Many State Legislators Lack College Degrees

[elleng]

About one in four of the nearly 7,400 elected representatives across the country do not possess a four-year college degree, according to a report released Sunday evening by The Chronicle of Higher Education in Washington. That compares with 6 percent of members of Congress, and 72 percent of adults nationwide, said the report, which is based primarily on the officials’ self-reported biographical information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/education/13legis.html?_r=1&hpw

[hobbit709]

1. Most of them lack sequentially firing synapses in their cerebral cortex.

[shraby]

2. That's because most lack synapses period.

[ladywnch]

25. most of them would need a translator to comprehend your post! n/t

[Coyote_Bandit]

3. A credential or a college degree

is not necessarily an indicator that an individual possesses critical thinking skills or passionate convictions.

And the lack of a credential or college degree is not necessarily an indicator that an individual lacks critical thinking skills or passionate convictions.

[elleng]

5. Correct on both counts, but knowledge about many things/issues/facts

more and more necessary in order to make good/decent/wise decisions generally, and moreso if one is in position to affect public policy. Such knowledge more likely to be obtained in post-high school education, imo.

[Coyote_Bandit]

6. Being well read and informed

has more to do with self discipline than formal education.

I have 3 graduate degrees and 2 professional licenses. I've known some pretty ignorant folks who had lots of credentials and education.

I think we overvalue formal education in this nation.

[PotatoChip]

8. I saw your post

just now after my reply, but couldn't agree more ;-)

[yellowcanine]

10. But that is contradictory. People who lack self discipline are more likely to eschew a formal

education than people who have lots of self discipline. And the structure that formal education offers can make up for some failings in self discipline. For many people in the middle of the self-discipline continuum, there is nothing like an F on a mid-term exam to make them wake up and change their ways.

[Coyote_Bandit]

18. Ummmm......No

Humans have the inherent ability to discipline and control their own feelings, desires, actions in an effort to improve themselves. While the rigors of formal education can foster the development of self-discipline it is not pre-requisite to having self-discipline. One can have self-discipline without ever darkening a school door. Or pursuing a college degree.

[yellowcanine]

21. Note I said "more likely". Not that it doesn't happen. And I did not say that formal

education was a pre-requisate for having self-discipline. How do you get that out of my post? What I said was that formal education can make up for the lack of self-discipline by giving structure and feedback that rewards/punishes.

[Coyote_Bandit]

26. And I said

Being well read and informed has more to do with self discipline than formal education.

A statement you labelled contradictory - which suggests that you think that formal education is more important to being well read and informed than self-discipline.

A student can knuckle down during a particular course, get a good grade and then neglect to follow current events and application of the knowledge acquired. So the kid got a good grade? Big fucking deal. He is still lacking in the self-discipline to be well read and informed regarding that particular subject and its application. That requires self-discipline and iniative rather than the fear of getting a bad grade.

Sure the fear of getting a bad grade can motivate short-term behavior. But ultimately self-discipline is a skill that enables us to better ourselves. Fear motivated behavior is not the stuff of self-discipline for the simple reason that the underlying motives are polar opposites. Put another way, the kid who is studying something because he wants to learn will usually have the drive and focus to discipline and inform himself - regardless of whether he has access to formal education. The kid who lacks that desire to learn will plan his behavior to meet the expectations of others. One wants to learn the subject at hand while the other wants to get a grade and move on.

Humans have the inherent ability to discipline and control their own feelings, desires, and actions in an effort to improve themselves. While the rigors of formal education can foster the development of self-discipline it is simply unnecessary to develop the practice of self-discipline.

Anyone who undertakes a course of action in order to better themselves is practicing self-discipline. Addicts, (former) smokers and dieters who successfully change their lifestyle demonstrate self-discipline.

The self-discipline required of a student really isn't much different than that required of an athlete in training or a successful worker. Mostly it's a matter of showing up and being consistent in working toward a desired goal. The kid that crams and pulls all-nighters is actually demonstrating a lack of self-discipline.

[trud]

30. self discipline?

Criminey, how about having spent one's youth fighting in WWII and having a wife and baby to support when you come home.

You think people don't have college degrees because they lack self-discipline? You must have had a wealthy upbringing.

[PotatoChip]

7. Or can be obtained by reading :-)

Though I come from a family of doctors, lawyers, mechanical engineers, ect the most intelligent, well-read person I ever met was my grandfather, a HS graduate. It was his love of reading and knowledge that inspired his children and grandchildren to get their college (and beyond) degrees.

I've known many people w/only HS diplomas who are by far, better informed, well-read, critical thinkers then many college grads. Including a highly effective 3 term state legislator.

