As a general rule, should Mormons show preference for other Mormons, or should we treat everyone equally? If I sell my car, should I give a better deal to a Mormon? Should I support Mormon-owned businesses? Give Mormon political candidates a “thumb on the scale”? What about Mormon job applicants?
The Millennial Star
I think the answer is yes. As a Church we are certainly not in the same Zion building stage we were in the late 1800s Utah when it was a very bad thing to buy from a gentile. However, we are certainly still commanded to build up Zion and I believe part of that is supporting the endeavors of other Mormons. This becomes tricky in politics but I think we should give a slight benefit of the doubt to Mormon politicians (Romney, Reid, etc.). It becomes even trickier in business where less-than-above-board Mormons can take advantage of trusting Mormons, so we obvioulsy shouldn’t check our common sense or fraud o meters at the door. That being said though, I think part of a Zion mentality is that we support each other in all righteous endeavors.
I answer generally no, but I think that there are several different issues here.
When it comes to offering people special deals, it’s a two way street. You’re no more obliged to sell a Mormon your car for less (which would be financially advantageous to them), then a Mormon is obliged to buy you car for more (which would be financially advantageous to you).
When it comes to Mormon politicians, I actually tend to be biased against them. The reason that people stereotype Mormons as having all kinds of hang-ups about silly issues is because (surprise, surprise) a great many Mormons do have all kinds of hang-ups about silly issues. Any Mormon politician (outside of Utah) is going to given disproportionate weight as a representative of Mormonism (note how many Mormons had issues with black and the priesthood, and how often Udall is used as the example). Thus, any Mormon who throws his hat into the ring has to answer to a higher standard than your average politician and even your average Mormon.
When it comes to job applications, unless you know the person, the mere fact that they are Mormon doesn’t mean much.
In the end, being a Mormon basically makes that person 1 in 12 million, and with 12 million people participating (or not) there are going to be all types. I can only personally vouch for a few dozen of Mormons (and I doubt very many people here, for example, would vouch for me just because I’m Mormon).
Treat all people equally. That’s what Christ did, I think.
Treat all people equally. That’s what Christ did, I think.
Except gentiles who were allowed to share table scraps with the dogs after the children had eaten.
I’m inclined to say no. The organization and doctrine of the Church already steers us toward treating our fellow members differently (we go to Church with them every Sunday, our children become friends in Primary and YM/YW, we go home and visiting teaching, etc.). I think these and other practices already cause us to think of and treat “friends of other faiths” differently enough. Percieved inequities in the way we treat non-members and members is a significant barrier to missonary work and good public relations. It’s also, as Steve notes, not in keeping with the doctrines of Christ.
I think certainly there are circumstances in which one might give a better deal to a member of the church, especially if they have special needs. For instance, giving free lunches to missinaries.
However, I do not think that one should be obligated to conduct business differently with members. If you need to make a profit to live, the religion of your customer should not factor in to what you charge for goods or services.
I think that we ought consider other Mormons closer to being our family. While one might say that ethically we ought treat everyone the same, I’m not entirely sure that’s so. Clearly we treat our family different, and often our ward is an extension of our family. Further we have responsibilities within our family, our callings, and our ward that I think are stronger than the average joe walking down the street.
That’s not to neglect others (which I think sadly many do and which Pres. Hinkley has tried to counteract). But I do think our immediate duties are greater.
No.
Preferential treatment might be extended in allowing members opportunities to submit an application/make an offer/get an appointment. Making real-world decisions based in part on church membership is a bad idea, though. In fact, I’m often disinclined to do business with ward members precisely because I don’t want to be caught in a situation where I might be expected to make a decision based solely on the ward relationship.
