Uni degrees should be compulsory for TDs

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

WillyWaggler

McDougal wrote: »

Look at the kids in university these days? Greedy self-serving snobs who don't give a toss about anything except getting ahead in the world.

Generalisation much?

jmayo

djpbarry wrote: »

It is perhaps worth pointing out that Boris Johnson has a degree from Oxford.

george bush has a degree, but to most he is not the brightest guy.

Gambler wrote: »

I don't think anyone should ever be excluded from running for government because they haven't done something (gone to college as the prime example here.) They should only ever be excluded for running on the basis of something they HAVE done (broken certain serious laws such as murder and gone to jail for example).

You forgot things like faciliate tax evasion (bev flynn), fail to provide upto date tax compliance with Tax Clearance Certificate (bertie), have served time for terrorist activities (martin ferris), have evaded income taxes (michael lowry), lied to high courts (willie o'dea).

In normal life most of the above would mean people would not be consdiered for positions within organisations, nevermind make it into our parliament.

donegalfella wrote: »

This cliché ignores the evident and obvious fact that universities are also places where motivated, driven, intelligent, and capable people go to acquire essential knowledge and skills for furthering their goals. How does someone become a doctor or an engineer or a nuclear physicist without going to university?

And, to be fair, who "can't cut it in the real world" have recourse to any number of non-academic hiding places, too. You can say exactly the same thing about the 30-year-old who is content to loaf around on the dole, or the wife who would prefer to stay at home and be supported by her husband.

You are a lecturer, are you not ?
And yes we know people go to university to become things.
What I am hinting at are the ones that never leave, because often they do not have the other necessary skills to survive outside a theoretical protected environment.

acer1000 wrote: »

jmayo wrote: »

The reason a lot of well qualified and sucessful people do not enter politics is because they are too damm busy and find they can accomplish more for themsevles in their chose fields.
These people are often very driven and following party rules, dealing with civil servants and pandering to the public's moods would drive them insane.

---

It’s not true to say that a lot of well qualified and successful people do not enter politics. Quite the opposite, isn’t that the cause of all our problems? They didn’t enter politics by putting themselves in front of the people but by corrupting politicians who did, with brown envelopes, etc.

You are right about them not wanting to follow party rules, in fact many of them didn’t want to follow any rules at all, and that’s exactly what they did. All done with the help of politicians who wanted to be bought.

Sure they are great guys, who now can be broke but yet live like a king, while their country is turned to ****, all with the help of a legal system that’s rigged in their favour.

I’m just taking exception to this common myth that all our problems will be solved if we have enough business people in the Dail. Many of them need to be put in their place, and I’d like that place to be a cell with a slop out bucket for long periods, with their crony politicians to keep them company.

Listen when I said business people did I ever say bankers or developers ?
When I hear the word entrepreneur I never have considered any of our developers be entrepreneurs more like "cute hoors".

I consider the likes of Denis Brosnan, Edward Haughey, Gerry Robinson, and yes Michael O'Leary.
They have built somethings concrete that employ people, that is sustainable.
Note I do not include denis o'brien or dermot desmond whose close relationship with politicans would make me wonder as you above.

bladespin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which of our current government has left college/uni in the past 10 years then?

Fees when I attended were £2600 and then you had books, accomodation etc to look after, this was at the time when £12k was the average take home here, any idea what the average wage is in the US now or when your friend was attending?

My point is simply that for any number of reasons there are proportionately more graduates in the US than here, so the odds of a representative here having a degree aren't as good.

Oh and that by comparison a leaving is a much higher qualification than the SAT or highschool dipoma. The US system is geared towards the student continuing into third level (as long as they want/can afford to) where ours is/was nmore geared towards the leaving and you can do whatever you like after that. It's better now than in my day but it's still only regarded as an option.

Killer Pigeon

It is the right of every Irish citizen to run for election so I don't think that a university degree should be compulsory, however, I would be more swayed nowadays (especially given free third level education) to vote for someone who has a university degree.

bladespin

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

It is the right of every Irish citizen to run for election so I don't think that a university degree should be compulsory, however, I would be more swayed nowadays (especially given free third level education) to vote for someone who has a university degree.

