41% of Conservative MPs don't have degrees!

[coffeeFreak]

Sorry I couldn't find a more recent article. I'm surprised there isn't a minimum education level set to run for office. Interesting that Conservatives, in 2008 had the lowest number of formally educated members.

One job you don’t need a degree for
By Andrew Potter | September 10th, 2008

You need a degree to teach, but 32 per cent of MPs don't have one.

To many Canadians, Parliament often seems like a Wild West saloon, lacking both the comparative civility of British parliamentary discourse and the sober professionalism of the U.S. Congress. It turns out that crude public perception is underwritten by some cold facts: according to new data crunched by the Ottawa-based Public Policy Forum, 32 per cent of Canadian MPs do not have a university degree. In the U.S., only four per cent of members of the House of Representatives do not have a university degree, and in the U.K. that figure is 28 per cent. The breakdown along party lines in Canada is even more striking. While only 15 per cent of Liberals are without a chunk of sheepskin on their office wall, 41 per cent of Conservatives and 37 per cent of NDP members do not have degrees.

Does this matter? John Godfrey, a now-retired Liberal MP for Don Valley West with three postgraduate degrees (not to mention a bunch of honorary doctorates), said that while he found the statistic “interesting,” the study “didn’t alarm [him] in any way.” He doesn’t think educational background should determine whether someone is fit for Parliament. Perhaps not. But given that you need a university degree to teach Grade 1 math or to be a social worker, it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that the people hired to make and examine our laws might benefit from a few years of higher learning.

At the very least, the relative paucity of degrees among MPs suggests that being a parliamentarian is not seen as a long-term career to which one might dedicate years of careful study. Indeed, the same study found the average tenure among members of our Commons is only seven years, compared with 11 in the U.S. and 10 in the U.K. All of which helps explain why question period often seems like amateur hour. It’s because it is.

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/09/10/one-job-you-dont-need-a-degree-for/

[Glacier]

Yes, MPs should have a minimum level of formal education, just like voters with more higher education should get more votes.

ETA: The NDP and Conservatives are pretty much tied, so don't you think that the Liberals have higher education than the NDP and Conservative MPs because they typically represent higher educated ridings?

[coffeeFreak]

We have people making decisions on our behalf that often involve millions, if not billions of our dollars. Is it really unrealistic to expect they at least have a four year degree? This has nothing to do with giving more votes to those with degrees, which IMO is not a discussion worth commenting on as it is a joke, literally.

[Nebula]

I'd rather have people who can get things done in Ottawa than people with degrees.

[Urbane]

We have people making decisions on our behalf that often involve millions, if not billions of our dollars. Is it really unrealistic to expect they at least have a four year degree? This has nothing to do with giving more votes to those with degrees, which IMO is not a discussion worth commenting on as it is a joke, literally.

I don't believe that WAC Bennett ever attended university and he's recognized by many to have been British Columbia's best premier to date. His son didn't have a university education either and he was premier of BC for ten years. South of the border, Harry Truman, Abe Lincoln, and George Washington never attended university and they did pretty well. Gandhi never went to university either by the way. On the flip side a university education shouldn't be held against prospective leaders either.

[Bsuds]

There are many examples of very successful business people who do not have degrees.
Just because you have one does not mean you have the common sense to use it.

[coffeeFreak]

I agree there are many successful people in the world who have minimal education levels. But my concern is basic; can they read and comprehend at a level where they are making knowledgeable decisions with regards to the many policies and laws they legislate. How informed are they really? Sure they have "professionals" to help them wade through the legaleeze, but what bias are these "translators" going to present? Further education is not the end all be all, but I will argue that it enhances perceptions by creating a greater awareness.

My local MP is a great salesman who knows how to charm the old folks with smiles and talk about his faith in Christ...I'm sorry but I would hope for more than this from someone who sits on committees that make recommendations and laws effecting many lives and the future of our country.

[Amarow121]

Maybe the fact that they don't have university degrees proves they are smarter.
No student debt, 4 years spent gaining real life experience instead of academia experience...

Just a thought...

[French Castanut]

For me, a degree paper is useful if you run out of toilet paper if you have no brain what so ever to use it.

You can be without paper, but more experienced to run a country than someone with lots of paper but a/hole written on his forehead.

[steven lloyd]

I agree “there are many examples of very successful business people who do not have degrees” and “just because you have one does not mean you have the common sense to use it” (nice new avatar by the way bsuds).

I also note the comment by Urbane:

I don't believe that WAC Bennett ever attended university and he's recognized by many to have been British Columbia's best premier to date. His son didn't have a university education either and he was premier of BC for ten years. South of the border, Harry Truman, Abe Lincoln, and George Washington never attended university and they did pretty well. Gandhi never went to university either by the way. On the flip side a university education shouldn't be held against prospective leaders either.

However, I have to agree with coffeeFreak and admit that in this day and age I would feel more comfortable knowing that people empowered with the ability to create and change law, and the responsibility of critically examining research before making policy decisions would actually have some formal education in law and critically evaluating research. Of course, the degree means nothing. Harper apparently has a Masters Degree and would still prefer ideology to evidence from research.

[Glacier]

Politics is already deemed elitist by many (ie. you have to rich/have connects/be a lawyer/etc. to get elected). Putting into policy something that would ban close to 70% of the population from running will only add fuel to this belief. Also, isn't the idea of democracy one in which everyone has an equal opportunity to seek elected office? Do we really want to head down the road of a Plutocracy?

[steven lloyd]

Politics is already deemed elitist by many (ie. you have to rich/have connects/be a lawyer/etc. to get elected). Putting into policy something that would ban close to 70% of the population from running will only add fuel to this belief. Also, isn't the idea of democracy one in which everyone has an equal opportunity to seek elected office? Do we really want to head down the road of a Plutocracy?

... formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to describe a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes ...

http://www.progressiveliving.org/plutocracy_defined.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

You don’t think it (our government) is already, and always has been a Plutocracy ?

[Bagotricks]

North America is a plutocracy, just ask Citibank about their leaked memo :

Oh look - "Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash"

Citigroup Oct 16, 2005 Plutonomy Report Part 1

- The World is dividing into two blocs - the Plutonomy and the rest.

The U.S., UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy. Continental Europe (ex-Italy) and Japan are in the egalitarian bloc.
- Equity risk premium embedded in "global imbalances" are unwarranted.

In plutonomies the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy and have a massive impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current account deficits, consumption levels, etc.

This imbalance in inequality expresses itself in the standard scary "global imbalances".

RISKS -- WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

Our whole plutonomy thesis is based on the idea that the rich will keep getting richer. This thesis is not without its risks. For example, a policy error leading to asset deflation, would likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was -- one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation on the rich (or indirectly though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous (home-grow)] laborers, in a push-back on globalization -- either anti-mmigration, or protectionism. We don’t see this happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a close eye on developments.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B1E ... ZGEy&hl=en

[Merry]

I know lots of folk who, while academically smart, are totally lacking in street wise common sense. So no, I don't think having a degree makes you a better decision maker. In fact I often think that it is politicians total lack of knowledge about what it means to live below the poverty level that leads to much of the poor decision making when setting policies to deal with the issues such folks face.

Parliament needs representation from ALL levels of society in order to truly reflect the wishes and opinions of all of its members.

[sooperphreek]

OMG call the education police!!!!!!!! PULESE!!! what is the point of a post secondary education? gates is a college flunky and hes a gabillionaire. the walmart family guy was probably an inbred backwoods businessman and hes a gabillionaire too. education is irrelevant and is an attempt at creating elitism.