[yellowcanine]

11. There are examples on both sides. Rush Limbaugh is a self proclaimed "self educated well read

person." And sometimes the "self educated" category is a convenient excuse for not having the self-discipline to finish a degree. It is the haven of many college dropouts, including Rush Limbaugh.

[PotatoChip]

15. True, I agree

And I'm sure that is probably the more common scenario.

My point is that there are sometimes exceptions. Very likely, more often then many people realize. This is why the lack of a college education is not an automatic deal breaker for me when I'm considering who to vote for.

[BR_Parkway]

31. Sarah Palin has a degree, Virginia Foxx taught at the college level

Michelle Bachmann is an attorney.....

Knowledge of many things is certainly good, but if they subscribe to an ideology that is more important to them than facts, they can have multiple doctorates and it still won't change the outcome

[elleng]

33. Of course. A fool is a fool is a fool.

[BR_Parkway]

35. I think it's more akin to the same sort of brainwashing that cults

use to get people to believe things that are the complete opposite of reality. I've never seen another group that will continue to mindlessly parrot the same failed talking points over and over, no matter how many times they've been proven to be complete failures.

If a Republican were to constantly repeat that objects fall UP when they are dropped as often as they say that tax cuts/deregulation were the great salvation of all - we'd not hesitate to put them in a comfy asylum somewhere for their own good.

[Zoeisright]

36. I disagree. Colleges teach logical reasoning. You don't get that training in high school.

And I'll take fewer "passionate" repukes with their cruel "convictions", thank you.

[PotatoChip]

4. Should we be concerned about this?

Whether or not a legislator has had a college education is irrelevant imho. It's more about common sense and a demonstrated ability to understand and deal with key issues effectively. We need only to look at George W Bush or Sarah Palin for proof that a college education does not necessarily translate to superior intellect or even basic common sense.

[yellowcanine]

9. I disagree. "Common sense" is no substitute for knowledge.

Bush and Palin are the "exceptions which prove the rule" if anything. Of course some people go through 4 or 5 or 6 years of college and don't gain much in terms of knowledge or how to engage in critical thinking. And some people don't go to college at all and acquire those skills. But on the average, we are better off with elected officials who have been exposed to the opportunities for intellectual development offered by a college experience.

"Common sense" is what Bush and Palin operate on. It doesn't work in the complex world of good governance. And a knowledge deficit cannot be fixed by having good advisers because a leader has to have enough knowledge and critical thinking skills to navigate among advisers and know which advice to take and which to avoid. It takes more than "common sense" which actually isn't that common.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. So Liberty University law degrees speak to excellence?

Yeah, sure whatever. Monica Goodling was just wonderful, so ethical, so skilled. Puh-lease. Bush, of course, has an MBA from one of the finest universities on earth. He is the ultimate result of looking at paper rather than actual intellect.

[yellowcanine]

13. Of course that is exactly what I am saying....NOT. Please - logical fallacy.

Either red herring, false choice, or strawman - maybe all three. Come on. Disagree but don't put words in in my mouth, please.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Well the point you are 'making' is rather convoluted for a reason.

First we have to put aside the Ivy league degree holders you want to call 'exceptions to the rule' so suddenly, Bush holding an MBA does not count. Palin's degree, that does not count. The fact that 'university degree' is a term of art, which might mean Monica, does not count. So you have a point that does not carry through unless we forget about all the rotten minds with degrees, and about the degree mills, and about all the other bits of truth that do not fit your conclusio
Where is your actual evidence for your position? Baseless theories deserve sarcastic responses. Specious arguments, such as 'those with advanced degrees that I do not like are put in the column for those without advanced degrees' also deserve less than a serious response.
If the discussion is about the value of holding a degree, and it is not acceptable to point out the failings of so many with degrees, it seems that the parameters here are 'that which proves my point is acceptable, that which does not does not count.' Silly time.

[yellowcanine]

16. No. The fact that some don't become critical thinkers in the process of getting a degree

does not negate the experience of those who do. On the whole, I would rather have university trained politicians than not - which was the original debating point here. I was arguing against the premise that "common sense" trumps higher education. In my experience it doesn't. It is also not a valid logical deduction.

Some people without university degrees make excellent legislators/leaders. Some people with university degrees make lousy legislators/leaders. It does not follow that having a university degree makes one a lousy legislator/leader or that not having a university degree makes one an excellent legislator, particularly when one considers the fact that the vast majority of legislators, good or bad, have university degrees.