I'd be more inclined toward it if a third level qualification was compulsory

Killer Pigeon

del_c wrote: »

How could you draw this conclusion? Running for office is not shut off to anybody, except those, who are not motivated to do the type of certification I was talking about.

I simply have stated that in order to do the fairly complex job of being a politician effectively, you should have a grounding in subject fields relevant to running a modern state.

A training as a primary school teacher for example, although it is a worthy career and an excellent training, would not provide this background. In my view, it is dangerous to have so many politicians are drawn from this field, with no other training, simply because it is handier and less risky for them to commit to politics than it would be for other professions. Such a qualification would round people from all backgrounds off, so at least they would have a broader understanding of what they were doing.

This applies to all manner of individuals: Doctors, Engineers, Union reps, farmers, housewives etc. etc.

I know a few people who have a degree (economics/politics + sociology) from a good university and decided afterward to go become a primary school teacher (conversion courses are available). So I don't think that your point there can be unanimously true. However a teacher who enters politics in my opinion would be well suited as Minister for Education and Science (perhaps not science though, personally I think there should be an independent department for science).

southsiderosie

jmayo wrote: »

And yes we know people go to university to become things.
What I am hinting at are the ones that never leave, because often they do not have the other necessary skills to survive outside a theoretical protected environment.

You think academia is a protected environment?

The odds of getting a place in a top PhD program are not good (<10%).

If you do get a place, you will have to subject yourself to the withering critique of both peers and faculty to advance. Dropout rates are generally high.

For most people, especially in the Humanities and Social Sciences, there will be at least 200 applications for every job, and in any given year there will MAYBE be about 10 jobs available that would be a good fit for what you do. If you do get an academic job, you will be paid less than your colleagues with professional degrees or those who leave academia (and most do). However, just getting a job does not insure job security; you have to go through a probationary period and develop a proven record of publications in order to get a protected position.

So basically, after working like a dog to earn top marks in undergrad, working like a dog through graduate school, often without financial support, scrambling to find a job, scrambling to keep a job, and finally getting some semblance of job security, at least 15 years have gone by, at which point you are acknowledged as knowing more about your area of study than pretty much anyone else in the world. And for that you get to grade 1,000 papers a semester, and field constant complaints about how academics don't 'do' anything.

A lot of academics may not have the skills to do much outside of academia because that is not what they are trained to do. As someone who has been in both worlds, I definitely acknowledge this is the case. That said, most people outside of academia could not do what most academics do.

/rant

Killer Pigeon

bladespin wrote: »

I'd be more inclined toward it if a third level qualification was compulsory

The thing is in order for this to become a reality you would have to change the constitution (don't quote me on that) so you'll have to leave it up to the Ireland electorate to make that decision in a referendum and not everyone who has the right to vote has a university degree you know.

bladespin

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The thing is in order for this to become a reality you would have to change the constitution (don't quote me on that) so you'll have to leave it up to the Ireland electorate to make that decision in a referendum and not everyone who has the right to vote has a university degree you know.

I agree more or less, not sure if it would require a constitutional change as a basic education is compulsory anyway and you could argue (particularly from some of the attitudes in this thread) that a third level qual would be considered the bare minimum now, but the dept of education would have to do away with fees (registration or whatever) altogether.
Might not be a bad thing until we have to pay for it, great in theory though.

rantyface

The important ministers have degrees and that's the way it should be but it's hardly necessary for a local TD to have a degree if they're mainly campaigning for better health services and roads. You don't need a degree for that.

I do agree with the OP's point that there are too many publicans in the dail. We especially need more doctors, other healthcare professionals, business people and scientists. I don't know why more don't run for election.

del_c

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I know a few people who have a degree (economics/politics + sociology) from a good university and decided afterward to go become a primary school teacher (conversion courses are available). So I don't think that your point there can be unanimously true. However a teacher who enters politics in my opinion would be well suited as Minister for Education and Science (perhaps not science though, personally I think there should be an independent department for science).

