Very thoughtful and all great suggestions. The social structure when the constitution was written was very different. Lawyers were trained to uphold the law and live by principles of widely known and understood codes of ethics and dignity. The country has now been infected by private equity zealots whose only goal is financial power regardless of who gets hurt. Do you think Musk or Thomas (Clarence) or Juliani live by a code of ethics, dignity or the other characteristics of the founding fathers? They use the term hostile takeover for a reason.
Although maybe not. Some of our best judges were self-taught (and learned through apprenticeships) and law school gives us the likes of Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. Thaddeus Stevens had a limited education, and while he's well-known as a radical reconstruction, he first came to notoriety in the Penn. state legislature for advocacy free education (his mother had had to pay for his schooling but it was done because unlike his brothers he was too sickly to work on the farm---hey that's how George Orwell ended up getting educated too---
I agree there ought to be some vetting of candidates understanding the governmental processes, but we got an awful lot of ivy educated magas in the legislature and judiciary who don't understand they need to lift the toilet seat and just piss on everyone else.
We really can't compare today to mid 19th Century Ken, Abraham Lincoln had no formal schooling at all, he was self taught. My father was born in 1912, dropped out of school at the end of 8th grade to help support his family.
Things changed after WW2, Education was provided through the GI Bill and some progressive governments (like California at that time) realized that by educating the general population they more than paid for the free to low cost education by an enormous increase in income tax collected from the higher incomes that came from higher education.
Then as Reagan the worst governor and among the lowest Presidents ushered in GREED. Suddenly they didn't want or need an educated citizenry. The tax structure begun by Reagan , increased under W, and completed by der trumpster, finished the job of redistuibuting the wealth from the majority of people to the uber wealthy top 10%.
It was the greed, not Ivy League per se that turned out the worst Supreme Court in recent memory. If trump wins in November we will have government of the wealthy, for the wealthy and the rest of us be damned.
of course you are right, but I think apprenticeships for lawyers would be better. now we get lawyers who can argue law, but can't do law and need paralegals to fill out the forms the haven't learned. If you've seen the Paper Chase (movie, not TV show) and I'm told many law school environments are quite like that---it is not very conducive to learning law.
I don't know, of course, how Ms. Joyce Vance conducts her classes, but if it is even partially the way she writes her column, she explains law doesn't make it into memorizing cases and I imagine those who learn under her tutelage have an understanding of law.
And yes I agree it is not Ivy League per se, but who primarily who attends Ivy League; and as for Harvard, some really bad (my opinion) profs over the last half century. Greedy people and professors advocating greed. But I pick on the Ivy League for the obvious reason they do have an oversized influence. A Harvard scholar can command the authority of God. And so to study politics under Kissinger; economics under Friedmann, what have you learned but greed. But Harvard also has the likes of Lawrence Stern and Feyaad Allie, so not all bad. And great scientific research is being done. Yale's entire history dept seems great and always has in my opinion. So yes it is wrong to pick on Ivy League---it's about who attends and who teaches; and to a great extent administrative possibilities. But I also think it's fair to pick on them because you can't deny (I hope) their undue influence
And because of that I hold them to a greater accountability. I also hold presidents, legislators and judges to a greater accountability. Influence holders MUST be held to higher standards because they can lead to enmity or harmony. And the great preponderance of the "brains" behind maga and project 2025 are Harvard educated.
Finally, you and I both struggled to become educated it was not handed to us. The GI bill did enable a generation to attend college, my family being one and believe you me it was a struggle and many years of dire poverty. My daughter (step) by my second marriage went to college on pell grants and scholarships but had to work (like I had) two part-time jobs. My eldest daughter whom I agree with on absolutely nothing, nevertheless had to struggle for years to get an education. Learning is more personally valuable when it is combined with the struggle---back to 19th century greats like Lincoln, Stevens, and Fredrick Douglass.
When the experience is one of entitlement then the learning that results can often deny entitling others to a crumb of bread.
But your criticism was spot on. My statement was over-generalized. But I also do admit I am impressed by those nineteenth century people who earned their education and I am also impressed by 20th century people like Faye Reid who did the same.
I agree with most of what you say, but I disagree that a college education, though not required, would be preferable. We have seen plenty of evidence that a college degree is no guarantee of either intelligence or character, and why should those who ply a trade have to meet a higher standard of intelligence than those with college degrees?
I do think everyone should be educated in Civics, which most are not these days. The requirement for at least some understanding of how our government functions should be required of all citizens, but especially those running for office.
