There are some really interesting things pointed out in this research. Here are the key points I took from the NYT’s summary:

• There is some sort of typecasting going on with the profession. The societal image of a professor is someone with a liberal bias, so it’s almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you think about whether or not you don’t fit the typecasting and make that salient to yourself, the chances of you not aiming for that profession become lower.
• Similarly, I agree with the ideas of “fitting in”; once you find yourself in the field, you might begin to take on certain characteristics (as stereotypical as some may be) you see in the people around you. This kind of identity formation suits itself to a type of in-group “we’re in this field” v. out-group “you are not” idea, with an emphasis being placed on the characteristics and ideals that separate the two groups. Indeed, “choosing an occupation is part of fashioning an identity,” Mitchell L. Stevens, a Stanford education professor, states.
• I think it’s important to think about the fact that other professions are “politically typed”. Would some of the professions mentioned as being liberal-dominated (“journalism, art, fashion, social work, and therapy”) benefit from the different viewpoints and perspectives conservatives may be able to contribute? I could definitely see that being true for academia.
• The connection the authors make with the research interests and associations of sociology and liberal ideals is really interesting to me. I think the same could easily be true for my other undergraduate major, psychology.
• Speaking of psychology, I just really enjoy their methodology. Anecdotal data can often not be extrapolated to the general public.
• My own experience with the teachers and professors I’ve had over the years has led me to conclude that I’ve seen this at work. Also, I identify as a liberal and majored in psychology and music; I totally fit the bill. That’s really interesting.