Well does that not underline what I am saying in a way? A person moving from sociology or economics or politcs into primary school teaching HAS to do a conversion course. And this route is ONLY open to graduates. And it is a tough course, involving a lot of work....my wife is half way through it so I know:D. And yet moving the other way is taken for granted even though aspects of the job are more complex, and certainly more crucial in many ways, as they will affect what thousands of teachers can achieve in the classroom.

These TD's have well-paid jobs, is it too much to ask to provide evidence of understanding of some of the fundamentals of it? Part time, after you have actually got the job???

Would it not ensure that we as an electorate got better value for money from our politicians?

Would it not make it LESS likely that TD's who only focussed on hand shaking, pint buying and funerals, who should be put under more pressure to make meaningful contributions at committee level to framing legislation, would be then equipped to do so.

Mr.Micro

Politicians would just buy the degrees anyway if a degree was necessary ( which I would not agree with at all, as various peoples in society would be ineligible and TD s should come from all walks of life. Lets face it we have got mostly the low life up to now) to be a TD. Just look at the chancer Ahern claiming to be an accountant all these years and did not know the difference between €, $ £ or Punts.

acer1000

jmayo wrote: »

Listen when I said business people did I ever say bankers or developers ?
When I hear the word entrepreneur I never have considered any of our developers be entrepreneurs more like "cute hoors".

I consider the likes of Denis Brosnan, Edward Haughey, Gerry Robinson, and yes Michael O'Leary.
They have built somethings concrete that employ people, that is sustainable.
Note I do not include denis o'brien or dermot desmond whose close relationship with politicans would make me wonder as you above.

I’m glad you made that distinction, totally agree with what you say, in particular the last sentence.

However, with the regard to the call to appoint business people to government positions, I’d doubt our politicians would want to have people of that calibre near them, wouldn’t they appoint their crony business buddies? And more worryingly, what could we do to stop them?

Was it really the absence of certain qualifications or experience
of our public representatives that got us into this mess? I don’t think it’s that important, except for those dealing with financial policy?

I think it had more to do with laziness, lack of integrity and having the good life on good easy money. For a start, their pay should be severely cut and state cars be removed, maybe by having to walk a bit those lazy bums would get into a new mindset, as well as look a bit more presentable to the world.

In short, what was and is lacking is an absence of character. Don’t it make one sick how these shysters never can seem to answer a straight question, e.g.

A short while ago, I heard about 2 small time construction related business men in my area who committed suicide, that evening I heard Joan Burton say it would be truly horrific if the IMF came into Ireland. What about the wives and the unfortunate kids in those families? Pretty horrific for people like them already, no? I don’t want to be picking on her or her party, for I think she’s okayish as dail members go. Also, I’m taking into account personal responsibility regarding such matters, but still? There just seems to be an air of being completely out of touch with so many of them.

del_c

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Politicians would just buy the degrees anyway if a degree was necessary ( which I would not agree with at all, as various peoples in society would be ineligible and TD s should come from all walks of life)

I agree with you, what i am arguing for is a type of license to pratice politcs based on a qualification which could be attained after you get elected.

Rabble Rabble

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

for someone who is totally libertarian you have an unbounded love for the ( generally) State institution - the university.

Who would you rather in Office.

A Freudian.
A Marxist.
A Deconstructionist.
A farmer.


I would go with the latter. Would prefer engineers to all of them, given the logical thinking associated; but a successful farmer at least has had a business to run; accounts to maintain, taxes to pay, labour to hire, capital to acquire and maintain; seed, feed etc. must be inputted to his business at a proper level. Could be a better minister for Finance than most.

And remember that 50% of people have university degrees, they very definition of mediocrity.

southsiderosie

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

for someone who is totally libertarian you have an unbounded love for the ( generally) State institution - the university.

Who would you rather in Office.

A Freudian.
A Marxist.
A Deconstructionist.
A farmer.

Oh come on. Is this really what the choices boil down to? This is a totally straw man argument.

