Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

kare11.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 314 posts

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#301

Post by wolverine876 »

wincy wrote: post #214
wolverine876 wrote: post #173

Instead of better educating our population, the low-tax / anti-intellectual / authoritarian-reactionaries have convinced the population that they don't need education. With education, they might aim for socio-economic advancement (remember the American Dream?), think for themselves, challenge the established order (edit: i.e., they might decide to become the powerful and the leaders themselves). Now they know their p…

I grew up in a trailer in a poor town. I’m a high school dropout, am in my mid thirties and became a software engineering team lead last year. I feel lucky that I make a great income that I can support my family, and nobody I work with cares about my education. They care that I know the field and have insights into how to solve the problems we encounter. I’m doing better than almost every person I went to high school…

> my friends with advanced degrees (like philosophy) have either become software engineers or are saddled with more debt than they’ll ever be able to repay. I don’t see how that’s better?

Your sample size represents nothing, of course (nor does my personal experience), and I agree that college is much too expensive. So saying that college isn't worthwhile because it's too expensive is circular.

Education, including college, provides far more than a career. It was in my humanities education that I learned that framing the argument is most of the battle. The anti-intellectuals / anti-liberal / low-tax crowd claims there is no value in intellect and other things learned in college; the only value is later money earned. They express that by framing the debate around career and income - do you see that when others respond in that frame, that 'crowd' already has won the debate and nobody else even realized it happened.

You can see many or most people in this discussion talking within that frame, as if it's an assumed truth and not a radical rejection of the Enlightenment - that through knowledge and reason we can control our destiny and change the fate of ours and our communities and societies.

Career is just a side issue. It's life. It's every day, in everything - our experience, understanding, love, family, community, citizen, etc etc. And also in career (including undertanding economics, the history of labor, the politics of the relationships, how to communicate, etc.).

> going to college is a mistake for a lot of people

Is going to high school a mistake? Middle school? Where do we draw the line? Why at 12 years and not 16 years?

Do you have any basis for this? How about we let people individually decide if they want to go to college, instead of others deciding for them. The fact is, many more want to go than do go.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#302

Post by wolverine876 »

sparselogic wrote: post #229
wolverine876 wrote: post #173

Instead of better educating our population, the low-tax / anti-intellectual / authoritarian-reactionaries have convinced the population that they don't need education. With education, they might aim for socio-economic advancement (remember the American Dream?), think for themselves, challenge the established order (edit: i.e., they might decide to become the powerful and the leaders themselves). Now they know their p…

Left unexamined: how long ago and why did employers decide that a 4-year degree was the minimum qualification for general employment? And why should someone without a degree be excluded from socio-economic advancement, thinking for themselves, or challenging the established order? If anything, professional success based on work instead of degrees is a challenge to the current established order. :) The American Dream…

> And why should someone without a degree be excluded from socio-economic advancement, thinking for themselves, or challenging the established order? If anything, professional success based on work instead of degrees is a challenge to the current established order. :)

They aren't excluded; education empowers people to do it much more. Professional success is almost always within the established order and supports it; I'm not sure what you mean there.

> The American Dream doesn't need to be degree examiners gatekeeping it. If you care about socioeconomic advancement, don't pull the ladder up by excluding people without degrees:

I'm not pulling up the ladder, I'm lowering it and broadening it into a grand, wide staircase. I'm not suggesting people be excluded from jobs (I don't know where you got that), but that they have the opportunity to do more.

> And to the "authoritarian-reactionaries" dig: note that the Congresswoman in this article is pursuing this as a progressive. Same with the new governor of Pennsylvania:

Right. It's not a dig; it's a serious issue. I said that the authoritarian-reactionaries have convinced others, and that includes the member of congress and the governor. Are they expanding access to college education?

I'll bet the children of both politicians are going to college.

> child of an immigrant with an 8th grade education for whom the American Dream is alive and well

The Dream isn't alive and well if you want a college education.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#303

Post by fauxpause_ »

nawgz wrote: post #205
fauxpause_ wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This butchering of statistical reasoning is so poor I have to assume it is a troll But in case it’s genuine, consider vast differences in gun ownership, homicide rate, and… honestly so many other things it’s just annoying to list them.