I say sometimes yes and sometimes no (how’s that for certainty). I rent an apartment I own to a Mormon, and she pays much less than market price because she’s Mormon and I trust her and she’s in my ward. If she were a non-Mormon friend whom I trusted, perhaps she would pay less than market price, but not as much less as she’s paying. I would rather buy a car from another Mormon and do business with other Mormons (never happens in Miami, so the point is moot, but I would rather do business with other Mormons if I had a choice). But I also agree with Bryce that doing business with people in the ward is always dicey. Business deals can go bad, and the last thin you need in the ward is bad blood over money. Politics is a tough one. I’m not likely to ever vote for Harry Reid for anything unless his opponent is even worse (this is all hypothethical because I don’t think he’d ever run for national office and I don’t live in Nevada). Mitt Romney will definitely get my vote in 2008 if he runs but Jeb Bush might make an even better president (Jeb will probably not run). But in the area of politics, character and ideology are the most important issues, not religion.
While there are serious and real concerns in doing business with members of the church (I think of how many fired Marriott employees have left the church, etc.)I am very surprised that the consensus on this thread right now is not to extend preferential treatment. (I wonder what the break up would be among Utah and non-Utah residents) While Christ did love everyone and we should not neglect those not of our faith I think that part of 1. building a Zion community wherever we are and 2. taking our baptismal covenants seriously involves extending extra consideration to other members around us. While we should be careful how we extend the treatment and make sure that it does not slide into cronyism, I actively seek out members of the church to recruit to my firm b/c I want mormons around me. I worked hard at law school to recruit mormons and convince the admissions board to allow more mormons in. I discussed hiring an LDS law professor with the dean, etc. Although I vote mainly democrat I would vote for Romney, partly because he is very moderate and I agree with most of his positions but also b/c he is a mormon (although I would vote for neither Hatch nor Bennett though I cut them more slack politically than I do other similarly positioned politicians). And I think members of the church have really missed a great opportunity by not embracing Harry Reid. We should be encouraging all pro-life democrats and especially one that is Mormon. A stronger 2 party representation could do nothing but help the church.
But I digress, the point is that if we are serious about building Zion, wherever we are, we should extend a hand to other members of the church (while not neglecting non-members). Just like I buy Ben and Jerry’s because of their responsible business and environmental practices, I support Mormons b/c I believe in what they stand for. While it is merely a slight bias and I avoid Mormons who wear their religion as a badge of promotion in the business world (see Covey) I embrace members who are honestly striving to make a living (yes that is a direct criticism of Covey) and support them when left with a choice of all other things being equal–being Mormon always tips the scale.
HL, I’m sure there are reasons to criticize Covey, but he has been a great ambassador for us in the business world. Everybody has heard of him and has positive impressions of the Church partly because of him. Don’t sell him short.
I don’t really understand how this works. If I sell my car I should give the Mormon a better deal? But I’m a Mormon, he should give me a better deal. Support Mormon businesses? Is this a Mormon business that favors its Mormon customers or its Mormon stockholders? I think the whole idea is a little unseemly and could lead to a type of ghetto mentality, rather than a healthy engagement with the world.
We do have home teaching and the welfare system to help our Mormon friends. Otherwise, we should help everyone get a job, based on their abilities, and vote for anyone, based on their wisdom and incorruptibility (and a politician could better exhibit this incorruptibility if he didn’t have all kinds of special obligations to his Mormon friends). Of course, if one only knows Mormons. . .
You’re right Geoff. And while I do like using him as a punching bag and nearly scream when people quote him from the pulpit he has done some good things for business and the church. I’m just not sure if I can let of go of what for me is such a satisfying and easy target for my jokes. 🙂
Yes and no. Why do the CIA and FBI love to recruit at BYU? Because a person’s religion, the standard by which an individual lives their life, is another data point to go by. So, in a case where moral and ethical conduct has weight toward preferential treatment, I say yes to Mormons. As far as basic commerce goes, I hadn’t considered that patronizing Mormon businesses was “building up Zion” as suggested by HL Rogers, but it makes sense that more Mormon-owned revenue equals more tithing dollars. As far as politics go, I feel that a candidate should be judged by their position on the issues, and their personal and political actions made based on those positions.