Killer Pigeon

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

for someone who is totally libertarian you have an unbounded love for the ( generally) State institution - the university.

Who would you rather in Office.

A Freudian.
A Marxist.
A Deconstructionist.
A farmer.


I would go with the latter. Would prefer engineers to all of them, given the logical thinking associated; but a successful farmer at least has had a business to run; accounts to maintain, taxes to pay, labour to hire, capital to acquire and maintain seed, feed and other inputs to his business at a constant level. Could be a better minister for Finance than most.

And remember that 50% of people have university degrees, they very definition of mediocrity.

How about scientists (particularly mathematician and physicists)?

Rabble Rabble

southsiderosie wrote: »

Oh come on. Is this really what the choices boil down to? This is a totally straw man argument.

Fair point, well made. I was asking DF particularly since I know his likes and dislikes :-)

( long time lurker).

randylonghorn

Fo Real wrote: »

The problem is too many of our TDs are farmers and publicans. I therefore propose that it be made compulsory that all TDs should have obtained a university degree before standing for election.

So you are proposing that Ireland become an oligarchy rather than a democracy, with only what is still a semi-elite group in society eligible for election? Ok, so everyone could still vote, but many would be effectively disenfranchised as they would be precluded from voting for someone from their own class and community.

So much for representative democracy!

As it is, our political representatives are drawn almost exclusively from the middle and upper middle classes, and tend to self-replicate ... we have political dynasties like the Aherns, the O'Malleys, the Hanafins, and so many more. Your proposal would tend to exacerbate rather than alleviate the problem.

Nor, as has been pointed out, does a third level education guarantee common sense, integrity, honesty or the ability to manage one's personal life / budget, let alone a country's.

The biggest problem with politics in this country is that it tends to attract those with thick necks from a particular gombeen culture. That is what we need to change, and in the end only by voting can we change it. Requiring politicians to have degrees will only give us gombeens with letters after their names.

Show me an honest, intelligent, energetic dust(wo)man with demonstrable common sense going for election, and I will cheerfully vote for him / her, even if s/he left school at 15. S/he might not have a degree, but s/he has four important qualities which are in very short supply among our present politicians.

And I'm an academic, by the way.

And no, I'm not a Marxist.

Fo Real wrote: »

Third level education is free in this country so I don't want to hear arguments that college excludes the poor. It only excludes the stupid.

Wrong on both accounts, I'm afraid. The "Free Fees Initiative" may still survive (just about) but between the "registration fee", travel, accommodation, etc. it costs approx. €7 - 8,000 for a student living away from home ... and that's not going mad partying either! Certainly more affordable than the US, as has been pointed out, but hardly free!

And college doesn't exclude the stupid, in that many people are academically bright in one narrow field, and horrendously stupid otherwise.

Fo Real wrote: »

By universities.

It is not the role of universities to act as HR conconsultants to the state, and determine who is eligible for election. That would be profoundly undemocratic. And universities are as rife with their own brand of politics as any organisation you will ever encounter.

Fo Real wrote: »

Honorary degrees can be conferred on successful figures in the business world and other relevant sections of society.

Well, one Irish university conferred an honorary doctorate on Roy Keane ...

Enough said!

Fo Real wrote: »

Otherwise the village idiot could be elected because he promises his neighbours pub licenses or that rural pub goers are exempt from the drink driving law. This sort of gombeenism actually occurs, as we all know.

Of course it occurs, and it is up to the Irish voter to change that.

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

I dont agree with the poster ( there is an obvious anti-rural bias, too, in fact more people go to university from the sticks than in Dublin). Also he is not really aware of what representative democracy should entail.

BUT...

If we are to have this rule, lets have Real Degrees. Science and Engineering. Like China's ruling class.

Anyome who has anything to do with Marxism. Not a hope. If you think the labour theory of value is true. Out out out.

You started so well.

Then you remembered your username, and hastened to live up to it.

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

I couldn't agree less.