> consider vast differences I did. Gun ownership is about 32% of individuals in USA vs 25% of individuals in Canada. Homicide rate is about 2.5x higher in the US, which means US cops are outperforming this statistic vs US civilians. > so many other things It's not just annoying to list them, it's ridiculous; these countries are the exact same place. Across the board, everything you can think of has a lot of statistic…

Your analysis is just dumb. You’re implying this is the only difference. You’re implying the entire outcome difference could be due to this one variable. You have shown no evidence to suggest this relationship exists at all. Like, for example looking at other countries. You’re implying that one thing has to account for the entire effect as a linear relationship by saying homicide rate being 2.5x is not important or that they’re “over performing in spite of it”. But you want one? Fine. Cops killed on duty. About 10x in the US. That settles your desire for a linear relationship on a compelling alternative story. Is that actually a sufficient analysis? No.

You get an F for intro to stats. And an F- for being confidently wrong.

There is no “excusing” reductions in education. You have not demonstrated a relationship between these two things as important.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#304

Post by kevviiinn »

augment003 wrote: post #33
kevviiinn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think the implication is that a college degree no longer represents progress.

Did it ever represent progress? What I was saying is that the increased baseline of education for the populace is progress, not that a degree represents progress itself

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#305

Post by RogerL »

injb wrote: post #297
smcin wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but can you cite or estimate more accurate stats? I read ~68% of officers do patrol, so as a decent approximation that's most of them. I take your point about cities/areas/zipcodes/states. To me one pattern that keeps jumping out is that the South (LA, MS, GA, TN) has incredible levels of (gun) violence. Ideally we could quote police officer injury and death rates, per-capita population, by region, by circumstan…

>>> can you cite or estimate more accurate stats? No, sorry. But I don't know if the stats would fully capture what I think the difference is. Like, I remember a case of a cop who shot a teenager who was running away from him in an alley way at night. I think he had been armed but threw the gun away, not sure now. But the discussion about these incidents usually lead to the stats about how being a cop is not that dan…

I've thought about this a fair amount. I think a big difference is psychological. I've done logging (just family gather firewood for winter stuff, not commercially). It can be scary, but the trees and machinery bare no malice towards you, and you can minimize risks just by being alert and understanding the risks. That is, a lot of injuries are 'your fault'.

In contrast, in policing people really do shoot at you, they run to evade capture, etc. Even if the total risks of logging are higher I can imagine it is very hard to treat the risks in police work in the same dispassionate way the logger does. Tree leaning while cutting it vs suspect's hands maybe going towards their pocket. Even if the stats in those two situations are identical (I suspect they are not), I think very different emotions are going to be triggered, and without a lot of training those emotions are going to make situations go sideways either at the time or later (treating every person you meet as dangerous scum, etc). You don't hate the trees, you don't fear walking amongst them when not cutting them, you don't want to cut them a bit harder next time to teach them a lesson, and so on.

Anyway, I think all of that results in the 'feel' of police work in regards to danger to be quite different than logging or fishing, and ignoring that will lead to the police acting in ways we really don't want.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#306

Post by taylodl »

catiopatio wrote: post #193
taylodl wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soooo...education beyond the 3rd grade is irrelevant? I know I'm being snarky, but c'mon man! It wasn't that long ago the same could be said (and was said) for education past the 3rd grade, then the discussion moved to education past the 8th grade, and now it's moved to education past the 12th grade. It's just a rehash of the same, tired argument justifying a poorly-educated populace which makes for a poorly-educated…

This is a false equivalency. The demand for higher education has outstripped the supply of students capable of making real use of it, and so standards have been lowered. The value of the education provided — and the value of the degree received — has dropped precipitously. Up until the 50s/60s, education past the 12 grade was the exception, not the rule. A degree was valuable because not everyone had the capacity to…

I’m just going to say it - the statement “ The demand for higher education has outstripped the supply of students capable of making real use of it” is an extremely ignorant and short-sighted view of education. I expect better from the folks on HN.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#307

Post by catiopatio »

taylodl wrote: post #306
catiopatio wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false equivalency. The demand for higher education has outstripped the supply of students capable of making real use of it, and so standards have been lowered. The value of the education provided — and the value of the degree received — has dropped precipitously. Up until the 50s/60s, education past the 12 grade was the exception, not the rule. A degree was valuable because not everyone had the capacity to…

I’m just going to say it - the statement “ The demand for higher education has outstripped the supply of students capable of making real use of it” is an extremely ignorant and short-sighted view of education. I expect better from the folks on HN.