Clark’s comment (no. 20) that church members are more like family cuts both ways: with family, I would be extra careful to avoid nepotism. And with family I would think twice before initiating a business relationship that could jeopardize a personal relationship. The same concerns apply with a ward member who I consider my “brother” or “sister.”
HL: I think your attempt to view the issue through the lens of zion-building may be too insular. What if I see everyone as a potential member of the Kingdom and potential Worker in Zion? What are the implications of your approach to either missionary work or the church’s image? I am afraid seeking our own and eschewing merit too much will send the wrong message (i.e., we love everyone, but we love certain people (regardless of their merit) a whole lot more than others).
I think a large reason the CIA and FBI recruit at BYU is because of language skills. I was told when I was getting my security clearance that at one time they assumed Mormons “were better people.” But some of the big spy scandals of the mid-80’s involving Mormons rather put a more critical eye on that.
Regarding nepotism, I think that’s a worry in some contexts. If I was in government and seemed to be favoring Mormons that would be a worry. However in a private business things are different.
I think treating Mormons as extended family is exactly right. That means giving them some slight preference, when possible, or even large preference at times. It also means, as Bryce and others point out, that one might want to avoid working with fellow ward members or even Mormons in general in exactly those situations in which one might want to avoid working with family.
When I’m in Utah or another area in which Mormons are a dominant majority, I would hope never to give them preferential treatment. Such behavior would justify the idea held by many in Utah that we are one big in-group that succeeds by excluding others.
In the hinterlands of North Dakota, I hope I would also treat all others equally. In a sparsely populated area where people are more likely to depend upon each other (car breaks down and there’s only one house for miles, etc), it’s important for all to be brothers and sisters with all.
However, in the middle ground, say in Northern Virginia, where Mormons are an entrenched, but tiny minority, I think I’d want to give Mormons preferential treatment on many things. For example, if selling my home in the Arlington ward, where young couples are dying to find a good home for sale in the ward boundaries instead of being pushed out to some place farther off and abandoning their ward– preference to Mormons. If I am a partner in a big law firm and a BYU grad calls me asking me if I can help get him an interview– I’d do it. On many other things, I wouldn’t, but if I felt this would help Mormons to grow in number and influence in the community, I would. I suppose that means I agree with HL’s theory of building up Zion. Mostly, I just think it’s because I love the idea of there being a world-wide support net of people who are at least tepidly committed to my success, and I to theirs. If I were stuck in the backroads of Portugal without money or resources, I’d look up the local branch. I hope that if I were living near the back roads of Portugal and some other LDS was stuck there without money or resources, that he’d look up the local branch and find me. No doubt I’d help him.
I have a friend who called Mitt Romney (back when Mitt was a just venture capitalist) after he graduated from the Joshua R. Clark Law School at BYU. My friend is even a cousin of Romney’s. Mitt Told him to go pound sand. I believe he said something to the effect of, “There are 11 million Mormons in the world, and I don’t know you from Adam.” Years later, he met Romney at a fund raising event, and Mitt was all smiles.
I believe that this is an appropriate thread to express my fervent, though controversial, belief that all good Mormon athletes ought to go to BYU.
I realize that many of them are aspiring pros and that they want to go wherever will best help them reach that end. In other words, BYU isn’t good enough. But if they would all just come to BYU in the first place, then BYU would be a superpower!
The problem is that BYU has an extraordinarily limited recruiting pool in the first place. The only reason it has been able to keep its head above water all these years has been that its stellar reputation has been keeping many Mormons coming. As it’s slowly losing that reputation though, it’s just going to hasten its downfall into oblivion. BYU relies on good Mormon athletes coming.
Of course, there are difficult problems such as Bobik going to OKST because he wasn’t getting enough playing time. And I understand athletes wanting playing time. But he would have gotten plenty of playing time this year!