It's profoundly undemocratic. It's almost like a modern version of the philosopher kings in Plato's Republic.
It would preclude the majority of the population from government, denying many Irish people any form of representation.
I know many successful people who do not have third level education.
I know more academically successful people who can't manage their own lives never mind a country.

p.s. OP, rural people today are more likely to have a third level degree than urban people. It would be the urban working class that would be most harmed by this.

Spot on.

Fo Real wrote: »

Seanad Éireann.

Nodin wrote: »

Dated, unrepresentative, elitist.....

Difficult to argue with ... yet if you read the debates on new legislation, they often make a lot more sense and are far more open-minded than the equivalent in the Dáil, where political point-scoring tiddlywinks is inevitably the order of the day.

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

It's the university elite that got us into this mess.

Really?

I would say it was the greedy in a number of sectors which got us into this mess.

I see little evidence of a university elite being especially responsible.

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd actually love to see a part-time diploma in State Management as a requirement for putting oneself forth for election. Provide it as an evening / distance learning course through the current college / I.T. network (to make use of already employed lecturers and keep costs down) and exclude the course from being applicable for any registration fees beyond a nominal amount of about €20 or so to ensure access is available to all in the republic.

Public Administration, Economics etc. should form the basis of the course and help ensure that David McWilliams wouldn't be receiving late-night guests looking for crash courses in economics when future Finance Ministers encounter a crisis.

It's no guarantee of improved ministerial performance but I really can't see how it'd hurt.

Interesting idea, in fairness, and certainly less undemocratic than the OP's plan.

southsiderosie

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

How about scientists (particularly mathematician and physicists)?

Has anyone on this thread actually worked with mathematicians and physicists? I grew up in a university neighborhood, and the ones I knew were totally wacky human beings. Seriously, they were kind of on another plane theoretically, but when they came to visit the rest of us on Planet Earth, they were disproportionately a) socially retarded or b) just completely loony...in a fun way, but still loony.

I have dear friends who are mathematical geniuses and/or computing whizzes, but I wouldn't trust most of them to run a toaster oven, much less a country.

Rabble Rabble

southsiderosie wrote: »

Has anyone on this thread actually worked with mathematicians and physicists? I grew up in a university neighborhood, and the ones I knew were totally wacky human beings. Seriously, they were kind of on another plane theoretically, but when they came to visit the rest of us on Planet Earth, they were disproportionately a) socially retarded or b) just completely loony...in a fun way, but still loony.

I have dear friends who are mathematical geniuses and/or computing whizzes, but I wouldn't trust most of them to run a toaster oven, much less a country.

Ah, but China is run by Engineers.

( Different from IT, and mathematicians in being more practical I would suggest)

southsiderosie

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Ah, but China is run by Engineers.

( Different from IT, and mathematicians in being more practical I would suggest)

Yes, and they are often confounded by the fact that human behavior is difficult to mold and model, and that they can plan plan plan all they want, but sometimes humanity can get in the way. Some of the most raging arguments I've had over urban policy have been with Chinese bureaucrats, who cannot seem to understand why migrants from rural areas defy their carefully crafted housing policies to live in squatter camps or irregular settlements with their fellow hometown migrants. French planners seem to have the same affliction; it's a very Cartesian view of the world.

BTW - there is a very good book about this by James Scott called "Seeing Like a State". Basically he argues that too much focus on planning and scientific rationalization strips the common sense and tacit knowledge out of civil and political life, and this in turn can lead to monstrously disastrous policies, such as the Great Leap Forward.

Killer Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

Has anyone on this thread actually worked with mathematicians and physicists? I grew up in a university neighborhood, and the ones I knew were totally wacky human beings. Seriously, they were kind of on another plane theoretically, but when they came to visit the rest of us on Planet Earth, they were disproportionately a) socially retarded or b) just completely loony...in a fun way, but still loony.

I have dear friends who are mathematical geniuses and/or computing whizzes, but I wouldn't trust most of them to run a toaster oven, much less a country.