“Harrumph! You’re ignorant!” says nothing at all. What am I ignorant of? How am I wrong?

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#308

Post by injb »

RogerL wrote: post #305
injb wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> can you cite or estimate more accurate stats? No, sorry. But I don't know if the stats would fully capture what I think the difference is. Like, I remember a case of a cop who shot a teenager who was running away from him in an alley way at night. I think he had been armed but threw the gun away, not sure now. But the discussion about these incidents usually lead to the stats about how being a cop is not that dan…

I've thought about this a fair amount. I think a big difference is psychological. I've done logging (just family gather firewood for winter stuff, not commercially). It can be scary, but the trees and machinery bare no malice towards you, and you can minimize risks just by being alert and understanding the risks. That is, a lot of injuries are 'your fault'. In contrast, in policing people really do shoot at you, they…

I'm sure the psychological factor is huge. That said, I did come across a few relevant stats [1]:

>>> 2,744 officers were assaulted with firearms; 6.1% of these officers were injured. 1,180 officers were assaulted with knives or other cutting instruments; 9.7% of these officers were injured. The remaining 11,760 officers were assaulted with other types of dangerous weapons; 16.8% of these officers were injured.

That same year (2021) US police killed 1048 people - less then half the number of cops that were attacked with guns, and less than 1/10th of the number attacked with other dangerous weapons.

I wonder how this compares with European countries, i.e. the ratio of people killed by police to how often they police are attacked in a serious way.

[1] https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/dallas/news/pre...

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#309

Post by jcrawfordor »

whydoyoucare wrote: post #263
jcrawfordor wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, tradework like plumbing or electrical might be a surprisingly good qualification for entry-level congressional staff positions. Project management, scheduling, finance, and perhaps most importantly dealing with (sometimes pissed off) customers/constituents and the tradeoffs of what is possible, versus feasible, versus affordable. Realistically a lot of the function of undergraduate degrees (in fields withou…

For any hiring, there is required to be a minimum baseline. That has been college education so far, since it yields consistent and repeatable results (less work for hiring managers when they know someone has a 4 year engineering degree, as opposed to someone who has been educated in the school of life, don't you think?) However way you look at it, hiring managers are going to require some baseline. What that baseline…

I'm not talking about positions that require a 4-year education in a technical field like engineering, they're a fairly different situation. What you see in areas like government roles are positions that require any 4-year degree, but most applicants will probably have a liberal arts degree. It's not that these degrees offer nothing of value, but the hiring manager isn't expecting any particular baseline education beyond reading and writing anyway.

Re: U.S. Rep. Angie Craig drops college requirement for staffers

#310

Post by greenhearth »

jcrawfordor wrote: post #154
greenhearth wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this romanticization of plumbers has really gotten out of hand.

I tend to think that more of the problem here is romanticization of congressional staffers. While there are positions that rely on more background knowledge like policy analysis, a lot of congressional staff members are essentially just customer service representatives and learn most of what they need to know on the job. Anyone who can keep track of a few different things and deal with customers should be a good fit.

I disagree, it is the baffling romantization of plumbers and tradesmen as some kind of a social panacea that is the problem. Here you have already predefined for yourself what plumbers are and how they should function, and so you employ this biased construction of plumbers for your post, where it is nothing but fantasy.

Don't be too hard on yourself though, you are only subject to the current shibboleths of pining for these fantastical tradesmen (possibly a result of some kind of desire for a safe simplicity), and so you only regurgitate these popular sentiments (that feel so good!) without being able to consciously check your delusions.

Post reply on HN