It’s doubly frustrating that Yewtah is so successful. Where do they get all their players? There is absolutely no good reason to go to Yewtah when you could go to BYU! Seriously. And who really wants an empire of Yewts while the Cougars squander? No one. Except maybe Gordon Monson, but who cares what he thinks anyways.
I actually favor a total boycott of BYU. Don’t give them your money and don’t give them your children. They have such a altogether captive audience that they don’t need to compete for students. Insofar as competition keeps an institution honest, BYU is thoroughly corrupt. Most colleges acknowledge that they exist to serve the student; once they accept a student, they continue trying to fulfill his needs even if it goes beyond classroom credits. BYU disavows its obligations to students more completely than any other college that I’ve been acquainted with. This is not the Lord’s program.
Auturo, I suspect that you secretly have sympathy for the Yewts, so I accept your contempt.
But the claim that “BYU disavows its obligations to students” is patently false.
Eric Russell, I’m probably less indifferent to the the community college in Bismarck, North Dakota than I am to the University of Utah.
But you really think that my statement “BYU disavows its obligations to its students” is patently false? I’ve got so many stories, I don’t know where to begin. I guess I’ll start by mentioning the countless times that BYU bishops or administrators admonished me that umpteen students were waiting for the spot that I’d taken (not the Lord’s program–this frankly smacks of the Jehova’s Witnesses) . Then there’s the friend of mine whose wife had an unexpected child while attending Joshua R. Clark Law School, and the financial aid office told him that financial aid was for attracting students, not keeping them (not the Lord’s program). More recently, one of my friends children was accepted into the prestigious BYU Idaho starting in the summer; when my friend (who is confronting some severe financial challenges) asked for a deferment so that his kid could work during the summer they told him to pound sand (not the Lord’s program).
I’ve got enough stories to write a book. From personal experience, the experience of my friends, the experiences of my parents, the experiences of my in-laws, one thing I can tell is this: no matter how much you think I’m overstating the case, the assertion that BYU disavows its obligations to its students is not patently false.
Arturo,
Anyone who hates BYU is a Yewt, whether or not they associate with the school of the Yewts. People who hate BYU because they have no one else to hate are called “Rainbow Warriors.”
All three of your examples are extremely weak. We could find millions of problems that people have with their Bishops all over the world. I bet we could find people who have legitimate grips with the GA’s themselves. Further still, we have tons of people disillusioned with church policies and programs and the way they are administered.
But none of these experiences, nor the whole of them combined, amount to the valid conclusion that the LDS church is not the “Lord’s church”.
Additionally, universities have budgets. They have admissions programs. They have multiple other necessary programs. All of these programs are necessarily going to make some people unhappy as there is no way that they can make everyone happy. This is true of all universities.
Point being, even if Jesus Christ himself made every single administrative decision at a university, there would still be people who could fill books with their grips about the school.
You seem to be saying, (a) “Because everyone can have gripes about anything, BYU is the Lord’s University no matter what you say,” and (b) “You’re being unrealistic to suppose that BYU doesn’t have real-world constraints.”
All universities have constraints, but somehow other universities generally find ways to address their students’ needs much better than BYU does.
Nor is the issue just that gripes about BYU exist. The issue is that in my experience, the gripes about BYU are about problems that are symptomatic of a systemic indifference toward students by the administration. The Church only ended up acquiring BYU because it was a financial disaster. It was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now. It’s a perpetual money pit, and the Brethren are unwilling to let it be a real University by the world’s standards. Again, in my experience, nearly anyone who’s attended BYU and another school will tell you that they were treated better by the other school than they were at BYU. The problem is systemic, and it is partly the result of never having to compete for students.
Geoff said:
“I rent an apartment I own to a Mormon, and she pays much less than market price because she’s Mormon and I trust her and she’s in my ward.If she were a non-Mormon friend whom I trusted, perhaps she would pay less than market price, but not as much less as she’s paying.”
– if I understand you correctly, you’re offering up a rental property for different rates depending upon the person’s religion? Aren’t there laws against discriminatory pricing? Substitute skin color and don’t you have an issue here?