I'm actually studying for a maths/physics degree in UCD and (as you might have expected) I totally disagree with you. It would be quite easy I think for a physicist/mathematician/engineer to understand economics and finance given that economics is just logic/common sense and the calculations involved would be like a game of crosswords for those type of scientists. In fact, many physicists/mathematics go on to work in the field of finance after their education (particularly quant. finance, trading, business analytic). I have often thought that one could derive an algorithm which would run the country effectively and lower the risk of human error. Yes, we need more scientists in government - seriously. Smart people, not people with petty Arts degrees.

Didn't Maggie Thatcher has a degree in science - Chemistry I think.

Killer Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes, and they are often confounded by the fact that human behavior is difficult to mold and model, and that they can plan plan plan all they want, but sometimes humanity can get in the way. Some of the most raging arguments I've had over urban policy have been with Chinese bureaucrats, who cannot seem to understand why migrants from rural areas defy their carefully crafted housing policies to live in squatter camps or irregular settlements with their fellow hometown migrants. French planners seem to have the same affliction; it's a very Cartesian view of the world.

BTW - there is a very good book about this by James Scott called "Seeing Like a State". Basically he argues that too much focus on planning and scientific rationalization strips the common sense and tacit knowledge out of civil and political life, and this in turn can lead to monstrously disastrous policies, such as the Great Leap Forward.

I think its very unfair to assume that someone who is good at math somehow has low social abilities and lack of understanding of human emotion. This is just a pathetic stereotype instigated by people who abhor the subject.

southsiderosie

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I'm actually studying for a maths/physics degree in UCD and (as you might have expected) I totally disagree with you. It would be quite easy I think for a physicist/mathematician/engineer to understand economics and finance given that economics is just logic/common sense and the calculations involved would be like a game of crosswords for those type of scientists. In fact, many physicists/mathematics go on to work in the field of finance after their education (particularly quant. finance, trading, business analytic). I have often thought that one could derive an algorithm which would run the country effectively and lower the risk of human error. Yes, we need more scientists in government - seriously. Smart people, not people with petty Arts degrees.

Didn't Maggie Thatcher has a degree in science - Chemistry I think.

Running a country with an algorithm? That right there is part of the problem. Modeling human behavior is very, very difficult, if not impossible. See my above post.

And the problem with "understanding" economics is that there are very different schools of thought. A Keynesian would have a very different approach to the crisis than a neo-liberal economist. There is no faculty death match like an econ faculty death match.

One thing I think we do need more of in government is Ethics. Maybe everyone should have a degree in philosophy then? :rolleyes:

southsiderosie

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I think its very unfair to assume that someone who is good at math somehow has low social abilities and lack of understanding of human emotion. This is just a pathetic stereotype instigated by people who abhor the subject.

My tongue-in-cheek observations are based on growing up with neighbors who worked at the Fermi Lab, and my experience as an adult living with and working with both doctoral students and faculty at one of the top mathematics and engineering schools in the world. I didn't say mathematicians and physicists were bad people, I just said I wouldn't put them in charge of running a country. :P

Killer Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

Running a country with an algorithm? That right there is part of the problem. Modeling human behavior is very, very difficult, if not impossible. See my above post.

Yes one could potentially run the country with an algorithm. I'm quite serious, if human emotion is as complex as predicting an outcome to a Quantum Mechanic problem then I could imagine an algorithm thought up by some top Mathematicians and possible Physicists (good understanding of statistics etc.) that would run the country effectively.

sdanseo

Fo Real wrote: »

Too many of our TDs, especially the rural based ones, come across as ignorant, uneducated buffoons (to put it brashly). Jackie Healy Rae and the infamous PJ Sheehan immediately spring to mind, who both incidentally topped the list for claiming expenses during the Summer. PJ Sheehan doesn't know how to deal with the media and doesn't appear capable of conducting interviews. He recently told a journalist to "cop yourself on" when called up on his shocking expenses claims (over €20,000). On the other hand, I don't understand a word that comes out of Jackie Healy Rae's mouth. And that's not an attack on Kerry people. It's a charming accent but take pride in speaking clearly.

The problem is too many of our TDs are farmers and publicans. I therefore propose that it be made compulsory that all TDs should have obtained a university degree before standing for election. Third level education is free in this country so I don't want to hear arguments that college excludes the poor. It only excludes the stupid.

