His research is horribly flawed and badly done. These divisions aren't even really what most historians would call a division. They're more akin to a brigade or reinforced regiment--about a third of a division. Worse, their entire tank complement amounts to just 13 light tanks, 13 armored cars, and 10 machinegun armed tankettes, about a tenth of what a typical German panzer division had.
That's one example of dozens of mistakes Mosier makes.
Here's another:
Mills' research is great. In depth and thorough. His analysis and conclusions are for crap however. He doesn't grasp the technology from the engineering and science side of things and often draws conclusions from preconceived notions. Carlos Kopp out of Australia is another such PhD that does this in related fields to the above. Mills was one of Kopp's graduate students...
I understand perfectly, it is you missing the point. If you can't get the details correct, cannot grasp the basic facts, you can't put the rest of the picture together. My knowing what an 'armored division' is as opposed to something that isn't is an important detail. Not understanding that leads to wrong conclusions.
Knowing about weapons is not knowing history.
What was Biden found guilty of?