Very thoughtful and all great suggestions. The social structure when the constitution was written was very different. Lawyers were trained to uphold the law and live by principles of widely known and understood codes of ethics and dignity. The country has now been infected by private equity zealots whose only goal is financial power regardless of who gets hurt. Do you think Musk or Thomas (Clarence) or Juliani live by a code of ethics, dignity or the other characteristics of the founding fathers? They use the term hostile takeover for a reason.
Agreed. Lawyers are still taught to follow the law and behave ethically - some (too many) just ignore it.
Although maybe not. Some of our best judges were self-taught (and learned through apprenticeships) and law school gives us the likes of Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. Thaddeus Stevens had a limited education, and while he's well-known as a radical reconstruction, he first came to notoriety in the Penn. state legislature for advocacy free education (his mother had had to pay for his schooling but it was done because unlike his brothers he was too sickly to work on the farm---hey that's how George Orwell ended up getting educated too---
I agree there ought to be some vetting of candidates understanding the governmental processes, but we got an awful lot of ivy educated magas in the legislature and judiciary who don't understand they need to lift the toilet seat and just piss on everyone else.
We really can't compare today to mid 19th Century Ken, Abraham Lincoln had no formal schooling at all, he was self taught. My father was born in 1912, dropped out of school at the end of 8th grade to help support his family.
Things changed after WW2, Education was provided through the GI Bill and some progressive governments (like California at that time) realized that by educating the general population they more than paid for the free to low cost education by an enormous increase in income tax collected from the higher incomes that came from higher education.
Then as Reagan the worst governor and among the lowest Presidents ushered in GREED. Suddenly they didn't want or need an educated citizenry. The tax structure begun by Reagan , increased under W, and completed by der trumpster, finished the job of redistuibuting the wealth from the majority of people to the uber wealthy top 10%.
It was the greed, not Ivy League per se that turned out the worst Supreme Court in recent memory. If trump wins in November we will have government of the wealthy, for the wealthy and the rest of us be damned.
of course you are right, but I think apprenticeships for lawyers would be better. now we get lawyers who can argue law, but can't do law and need paralegals to fill out the forms the haven't learned. If you've seen the Paper Chase (movie, not TV show) and I'm told many law school environments are quite like that---it is not very conducive to learning law.
I don't know, of course, how Ms. Joyce Vance conducts her classes, but if it is even partially the way she writes her column, she explains law doesn't make it into memorizing cases and I imagine those who learn under her tutelage have an understanding of law.
And yes I agree it is not Ivy League per se, but who primarily who attends Ivy League; and as for Harvard, some really bad (my opinion) profs over the last half century. Greedy people and professors advocating greed. But I pick on the Ivy League for the obvious reason they do have an oversized influence. A Harvard scholar can command the authority of God. And so to study politics under Kissinger; economics under Friedmann, what have you learned but greed. But Harvard also has the likes of Lawrence Stern and Feyaad Allie, so not all bad. And great scientific research is being done. Yale's entire history dept seems great and always has in my opinion. So yes it is wrong to pick on Ivy League---it's about who attends and who teaches; and to a great extent administrative possibilities. But I also think it's fair to pick on them because you can't deny (I hope) their undue influence
And because of that I hold them to a greater accountability. I also hold presidents, legislators and judges to a greater accountability. Influence holders MUST be held to higher standards because they can lead to enmity or harmony. And the great preponderance of the "brains" behind maga and project 2025 are Harvard educated.
Finally, you and I both struggled to become educated it was not handed to us. The GI bill did enable a generation to attend college, my family being one and believe you me it was a struggle and many years of dire poverty. My daughter (step) by my second marriage went to college on pell grants and scholarships but had to work (like I had) two part-time jobs. My eldest daughter whom I agree with on absolutely nothing, nevertheless had to struggle for years to get an education. Learning is more personally valuable when it is combined with the struggle---back to 19th century greats like Lincoln, Stevens, and Fredrick Douglass.
When the experience is one of entitlement then the learning that results can often deny entitling others to a crumb of bread.
But your criticism was spot on. My statement was over-generalized. But I also do admit I am impressed by those nineteenth century people who earned their education and I am also impressed by 20th century people like Faye Reid who did the same.
I agree with most of what you say, but I disagree that a college education, though not required, would be preferable. We have seen plenty of evidence that a college degree is no guarantee of either intelligence or character, and why should those who ply a trade have to meet a higher standard of intelligence than those with college degrees?
I do think everyone should be educated in Civics, which most are not these days. The requirement for at least some understanding of how our government functions should be required of all citizens, but especially those running for office.