Personally I'd like to see more TDs with a science or business background enter the Dáil. These are the kinds of people that should be working in our various departments - not farmers.

What a terribly narrow-minded, ill-educated, very "celtic-tiger like" viewpoint - all of it but particularly the emboldened part. God forbid you ever run the country.

One thing I do agree with however is the publicans comment - I don't think a publican should be allowed also be a TD, too much potential for conflict of interest what with licensing, etc. You couldn't be a Garda or a soldier and run a pub, why should TD's be any different?

Killer Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

My tongue-in-cheek observations are based on growing up with neighbors who worked at the Fermi Lab, and my experience as an adult living with and working with both doctoral students and faculty at one of the top mathematics and engineering schools in the world. I didn't say mathematicians and physicists were bad people, I just said I wouldn't put them in charge of running a country. :P

Well I don't think those people really care about politics anyway as they're so caught up and mesmerized by their own research that they couldn't care less about petty human quarreling.

southsiderosie

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yes one could potentially run the country with an algorithm. I'm quite serious, if human emotion is as complex as predicting an outcome to a Quantum Mechanic problem then I could imagine an algorithm thought up by some top Mathematicians and possible Physicists (good understanding of statistics etc.) that would run the country effectively.

I sincerely doubt it. And just to be clear about my biases: I believe in social science, but I do not believe in statistical modeling to explain all aspects of human behavior, and aside from Chinese planners, these are the other raging battles I am regularly party to. Hell, polling barely works anymore.

Rabble Rabble

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yes one could potentially run the country with an algorithm. I'm quite serious, if human emotion is as complex as predicting an outcome to a Quantum Mechanic problem then I could imagine an algorithm thought up by some top Mathematicians and possible Physicists (good understanding of statistics etc.) that would run the country effectively.

Oh come, now. i suggest engineers because Engineers are practical scientists. There is no model which can predict humanity. Economics which predicts a small fulcrum of humanities actions - buying and selling - cant predict the future worth a damn. Trying to predict rising nationalism, or an increase in well-being, in a population would be something that cannot even begin to be modelled.

Killer Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

I sincerely doubt it. And just to be clear about my biases: I believe in social science, but I do not believe in statistical modeling to explain all aspects of human behavior, and aside from Chinese planners, these are the other raging battles I am regularly party to. Hell, polling barely works anymore.

This is where I can draw the line between running a country and understanding physics.

I like bringing up Quantum Mechanics to explain this. In QM it is virtually impossible to predict where a particle is going to be, in fact you can't therefore you must use statistics to work out the probability of if being at any given point.

Human behaviour is far less difficult to predict than QM. Imagine it this way, if you have a psychiatric and a mathematician trying to analyse and model the possible behaviour of one single person it wouldn't be incredibly hard as there are a finite number of ways that person can act. However, in QM you have to work out the behaviour of a particle that has infinite possibilities for its position vector.

southsiderosie

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

This is where I can draw the line between running a country and understanding physics.

I like bringing up Quantum Mechanics to explain this. In QM it is virtually impossible to predict where a particle is going to be, in fact you can't therefore you must use statistics to work out the probability of if being at any given point.

Human behaviour is far less difficult to predict than QM. Imagine it this way, if you have a psychiatric and a mathematician trying to analyse and model the possible behaviour of one single person it wouldn't be incredibly hard as there are a finite number of ways that person can act. However, in QM you have to work out the behaviour of a particle that has infinite possibilities for its position vector.

Most major political events were not predicted, even if they seem obvious in hindsight.

Sovietologists did not predict the collapse of the USSR. Actually, looking back, the only groups that signaled its imminent collapse were artists, poets and novelists.

There was a famous book by Norman Angell called "The Great Illusion" that made the argument that high levels of economic integration in Europe meant that war between them was futile. This book was published in 1913.

These are two of the most extreme examples, but in general humans are tragically bad at predicting their own behavior, or observing the obvious warning signs of impending disaster.

