CZ:Proposals/Should we remove the educational prequisites in place in order to be considered for the Constabulary?: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>J. Noel Chiappa
(Typo fixed)
imported>J. Noel Chiappa
m (→‎Complete explanation: Link to existing policy)
Line 5: Line 5:
== Complete explanation ==
== Complete explanation ==


This issue asks whether the minimum educational requirement for constables should be scrapped.
This issue asks whether the [[CZ:Constabulary Policy#The Role and Selection of Constables|minimum educational requirement for constables] should be scrapped.


== Reasoning ==
== Reasoning ==

Revision as of 09:47, 13 May 2008

This proposal has not yet been assigned to any decisionmaking group or decisionmaker(s).
The Proposals Manager will do so soon if and when the proposal or issue is "well formed" (including having a driver).
For now, the proposal record can be found in the new proposals queue.


Driver: Denis Cavanagh

Complete explanation

This issue asks whether the [[CZ:Constabulary Policy#The Role and Selection of Constables|minimum educational requirement for constables] should be scrapped.

Reasoning

As mentioned in the overall summary, the reasoning behind this proposal is:

One: We will need more constables as we grow. We should do our best to increase the potential pool of constables out there.

Two: There is little distinction maturity wise between those who have a college degree and those who don't. The constabulary isn't a position that needs 'educated' men, it needs reasonable and mature people. Whether you work on a factory floor or in an office with a business degree, the natural ability of reasonability and maturity is constant!


Discussion

A discussion section, to which anyone may contribute.

Hmmn, this is interesting. One of (my) biggest doubts about CZ was its high standards in such areas. When I first started I thought standards such as this would restrict the project and force it into stagnation. I, for one, would tend to agree with this proposal. The role of constable seems a very interesting, and needed one at that. While I do not seek such a position now, I would like the option to be available, without regard to my current level of education. Whether or not I do horribly at that job would have no correlation to whether or not I've had 4 years of college, or even my age. It has more to do with personality types, responsibility, and cool-headed-ness. Just my take on the matter. John Dvorak 21:35, 7 May 2008 (CDT)

We discussed this at some length in the forums a long time ago; it would be good to locate that discussion. I would not like to repeat everything I wrote there.
The reasoning for the "yes" answer given above is unpersuasive. (1) We have all the constables we need; we've never had a shortage that we felt we couldn't handle. (2) It is true that reasonability and maturity are paramount. But they are not the only requirement. Constables must make important decisions that often affect distinguished editors. Also, often, they are asked to interpret editorial rules, or at least recognize that a certain matter is an editorial matter and not in their purview. The ability to make such judgments, as well as the credibility of constables (and their decisions) to our editors, are both enhanced by education. --Larry Sanger 21:43, 7 May 2008 (CDT)
I would say the dissent you offer is unpersuasive too Larry, as a matter of fact :-) Perhaps starting out one's argument like that doesn't help? 1) True, we never had a shortage of constables, but there will be a time when we will need more. 2) To be honest, most of that is management diatribe that really means nothing. "interpret editorial rules, or at least recognize that a certain matter is an editorial matter and not in their purview. The ability to make such judgments, as well as the credibility of constables (and their decisions) to our editors, are both enhanced by education." A three year accountancy degree gives someone responsibility to tell a biology editor that she/he is breaking the rules? I would like to think that anyone, regardless of the rules would be able to tell the difference between rule breaking and not. Denis Cavanagh 05:00, 8 May 2008 (CDT)
I oppose this proposal. Your assumption that anyone is capable of telling the difference between rule breaking and not, is completely false. People have very strong biases in that area, and preconceived ideas about what kind of behaviour is acceptable; and the lengths that people can rationalise such things are quite extreme. But as you admit you are assuming something purely because you enjoy assuming it, you might want to think about it more deeply and see if it actually makes sense.
I believe a 3 year accountancy degree would make a huge difference to someone's accountability, professionalism, rationality, and understanding of accademic standards. It also shows they have a sufficient level of intelligence and capability. And the fact that they chose to do a degree indicates they understand the importance of education. I would much rather have someone with these qualifications policing the academic standards of our biology articles, than a random person off the street whose education comes from the media. The same goes for people with a biology degree policing our accountancy standards.
People with university degrees are not unusual, or hard to come by, especially amongst the kind of people this encyclopedia is targetted at. Carl Kenner 09:14, 11 May 2008 (CDT)
Speaking from personal experience, I really haven't seen that people who emerge with a college degree are in any way more intelligent than those who do not. Maybe in America, where class differences are starker and more severe this may be the case, but in my experience this is not so. And another thing, "Someone who's education comes from the media" is frankly, bull. Thats an assumtion all of its own, a crass, class based assumption with little basis in reality. My argument is that standards shouldn't be downgraded whatsoever. What I'm saying is that the requirements deemed necessary here for being in effect a policeman are over-stated. I don't need a degree to see if someone is using the 'F' word too frequently or is being uncivil to other users. And sometimes it simply doesn't come down to having a choice when it comes to education. Some people don't have that choice. Denis Cavanagh 18:04, 11 May 2008 (CDT)

Credibility

I would highly disagree with the statement whether it makes a difference to an editor if the constable in question has a degree or not. A poxy - and yes, I do use that term to describe a degree which for most people who do it, isn't all that difficult - degree really isn't the be all and end all in a persons personal education. My father doesn't have any college qualification whatsoever - he rose to become a police seargeant and chairman of a local government board. An uncle of mine who spent three years in university is now a drunk. Its hard to see why the little piece of paper called a degree should change anything there, and frankly, its elitist to say it does. Denis Cavanagh 05:04, 8 May 2008 (CDT)

I see the logic in this proposal, I really do. I think that part of the rationale for Citizendium's existence is so that people outside of the educational mainstream can nevertheless have access to good scholarship. At the same time, though, I find Larry's point about editors quite cogent. The goal of Citizendium is to provide a free, reliable encyclopedia, and subject area editors are critical to achieving this in a way that non-degree holding contributors are not. Much as I agree with you that insisting on the educational requirement is elitist, keeping our experts is more important. Before we move ahead on any such proposal, I would be interested in hearing how our current experts feel about the proposal. It's entirely possible, of course, that they would have no objection to scrapping the educational requirement! Brian P. Long 18:17, 8 May 2008 (CDT)

Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only)

Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank):