Mandatory to hold a university degree by Member ofParliament

Post Reply New Topic

Obligation to hold a university degree by a Member of Parliament, at least a bachelor.

I do not know what rules apply in different countries, but I wonder if there would need to implement such a law to make sure that the representatives elected to the parliament will have adequate intelligence and knowledge.

It would be great if they introduced a special law that only Aspies with special interest in History, politics, and sociology can be Member Of Parliament

It would ensure that the deputy did not succumb to emotion, and takes the best decisions.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I'm not sure this would stop corruption or ineptitude in any country. For instance, President Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review. Now he kills Americans extra-judiciously and imprisons journalists in Yemen for writing about a drone strike that mistakenly targeted a group of nomadic families.

Stupid is as stupid does, degrees are only a piece of paper and not indicative of how intelligent you are or definitely how good of a leader you'll be.

Not an obligation here in the UK



People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland

Candidates must be nominated by ten parliamentary electors of the constituency they wish to stand in.

Authorisation is required to stand for a specific party, otherwise candidates will be described as independent or have no description.

In order to encourage only serious candidates to stand, a £500 deposit is required when submitting the nomination papers - returned if the candidate receives over five per cent of the total votes cast.

Certain people are disqualified from standing as an MP - please check the Electoral Commission website for further details.

I like the idea of requiring university degrees, active military service, and no felony or prison record for any elected official.

Just saying.

University degrees are neither necessary nor sufficient for intelligence.

To be a chief justice on the US Supreme court would seemed to me to be even more scholarly and bookish an occupation than being a politician.


I used to assume that you had to be employed as a judge to legally gualify to be a justice on the United Supreme Court.

In reality (in theory) any sodajerk who dropped out of school in middleschool could legally be appointed to the United Supreme Court because the US Constitution does not stipulate ANY either work, nor educational, prerequisites for the job. You can't PRACTICE law as a lawyer in the USA unless you pass the bar exam after getting through lawschool, but you dont have to be a lawyer (therefore dont need to pass the bar, nor a law degree, nor a college bachelors, nor a HS diploma, nor a middleschool diploma) to qualify to serve on the US surpreme court. You just have to be picked by the president, and be approved by Congress.

But somehow it doesnt work out that the supreme court gets packed with illiterate trailor trash. To get picked by the president, AND pass muster with Congress to get to the highest bench in the land you have to have creditials and some kind of resume. The point being that educational requirements dont seem to be needed to be written into the law. Things work out okay without that as an official rule.

Education does not equate to intelligence.

I would be opposed to this in the strongest possible terms.

Increasingly, degree holdership these days is less evidence of intelligence or even ability to learn and more ability to pay for an education. Let alone leadership qualities.

As long as universities insist on charging extortionate fees, this would only serve to exacerbate the rotten plutocratic makeup of our so called democratic process.

anyone who doubts this should take a look at the existing british government.

some political activists have prison records because of their political beliefs and activities.

By saying that its necessary to have stayed out of prison, you are effectively silencing some views.

I think holding a degree is proof that you can buckle down and take a heavy workload, but often enough people just can't afford it, or choose to use their time to do something equally demanding.
So I disagree that a degree should be a hard requirement.

So maybe a degree shouldn't be a requirement.

Betcha we coulda launched all em nucular missiles back in febyuary an hit em with so much shock and awe that they'da welcomed us with open arms as libraters or sumpin like at.

Yeah ... no need for higher education at all ...

I think the idea of a degree isn't a particularly bad one. While many have pointed out that a degree is not a measure of intelligence, and I agree with that, for elected office you should kind of have to show you can hack it. College/University degrees are elite things, and should be recognized as such.

Anecdotally, I work with both skilled workers with college degrees, and unskilled workers without college degrees. For the most part, the better educated workers are more thoughtful in their opinions, more willing to compromise, and employ critical thinking more often than the workers without college degrees. There are exceptions, of course, but the aforementioned traits are very important for any politician, regardless of their party. I would rather my party lose to a political opponent more likely to exhibit those traits than not.

Hadnt thought of that.

I was stunned by the "active military" part. Its not enough to be onetime military. You have to be ACTIVELY in the military?

That would horrify Thomas Jefferson because: a requirement that only active military can be elected to office is in total violation of the spirit (if not the letter) of the US Constitution which is predicated on the assumption that democracy can only survive if the military is subordinate to civilian authority.

In effect Fnord is saying the USA should be ruled by a permanent military junta ( or thats what it would lead to in short order) because there would be no such thing as civilian authority.

And he doesnt appear to be joking either.

No

It would go against democracy. It would restrict places of power only to those people who can afford going to college. It would indirectly enforce classism.

Also, military duty? Fnord, are you joking or is that your actual belief? And in that case, why?

Also: