Education for Public Life

[Kernen]

Voters should have to have at least a master's degree to vote. Preferably a law degree.

[Isilanka]

Voters should have to have at least a master's degree to vote. Preferably a law degree.

First, what about "hell no", and second, why law out of all things ?

[Mystic Warriors]

Voters should have to have at least a master's degree to vote. Preferably a law degree.

Well, that would eliminate 99.9% of the country. But at least our leaders would be intelligent.

[Trumptonium1]

Voters should have to have at least a master's degree to vote. Preferably a law degree.

Well, that would eliminate 99.9% of the country. But at least our leaders would be intelligent.

He said law degree. Pay attention.

[Mystic Warriors]

Well, that would eliminate 99.9% of the country. But at least our leaders would be intelligent.

He said law degree. Pay attention.

The voters would better educated and less likely to fall for lies and propaganada. Pay attention.

[Trumptonium1]

He said law degree. Pay attention.

The voters would better educated and less likely to fall for lies and propganada. Pay attention.

Funny post.

[Mystic Warriors]

The voters would better educated and less likely to fall for lies and propaganda. Pay attention.

Funny post.

Whatever you say dude.

[Kernen]

Voters should have to have at least a master's degree to vote. Preferably a law degree.

First, what about "hell no", and second, why law out of all things ?

Because people should have a demonstrable academic rigor and expertise to have a say in governance. Otherwise, what do they bring to the table?

Voters should have to have at least a master's degree to vote. Preferably a law degree.

Well, that would eliminate 99.9% of the country. But at least our leaders would be intelligent.

Yes. That is the idea.

Well, that would eliminate 99.9% of the country. But at least our leaders would be intelligent.

He said law degree. Pay attention.

I love lawyer jokes.

[Isilanka]

Look, I think we can agree on the fact that you need riguor to say something interesting in politics, by why a master's degree of all things ?
I mean unless you want a MASSIVE overhaul of your education system, and to begin with free upper education for everyone, how do you avoid ending up in a system where anyone who's below middle class doesn't get the right to vote ?

And as far as I know, law isn't the only thing where you learn riguor. Rethorics, yes, maybe. But I don't see why you'd have more riguor in law than maths or social science.

[Kernen]

Look, I think we can agree on the fact that you need riguor to say something interesting in politics, by why a master's degree of all things ?
I mean unless you want a MASSIVE overhaul of your education system, and to begin with free upper education for everyone, how do you avoid ending up in a system where anyone who's below middle class doesn't get the right to vote ?

And as far as I know, law isn't the only thing where you learn riguor. Rethorics, yes, maybe. But I don't see why you'd have more riguor in law than maths or social science.

Law is more difficult than social science, and more applicable than math in most instances.

In my ideal system, education becomes entirely state subsidized, albeit with much higher entrance standards.

Franky, I don't see the value that the masses have to the open question of how best to govern if they cannot demonstrate an expertise. It's like me having an opinion on rocket engine design: worthless.

[Isilanka]

Look, I think we can agree on the fact that you need riguor to say something interesting in politics, by why a master's degree of all things ?
I mean unless you want a MASSIVE overhaul of your education system, and to begin with free upper education for everyone, how do you avoid ending up in a system where anyone who's below middle class doesn't get the right to vote ?

And as far as I know, law isn't the only thing where you learn riguor. Rethorics, yes, maybe. But I don't see why you'd have more riguor in law than maths or social science.

Law is more difficult than social science, and more applicable than math in most instances.

In my ideal system, education becomes entirely state subsidized, albeit with much higher entrance standards.

Franky, I don't see the value that the masses have to the open question of how best to govern if they cannot demonstrate an expertise. It's like me having an opinion on rocket engine design: worthless.

I think you need several kinds in expertise. Yes, the guy who works as, say, an industry worker on assembly lines doesn't have a direct expertise in, say, the economy. However, he has a different kind of expertise. Not an academic one, that's for sure, but he experiences directly the effects of the economy and as such I think he is entitled to have a say in it.

If you only trust people with academic degrees to vote, you run the risk of having a voting base that's disconnected from the real world. I'm not holding an anti-intellectual stance here, that would be fucking hyprocitical as I'm a geography student. But I do think you need several viewpoints : both the adacemic one and those who see the effects first-hand.