“a systemic indifference toward students by the administration.”
Dude, did we go to the same school?
If this indifference was the case, I was unaware of it for four years. As were nearly everyone I knew. I know people occasionally had a problem with a certain teacher about something, but a systemic indifference toward students by the administration? I really don’t know a single person who ever felt remotely that way. You are the first. (Besides all the yewts who hate it no matter what.)
I’ve never heard this term “yewt” before. It seems like a rather childish expression.
Eric, those who only ever attended BYU undergraduate may well be blind to the differences. Nevertheless, BYU offers the same level of customer service as your typical Department of Motor Vehicles or utility monopoly. If your happy with that level of service, then BYU is the place for you.
Ask anyone who attended more undergraduate schools than just BYU. They’ll tell you that by comparison, BYU does much more to make the student feel like he’s little more than a number. BYU administrators are much more concerned with things like keeping rules than actually working with students. For example, at BYU if they screw up your registration, you’ll pay a late fee even if it’s their fault. If they screw up your admissions application so that it doesn’t get processed correctly, it ends up where it ends up–there’s no “protocol” for corrections. The way that it’s run assumes that students are no more than a cog in the great wheel of their college.
Though I’m from MN, I attended Utah State and BYU as an undergrad, and my experiences there cause me to disagree with your characterization of BYU vis-a-vis other schools.
Maestro T: I attended both the University of Utah and the J. Reuben Clark Law School. Without reservation, I can say that almost every aspect of my experience at BYU was superior. In my humble opinion, BYU’s professors were both better qualified and more interested in students. BYU law’s administration and support staff did a better job in almost every way. Several experiences at BYU left me feeling like people cared about me and wanted me to succeed, something that rarely happened at the other place.
Things may be different for undergraduates at BYU; I don’t know. Some at BYU may feel emboldened by the high demand of prospective students and short supply of slots. Even so, I do think your passion about the subject is not justified by any claim or fact you have mentioned so far. Indeed, you seem to be saying that BYU is somehow exempt from market forces. If things were really as bad as you say, a correction is likely in order: the brightest students would turn to other excellent schools, institute programs there would grow, and BYU would be faced with a decision: serve students better or watch the best go elsewhere. But do we have any indication that something like that is happening?
Sarah (no. 26): owners of only a small number of rental properties are exempt from discrimination in housing laws. Moreover, it is not clear that offering a friend, relative, or coreligionist a discount is discrimination. Would it be discrimination for Geoff to give his property away to someone in one of these categories? Does he have an obligation to use or dispose of his property in a way that benefits all people equally?
Bill,
“yewt” is just a drop in the ocean, man. Check out cougarboard.com or cougarfan.com during rivalry week. It ain’t pretty.
But I think I’ve sufficiently threadjacked here. As to the topic at hand, I like what Ryan Bell says. It depends on the situation. There’s no need for favoritism in Utah. But I think there really is something to be said for supporting other saints when the numbers are small.
I love making connections with people, and have to keep reminding myself that just because a particular person I meet happens to be a Mormon does not mean that I should wholeheartedly give him or her my stamp of approval.
Religion is just one way we feel connected with people, so we have to be as careful using religion as an approximation for competence and integrity as we use race, ethnicity, or even physical attractiveness.
Anyway, in case anyone from the Millenial Star administration reads this comment – I’ve been noticing lately that few women seem to comment on your site. And I’m trying to figure out why that is.
Have you ever thought about why your readership is overwhelmingly male? I think I’ll start commenting a bit more around here, and see if I can figure it out (please do not read into this an attempt to pay more attention to my comments or the comments of any other woman. I’m just curious, and wondered if there had already been a discussion about this).
Those who post comments do seem to be carriers of a y-chromosome. I agree, and I’m not sure why that would be.
