My Google News search this morning turned up for the first time an article/commentary in the St. Joseph's University paper, The Hawk.
It's almost directly a response to the question I asked earlier this week about whether we think a bachelor's degree is a required qualification for mayor. (Which was a response to this article in Sunday's Inquirer.)
To spare you having to register (it's free, but still) here is the author's main point:
We shouldn't judge someone because of their decision not to further their education. Going to college has not always been as important as it is now, and there are many successful mayors and even presidents without college degrees. As a city, we should look at the candidates' beliefs and how they can make Philadelphia a better place and, most importantly, how they can make Philadelphia a safer place.
In a mayor, I am looking for his or her opinion on certain issues, and none of those issues require an academic background. I am more concerned about the casinos, the murder rate that rises every day, education, and the issues of welfare. I want to hear strategies for gun control and ways to improve safety and healthcare. I want to see how the education system could be improved. It doesn't matter to me what the candidates did or didn't major in. These are issues that require one to think regardless of a degree.
I'll admit, I've been on both sides of this issue only because my ideal candidate would have, among other things, the intellectual capacity and curiosity that carries people not only to a successful undergraduate career, but also to an accomplished graduate and post-graduate career that deals with subjects such as economics, law, philosophy, management or (in my dream world) some combination of all of them. Of course, such a candidate would also have to exhibit the person-to-person, "everyman" qualities that Philadelphians love in their politicians (and athletes). He or she would also have to be a saavy media operator who comes across as having "personality" when communicating to a mass audience.
As it stands, while each of the candidates have pieces of this, none of them is the complete package. The consensus, at least among our commenters, those quoted in the Inky piece and the commentary cited above, seems to be that a bachelor's degree is not a make-or-break requirement. After posing the question, to which I was determined the answer was yes, I had a bit of an epiphany and came to a conclusion almost exactly like one of our commenters who said:
jordon:
i don't see this as a problem per se. the incumbent president is arguably the stupidest person ever to hold that position, and he has an MBA from harvard.
as a strategy, however, if this issue comes up, i think the three candidates would do well to emphasize that, while they were able to rise to power without a formal education, they had a lot tougher road than people who have a college degree. the "school of hard knocks" doesn't work for everyone, but it obviously worked for these guys.
i think for some old schoolers in philadelphia, having a degree from an upper crust university could be a looked down upon as elitist. why else is nutter always referred to as the nerdy or uncool candidate?
He hits the nail right on the head. I have no qualms about having a mayor without a bachelor's degree as long as those without degrees don't try to glorify their lack of a college degree or give the impression to young people and parents that today's kids can always just follow that same path to the mayor's office. That would be like LeBron James telling unmotivated high school students that they should just go to the NBA like him.
I agree with the commenter above that since the converted can sometimes be the best spokesperson for an issue, having a mayor without a college degree could be good if they use their own backgrounds to say:
"while in my day it was possible to follow my path, with the increasing globalization, outsourcing and squeezing out of manufacturing and trades work, YOUR generation must get a college degree to succeed."
Such a mayor should make it his goal to insure that every Philadelphia child born during his administration and those in pre-K now, is on a path that will leave them academically prepared and financially able (whether through scholarship aid or more direct funding to CCP as a stepping stone to a 4-year degree) to attend college.
They have to glorify higher education and convince the rest of the people in their generation who have kids that following in dad's footsteps as a tradesmen or a manufacturing plant worker may not be possible. Brady, for example, would be the perfect person to tell all of those union folks who were at his rally that they need to make college the goal for their young children, that it's not ok to be disengaged, that being smart is not uncool. He could say:
"you made a decent living and are raising a family as a tradesman and that may work for your kids too, but the risk is too great that those jobs won't be here when your kids are old enough to go to work. You need to get them ready to go to college - to be a doctor, an engineer, a lawyer, an architect, a mathematician, a scientist, a teacher, a college professor - and if, when the time comes to choose, the carpenter or mason or plumber job is available, your kids follow that path because they chose to do it and not because they weren't prepared for college."
I would never want ANY of them EVER to say, "some people just aren't cut out for college" or "college isn't for everyone." In this rapidly changing economy, and in a city where manufacturing and construction account for only about 2-6 percent of all jobs, college will have to be for everyone.
So they're you have it. Does the man who will be sworn in as mayor in 2008 need a college degree? No. But if he doesn't spend his entire career making sure that the mayor who takes office in 2032 has a college degree - simply because he comes from a city where almost everyone does - then we're in trouble.
Comments (2)
to follow up, i agree with you that i am a little ambivalent about the lack of a college degree, because having one is the first sign (but not the only one, of course) of intellectual curiosity, something that would help philadelphia emerge from what i find is an entrenched mindset.
furthermore, i doubt any of the candidates would tell you that the reason they didn't go to college was because they didn't want to. circumstances dictated that they follow another path, and they rose to the occasion.
Posted by jordon | February 7, 2007 8:16 PM
It's kind of funny that you mention how construction doesn't require a college degree. For what it's worth, if you look at the individuals who are in the trade unions, anecdotally at least, they have become more likely to have a college degree than ever.
Most of the local trade unions have apprenticeships in which at least some individuals attend college. The police department basically requires a college education and the PA board of real estate might require a degree in the not to distant future--especially if experienced agents can be grandfathered-in.
One of the reasons for the the prevalence of college degree requirements may be that a college degree isn't what it use to be. Degrees are not rare and they don't guarantee job security or a much better income. I'd also note that the trade unions have all these tests--that require entrants to show a minimal level of academic achievement. Too often, various elements of these tests are based on subjective and ultimately racist criteria. The point is that lots of currently well off groups state that college degrees or whatever qualification is needed at the moment are what entitles people to a slice of the pie. That is manifestly incorrect--what it does is make it easier to exclude people who have not had the opportunity to further educate themselves into the club.
While I generally agree that we need a well educated workforce, I'm not a big proponent of sending everyone to college. There are plenty of electricians, plumbers, dental assistants and the like that never go to college but earn good incomes and can support their families. I think that the escalating "diploma" race is often times counter productive. I mean, we aren't getting much of a return on our investment by sending people to school for $40K a year to earn social work degrees. I will admit that higher educated people tend to be more creative so even if they don't use their social service degree, they may still gain skills that allow them to contribute to society's productivity growth.
The real challenge is to train people for the jobs that the region needs whether that means higher education or not. I'd cite truck drivers and computer network engineers as examples. These are both careers that pay decently and don't require a college degree. And lastly, I might add, understand what the best investments we can make are; allows us to build a more competitive and yes, a more entrepreneurial economy in which everyone is better off.
Posted by mdcphilly | February 7, 2007 8:58 PM