Regional planning is I think a good example of that, and an example I've experienced first-hand. We're making our regional planning directives, with academic advisors, geographers, geologists, hydrologists, architects and so on - and almost everytime we can't stay in a purely academic field, we need to collect testimonies, we need to do social studies, to go and talk to people. Why ? Because even if the farmers, the residents of a city district, the average joe in the street...don't have a master's degree, they see things we don't see, they experience things that don't exist on maps or in theoretical models. We need the input from those people, otherwise we'll just end up building projects that have nothing to do with the reality of what's happening on the ground and just obey to whatever new theory the local university fancies these days.

In my country it happened plenty of times in the past. Urban projects coming out from the best minds in the nation, engineers, architects, geographers, urban planners, the best of the best, who were following the most cutting-edge theories at the time - and these projects never, ever worked correctly. Why ? Because no one, at any moment, had the simple idea of going towards the new inhabitants and ask them : "hey, do you want to live here ? Will it be practical for you ?"

[Kernen]

I think you need several kinds in expertise. Yes, the guy who works as, say, an industry worker on assembly lines doesn't have a direct expertise in, say, the economy. However, he has a different kind of expertise. Not an academic one, that's for sure, but he experiences directly the effects of the economy and as such I think he is entitled to have a say in it.

This implies that academics cannot acquire sufficient perspective second-hand.

If you only trust people with academic degrees to vote, you run the risk of having a voting base that's disconnected from the real world. I'm not holding an anti-intellectual stance here, that would be fucking hyprocitical as I'm a geography student. But I do think you need several viewpoints : both the adacemic one and those who see the effects first-hand.

You can get that first-hand view without permitting the undereducated to vote.

Regional planning is I think a good example of that, and an example I've experienced first-hand. We're making our regional planning directives, with academic advisors, geographers, geologists, hydrologists, architects and so on - and almost everytime we can't stay in a purely academic field, we need to collect testimonies, we need to do social studies, to go and talk to people. Why ? Because even if the farmers, the residents of a city district, the average joe in the street...don't have a master's degree, they see things we don't see, they experience things that don't exist on maps or in theoretical models. We need the input from those people, otherwise we'll just end up building projects that have nothing to do with the reality of what's happening on the ground and just obey to whatever new theory the local university fancies these days.

See above.

[Mystic Warriors]

First, what about "hell no", and second, why law out of all things ?

Because people should have a demonstrable academic rigor and expertise to have a say in governance. Otherwise, what do they bring to the table?

Well, that would eliminate 99.9% of the country. But at least our leaders would be intelligent.

Yes. That is the idea.

Go for it. Make that requirement to run for office too. If people complain, give them Wyoming and let them go nuts.

[Kernen]

Because people should have a demonstrable academic rigor and expertise to have a say in governance. Otherwise, what do they bring to the table?



Yes. That is the idea.

Go for it. Make that requirement to run for office too. If people complain, give them Wyoming and let them go nuts.

Getting there is basically impossible. Nothing short of a total societal breakdown would get the idea even off the sketchbook. But I dare to dream.

I'd prefer to give them Florida. Who needs Florida, anyway?

[Mystic Warriors]

Go for it. Make that requirement to run for office too. If people complain, give them Wyoming and let them go nuts.

Getting there is basically impossible. Nothing short of a total societal breakdown would get the idea even off the sketchbook. But I dare to dream.

I'd prefer to give them Florida. Who needs Florida, anyway?

Now that I think of it, climate change may put Florida under water soon...... You sure?

[Kernen]

Getting there is basically impossible. Nothing short of a total societal breakdown would get the idea even off the sketchbook. But I dare to dream.

I'd prefer to give them Florida. Who needs Florida, anyway?

Now that I think of it, climate change may put Florida under water soon...... You sure?

Its a win-win! Join the Technocracy or be banished to New Atlantis^(TM), Now With Extra Seawater!

[UniversalCommons]

This is a total fail. A voter should know accurate biographical information on who the candidates are as well as have a clear understanding of what the legislation being voted on is about. They should also have a basic understanding of fact checking so they can assure they are getting correct information. They should also understand what the political meaning of what they are voting for as well as what affiliations members or legislation have including who is supporting specific legislation. None of this is covered in the listed subjects.