Tess, I am a recent convert to Millenial Star. I read through it quite often, but rarely post. You stated “Have you ever thought about why your readership is overwhelmingly male?” I don’t think you can judge the gender of the readership, only those who comment, and only those whose names seem to be male. (My sis-in-law is female, but posts under initials only)
Good point, Audrey. I had forgotten how many female lurkers might be out there. But I wonder why they don’t comment, then?
I like this blog, but I don’t come here as often as I do the other LDS blogs (or comment). Which is strange, considering that I enjoy reading the comments on the other LDS blogs of many of the people who post here.
Anyway, I’ll do a bit more research, and let you know what I think. And, again, not that it matters in the long run, because I think this is a good blog independently of who comments or lurks. I’m just curious.
Tess, you raise a good point. Like Ben, I don’t know why that is. Of course the overall readership (or commentership, more accurately) of the bloggernacle is overwhelmingly male, but I suppose it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that M* has a less-than-representative sample of women commenting.
We do have a few changes in the works that might increase our female membership in the near future, though, so stay tuned.
Until then, what would you think of a ladies night, where men have to pay a cover charge to comment, but ladies comment free?
Sexist 🙂
I mean to say that it would be sexist–not that you are a sexist, Ryan Bell.
Hey, Ryan-
Well, it depends what the goal of this blog is. If it is to attract readers, then I agree that you should try to figure out what you can do to appeal to female readers/commentators without losing your current readership and the unique feel you have going here on this blog.
That said, I’m a bit more interested in the sociological implications about why women aren’t commenting here vs. other sites. Is there something fundamentally different about Millenial Star than say, BCC, or T&S, which seem to have more female participants? BCC and T&S don’t have touchy/feeley pink backgrounds, and aren’t targeted to women like Feminist Mormon Housewives is (FMH is great), but they seem to bring more women out of the woodwork.
Do you have any female permabloggers? I haven’t seen that many postings from women here. Anyway, it could be statistically insignificant, but I’m just curious.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that men are much more likely to inhabit the bloggernacle then women, so you should expect some disproportion. I’m not sure why that is so I won’t even try to guess. But every one of us at M* is aware of the lack of women on the site. In my opinion, it makes the site less interesting, and we are trying to address that, but it’s not as easy as it might seem. Are any of the women reading this interested in becoming a permablogger? If so, please e-mail me, and let’s discuss it. geoff@millennialstar.org.
women=smarter=liberals
Not that I speak for her, but my wife thinks that the bloggernacle is silly. Although she occasionally participates, she generally feels that active participation makes about as much sense as playing chess through the mail, which is probably also a practice more prevalent among guys.
Geoff-
Why does the lack of women on the site make the site less interesting? I don’t think the lack of men on FMH makes that site any less interesting (but of course, that site is specifically targeted to women).
It could be that there aren’t many women permabloggers or guest posters. Perhaps female web surfers prefer to read posts written by females, but why? The content between the male posters and the female posters on the other blogs that get more female comments doesn’t seem to be appreciably different.
I disagree with Steve’s comment that women are more liberal than men (at least with respect to women in the Church), and so, therefore, this site, which tends to be more conservative, may not resonate with women. I would say that 99% of the Mormon women I know are way, way more conservative than my non-Mormon female friends (religious or non-religious).
I think liberal women in the Church have huge difficulties fitting into the Church’s traditional conservative culture, and so many of them leave the Church, or just aren’t as engaged as the conservative women. And since Millennial Star seems to lean towards the “conservative” end of the spectrum, I find it strange that fewer women post here.
Then again, maybe this says something about the personality of female bloggers. They may be more liberal than the general female Mormon population, and thus Millennial Star may not appeal to them as much.
Tess I didn’t say that women were more liberal than men… not exactly.
Careful, Steve. My comment-deleting trigger finger is itching.
I’d like to go on the record as a Conservative Republican, mostly because I would hate to be mistaken for a liberal, a feminist, or a the wife of a house. I am new to blogs/blogging, but If I had to theorize why there are more men than women blogging, it would probably be more along the lines that the women who are of an age to be internet savvy or even aware of what a “blog” is are generally busy with young children, household activities, or jobs, and excess computer time falls low on the totem-pole of priorities.