On the other hand I was arguing that a university education promotes critical thinking.
And again, in my experience it does. That is not the same as saying that it is a prerequisite for critical thinking or that a positive response is guaranteed.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. But up thread you posted about Rush Limbaugh not having

a degree as if that proved a point about those without degrees. Yet when offered the other hand, you said 'no true Scotsman'.
If some without are excellent, and some with are utterly worthless and worse, it sort of follows that the degree itself is not much of an indication of anything. No one is contending that a degree makes one 'lousy'. Where you got that out of what was said is difficult to figure out. No one is arguing that a degree is a bad thing, just that it is not always a needed thing, and that it is often clearly a useless thing in terms of indicating ability or ethics in politics.

[yellowcanine]

23. I posted Rush as an example of where the common sense/self educated argument fails

And because he makes so much of it and people listen to his arguments over those of highly trained scientists (on global warming, for example).


"If some without are excellent, and some with are utterly worthless and worse, it sort of follows that the degree itself is not much of an indication of anything."

Actually logically it does not follow. The key word here is "some". The degree is an indication of a certain level of achievement. Obviously not all degrees indicate the same level of achievement and not having the degree doesn't mean a person didn't achieve at the same level without the degree. But without knowing anything else about the person, the degree is an indicator. Not the only one of course. But nothing is. That is why usually we do more than just read resumes when hiring people.


"No one is contending that a degree makes one 'lousy'."
And neither did I. Go back and read it again.

[PotatoChip]

17. You seem to have missed this part of my post

in your reply to me~

It's more about common sense and a demonstrated ability to understand and deal with key issues effectively

My own Congressman actually fits that description. No college in his background whatsoever. And yes, he has 'a staff' now, but when he was a state legislator he did not. No legislators in my state have their own staff. Yet he was highly effective in that role as well as a 'critical thinker'. Just as he is now in Washington.

[yellowcanine]

20. Maybe. But why list "common sense" it all? It is very subjective, don't you think.

One person's "common sense" is another person's foolishness. And if we accepted the conclusions of common sense there would be no science or innovation. It is when people question common sense that knowledge increases.

[PotatoChip]

24. Good point

I can't disagree w/you there. The 'common sense' part should probably have been left out. You are right, it is very subjective.

[Stuckinthebush]

19. Absolutely

You can't use anecdotal examples such as Sarah Palin and George Bush as evidence that higher education doesn't work. As a rule, the more education one has the more progressive minded they are. I'm concerned that 25% of legislators don't have a college degree.

[Politicalboi]

27. Using Bush, Palin are flukes

They somehow either by (pretty or money or sympathy) got their degree. There should be some kind of comprehension test and history test before running for any office. Test that we know a lot of Repukes would fail and never be able to hold office. Could have prevented this.... There should be some standard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5xVRXLgLxw

[PotatoChip]

28. Yes there should be some kind of test or standard

I agree completely with that. That way, there would be proof of competence beyond holding a college degree.

A test or standard of some type would really sort out this entire question. In fact, I'm confident that it would validate my HS educated Congressman's presence in Washington, while at the same time disqualifying many with college degrees from holding any elected position above perhaps dog-catcher ~ such as Palin, Bachmann and GWB (to name just a few of probably MANY examples).

It'd be a great equalizer, not to mention an excellent, yet fair way to get rid of (easily) more than 1/2 of the GOP. :evilgrin:

[trud]

29. my Dad and Mom didn't have college degrees

My Dad was the most well-informed person I've ever known, and either he or my Mom would have been fine, responsible legislators.

[StevesRedLens]

32. Non-degreed lawmakers can be as good and effective as college graduates

Frankly, I consider any 'worker' a 'worker' no matter what his/her education, income, job (or lack thereof due to retirement, unemployment, disability or student status) and I would be just as comfortable with my state legislator being a HS or GED educated blue-collar worker as a college-degreed desk worker. I've got a BA and have done work on a MA but I've learned most of what I know (not saying that it's much in the scheme of things) through the school of 'hard-knocks' called LIFE. And I've done blue and white collar jobs as well.

I think the idea that a college educated person is more qualified for something in general is folly, unless of course the degree is in a specialty like engineering, nursing or something similar. A BA degree in philosophy, history or sociology (my field of study) might get a foot in some doors, but it won't keep you there long if you can't learn from your mistakes and from the ups and downs of life.

[BiggJawn]

34. Here in Indiana

The yokels believe that if somebody is the most successful farmer, grocery store owner, or car dealer in their district that they have some sort of innate understanding of the Law and an almost genetic capability for crafting it.

We don't call them The World's Worst Legislature for nuttin, y'know.