[Isilanka]

I think you need several kinds in expertise. Yes, the guy who works as, say, an industry worker on assembly lines doesn't have a direct expertise in, say, the economy. However, he has a different kind of expertise. Not an academic one, that's for sure, but he experiences directly the effects of the economy and as such I think he is entitled to have a say in it.

This implies that academics cannot acquire sufficient perspective second-hand.

If you only trust people with academic degrees to vote, you run the risk of having a voting base that's disconnected from the real world. I'm not holding an anti-intellectual stance here, that would be fucking hyprocitical as I'm a geography student. But I do think you need several viewpoints : both the adacemic one and those who see the effects first-hand.

You can get that first-hand view without permitting the undereducated to vote.

Regional planning is I think a good example of that, and an example I've experienced first-hand. We're making our regional planning directives, with academic advisors, geographers, geologists, hydrologists, architects and so on - and almost everytime we can't stay in a purely academic field, we need to collect testimonies, we need to do social studies, to go and talk to people. Why ? Because even if the farmers, the residents of a city district, the average joe in the street...don't have a master's degree, they see things we don't see, they experience things that don't exist on maps or in theoretical models. We need the input from those people, otherwise we'll just end up building projects that have nothing to do with the reality of what's happening on the ground and just obey to whatever new theory the local university fancies these days.

See above.

But permttting them to vote is more efficient that running countless local studies if you want to gather this input.

I'm all for educating people, and especially voters and I'm not against a mandatory course, or even degree, to get access to voting, at least at the national level. But making having a master's degree to vote is I think stupid and even harmful, for several reasons :

1) This implies having a master's degree = being intelligent, sensible and knowledgeable. Not all degrees are the same. Some are easier to have than others. If having a degree meant being a super-rational superhuman; no academic studies would be trying to deny climate change.

2) It also assumes having a degree means being some kind of superior human being with knowledge in all fields. Many people don't have degrees and yet had to acquire skills in rational thought and intellectual riguor. A fireman doesn't necessarily have a degree and yet must think fast and efficiently. A plumber can actually have a surprising knowledge in water and electricity networks. How is having a degree some kind of magical step that would make you legitimate in all fields ? Sure, you learnt riguor, rational thought and the scientific method, but this is not limited to having a degree. If the public education was working correctly, these skills should be acquired in high school. Not having a degree doesn't mean you're stupid, nor that you're ready to believe any stupidity that comes in front of you. It's just a diploma, it's a piece of paper meaning that you've managed to go through the exams created by an institution and its arbitrary rules. The day universities and school will be perfect and rational I'll gladly accept your idea.

3) Knowledge. What makes a person who graduated in maths more qualified than an industry worker to vote on minimal wages and safety laws in the industrial sector ? What makes a lawyer more qualified than a non-educated single mother to rule on child laws ? What makes a geographer more qualified than a teacher to vote on school laws ? Sure, everyone can learn and ask the others to have an input, but in that case why not make those people vote in the first place ? If you want people to only vote in fields where they have some knowledge there should be hundreds of thousands of different votes.

4) On a symbolic and ideological ground such a measure would be devastative. It would tell people "hey look, you couldn't or wouldn't get a degree, you're such a fucking piece of shit compared to those who have one you can't even vote !" I know it's not the intent but that's how it would be percieved. You want anti-science, anti-rational thought and anti-education sentiments to grow ? That's how you do it.

I am for the meritocracy in public institution and mandatory education for all, especially education to rational thought and the scientific method, but I stand firmly by the idea that hiding the right to vote behind a degree, especially a master's degree, would do more harm than good.

And it's not a political problem. If we only allow academics to vote, especially if it includes academics in social sciences, brace for one hell of a switch towards leftist policies and that would be a goddamn utopia for me.
It's just that I don't think it would be very productive and it would result in even more political friction and conflicts.

It like the enlightened monarchy. In an ideal world, with perfect people, I'd happily agree with the idea. But it's not the world we live in.

[Forsher]

First, what about "hell no", and second, why law out of all things ?

Because people should have a demonstrable academic rigor and expertise to have a say in governance. Otherwise, what do they bring to the table?

Here's a situation... we've got an isolated farming community who milk the cows, stick the milk on the truck and send it up to the processing plant. This entire area is sustained by this rural economy, by dairying.

Meanwhile down in Wellington we've got a bunch of lawyers who've never lived anywhere but Auckland, Wellington and London drinking soy lattes and talking about how veganism is the way forwards.

These lawyers might understand or be able to understand what is going on in our isolated farming community. But they're never going to think of it by themselves... it will have to be brought to their attention. And when they do hear about it, they're going to think about it exclusively through the lens of a discipline, i.e. law, which sounds like, in theory, it can protect everyone. But the reality is that the Law is pretty much only a recourse to the wealthy... you have to know the Law (which is not easy) and you have to have money to even get to the point where you think about putting in a court case. And because you don't have these things, you can have deals be made that shove the issue under the rug before a precedent is set (and that assumes that the Law will even come to an equitable finding; it's a very limited point of view).

So, you're thinking, "Hey, what about non-laywers?" Well, yeah, true, we could grab us some sociologists, psychologists and economists and have a look at the prospects of our farming community. We can do that. And they're all going to say different things. They're all going to approach it somewhat differently. But they're still probably not going to think about this place... it still has to be brought to their attention. Which it probably will be. The difference is that if the people who bring the issue to light have some sort of power, then you create an incentive for the powers that be to not ignore them and you give these people the chance to become familiar with the levers of power. You might, one day, get a politician who doesn't need to be told about these sorts of thing.

Naturally this line of thinking begs the question of this thread's exercise. The way I see it is that we can talk about the ideal voter as having a sort of education which lets them grapple with the various ways educated persons will approach the issue. The ideal voter needs an education in translation, not because un-educated voters add no value but because uneducated voters are... inefficient.

[Cetacea]

Look, I think we can agree on the fact that you need riguor to say something interesting in politics, by why a master's degree of all things ?
I mean unless you want a MASSIVE overhaul of your education system, and to begin with free upper education for everyone, how do you avoid ending up in a system where anyone who's below middle class doesn't get the right to vote ?

And as far as I know, law isn't the only thing where you learn riguor. Rethorics, yes, maybe. But I don't see why you'd have more riguor in law than maths or social science.

Law is more difficult than social science, and more applicable than math in most instances.

In my ideal system, education becomes entirely state subsidized, albeit with much higher entrance standards.

Franky, I don't see the value that the masses have to the open question of how best to govern if they cannot demonstrate an expertise. It's like me having an opinion on rocket engine design: worthless.

you know at the end of the day Law is a social science

It combines rhetoric with history and philosphy within the narrow but substantive confines of the Legal Positivism

and as I counsel many would-be students, University does not require Intelligence, it does however require Work. Law afterall is mostly about reading case law - and at least a degree tells you that the graduate has put in the work required to meet a basic academic standard.

[UniversalCommons]

This also stinks of academic elitism. Lets say someone has technical training as a welder, or is a master carpenter or master plumber. This says tradesmen can't vote. The same would go for someone who is a paramedic or a nurse. This education can be more valuable than an academic education in many ways. Someone who went to the fire academy or police academy also is probably more prepared for voting than many degree holders.

[The South Falls]

This also stinks of academic elitism. Lets say someone has technical training as a welder, or is a master carpenter or master plumber. This says tradesmen can't vote. The same would go for someone who is a paramedic or a nurse. This education can be more valuable than an academic education in many ways. Someone who went to the fire academy or police academy also is probably more prepared for voting than many degree holders.

When you combine that with rising college prices, you get a new brand of leader, out of touch with the people, and dedicated to only the needs of the 1%.

[Forsher]

This also stinks of academic elitism. Lets say someone has technical training as a welder, or is a master carpenter or master plumber. This says tradesmen can't vote. The same would go for someone who is a paramedic or a nurse. This education can be more valuable than an academic education in many ways. Someone who went to the fire academy or police academy also is probably more prepared for voting than many degree holders.

What would you say being prepared for voting means? I'm a little confused because in this post you seem to believe in "transferable skills" but in this one you appear to not believe in it (at least for, so it seems, the subjects I discussed in the OP or possibly the ones in the poll or, alternatively, in Law).

[Hurdergaryp]

Ideally the average voter has the best education available, period

Unfortunately we do not live in an utopian society.

[Uxupox]

whatever the voter wants.