Maybe it is like the mystery of video games. Why do men enjoy playing video games more than women? I don’t know why. It just is.
Steve wrote:
“women=smarter=liberals”
In other words:
Women are smarter than men (implied from context)
Liberals are smarter
Women are liberals
The question now is whether the incremental increase in “smartness” to become a liberal is greater than the difference in “smartness” that naturally separates women from men.
So, Steve is technically right – women may be smarter than men, but women may not be sufficiently smart to become liberals.
LOL, Davis! I thought I’d hear that from your brother.
Tess, that’s an interesting reading of the formula.
Steve and Tess:
I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I have found that most of the time, the assertion
smart -> liberal
is, at its core, based on the premise
liberal = smart.
It’s circular. People who think that the smarter you are, the more liberal you will be, are people who already believe that liberal beliefs are a sign of intelligence.
I have yet to hear anyone prove otherwise. 🙂
Perhaps, HL, you’re just another example of how liberals hear only what they want to hear. 😉
Well, for those who actually interested in real data on the connections between intelligence and politics, I recommend L.A. writer Steve Sailer’s articles. One piece of data he includes is a comparison of 8th grade NAEP scores in math and reading between states that voted for Gore and those that voted for Bush. The average scores for the first group of states were 277.1 and 262.5. For the other group they were 276.5 and 262.2.
http://www.isteve.com/IQhoax.htm
http://www.isteve.com/Articles_IQ.htm
I haven’t looked at the data you cite, John, but it sounds fishy. The red state/blue state dichotomy fails to account for the fact that most states are a shade of “purple.” Thus, it is at least possible that the slight conservative minority in Blue states is bringing test scores up, while the slight liberal minority in Red states is dragging test scores down.
HL (no. 51): smug self-congratulation is the birthright of the liberal elite. That and pretending to care about the unwashed masses come election time. It is part and parcel of what has kept democrats out of the White House for roughly forty years. (That is, if we exclude sincerely religious southern men to whom smug self-congratulation did not come naturally!) I say: keep it up! Enjoy your consolation prize!
(note: although I am anti-emoticon, I should insert several here to ensure that my tone–friendly, grinning, good-natured–is not misunderstood).
John (no. 53): I looked at the data. Hah! Thanks for the links!
Let me just say right now that I am greatly pleased with this awful, awful threadjack.
But Matt: if you sell your car, should you give a better deal to a Mormon? Only if that mormon is me. I like your car.
John Mansfield, I guess that data shows that the Republican Party is the party of the working man after all.
Even so, liberals only like standardized tests when they can use them to save the lives of savage murderers on death row and belittle the working man. (Please read the preceding incendiary comment as entirely tongue in cheek–ok, well not entierly…)
I’m jumping in late, but I have too. After reading the dialogue between Arturo and Eric, I have to say something. I completely agree with Arturo. BYU has lost its vision. It is not the same school my husband graduated from 20 years ago. I have two sons-in-law currently attending and their opinion of BYU is less than flattering. The professors (and administration) have an elitist mentality that does not jive with their actions. If you want to act elite, be elite. If you want to be like the world, embrace it wholeheartedly – but quit using tithing dollars for funding.
Sorry to thread jack – it’s just a touchy subject right now.
Might I add that this varies from department to department? The physics department was amazing when I was there (up to around 95). I heard great things about other departments. Yet some departments I was in (directly or indirectly) simply didn’t have the same spirit of working with students. The reasons varied. Then I had roommates in departments that didn’t sound that good at all. So I think it dangerous to draw generalizations to the whole school based upon one or two departments (or often just bad experiences with professors).
Only I’m also talking about the folks in the admin building, Clark. You remember the building that looked on the inside as though it started life as an aquarium? They rule over all the students with a vim and vigor that would make ol’ Uncle Joe proud.