Do Fundamentalist Colleges Deserve a "Weary Eye [sic]" in Science Education?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by evis102

Well I would rather my daughter be taught facts and not fairy tales.

My view is that high school students should have broad latitude in the colleges they apply to, and ultimately the decision on which college to attend belongs to the student rather than the parent.

A parent's input might reasonably be proportional to their financial contributions to the endeavor, but if the college students are paying their own way (as ours are so far) parental input is merely advisory and not directive.

But the question of the original post is more geared toward assessing the value of graduates and diplomas.

The curriculum matters. I have not argued in any way that science courses should exclude the consensus theories of origins. My point is that if a student really understands the consensus theories of origins, it matters less whether they believe them to be absolute truth. Very few university mathematicians and physicists believe Euclidean geometry any more. Yet, it still accounts for a full year of high school for most students. Believing Euclid is not nearly as important as being able to understand and apply Euclid. Why is believing Darwin any different?

If two schools are ranked comparably in a discipline, their programs are similarly accredited, and two graduates have the same GPA, standardized test scores, and research accomplishments, why should the graduate from the fundamentalist school be treated differently in hiring processes and/or admissions to medical school, grad school, or other professional school (vet, pharm, etc)?