Killer Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

Most major political events were not predicted, even if they seem obvious in hindsight.

Sovietologists did not predict the collapse of the USSR. Actually, looking back, the only groups that signaled its imminent collapse were artists, poets and novelists.

There was a famous book by Norman Angell called "The Great Illusion" that made the argument that high levels of economic integration in Europe meant that war between them was futile. This book was published in 1913.

These are two of the most extreme examples, but in general humans are tragically bad at predicting their own behavior, or observing the obvious warning signs of impending disaster.

Ah, this is where I fail, chaos theory. Meteorologists can only predict the exact weather 1-2 weeks in advance, why? Because the smallest shift in the system can cause a total change after a while in the whole system. However, there are whiz kids looking into areas such as understanding turbulence which in the long run could help get a forecast that could stretch longer into the future. Maybe, if this research is successful, it could have applications in understanding and perhaps even predicting human behaviour.

Rabble Rabble

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I
Human behaviour is far less difficult to predict than QM.

Its the sum total of irrational human behaviour which is impossible to predict, and which there is no model for. We cant even predict simple economic behaviour ( and humans are not rational actors).

QM, the simplest of particles are simple to predict in comparison.

Rabble Rabble

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Maybe, if this research is successful, it could have applications in understanding and perhaps even predicting human behaviour.

Maybe, but the problem is that there is no mathematics of group human behaviour anyway. Except for economics which has traditionally been based on false premises - rational human actors acting in to maximise their utility. And doesnt work.

So maybe, I retract the engineers, and suggest a farmer. The problem with academics is just what we see here - limited knowledge assume to be The Truth.

Like Marxists back in the day who assumed that a planned economy would be more efficient than a "wasteful" market system, but who did not understand that they had to model the feedback loops of the free market involving millions of transactions in a city, and trillions in a country in any given day, to work out what people actually wanted and how prices should be set. Impossible to measure in a planned economy, but the distributed power of the market solves it.

femur61

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes because at least they have seen urban life. In that there is life beyond the parish pump. Personally, I don't think teachers make good politicains in that they have limited knowledge of the law. It does qualifiy them in that it is indicative of their intelligence. I think we should be more like the US congress where the vast majority are lawyers.

If people had some life experience they would be aware that you need to build infrastructure before you locate people to an area.

oncevotedff

Fo Real wrote: »

I therefore propose that it be made compulsory that all TDs should have obtained a university degree before standing for election. Third level education is free in this country so I don't want to hear arguments that college excludes the poor. It only excludes the stupid. .

The obvious counter argument is that those TDs with university degrees aren't exactly brilliant either.

acer1000

femur61 wrote: »

............ I think we should be more like the US congress where the vast majority are lawyers.

Yea...and when you are the lawyer in government you then tell everybody else that they should study science and engineering.:eek:

The only qualification should be CHARACTER. Our bunch are totally lacking in it, except for a few exceptions, and it's the cause of the mess we find ourselves in.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Ah, this is where I fail, chaos theory. Meteorologists can only predict the exact weather 1-2 weeks in advance, why? Because the smallest shift in the system can cause a total change after a while in the whole system. However, there are whiz kids looking into areas such as understanding turbulence which in the long run could help get a forecast that could stretch longer into the future. Maybe, if this research is successful, it could have applications in understanding and perhaps even predicting human behaviour.

But the most important thing to understand about political behavior is system collapse because the consequences are so dire.

To be honest, I wish more politicians studied history and actually took it seriously because we as human beings keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again. And I think the Greeks pretty much said all that needed to be said about mankind and government 2,400 years ago.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What do we want?

MORE CORN!!!

When do we want it?

NOW!!!!!!!!!

:P

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Killer Pigeon

Didn't DeValera have a degree in Maths and he was probably one of Ireland's best politician, even though he was a Fianna Fáiler.

nuac

1. I disagree with Fo-real. Am a graduate ( two degrees and a professional qualification ) Know many graduates in various occupations. Suggest holding a degree does not guarantee intelligence or common sense.

One of our best Ministers for Finance Ray McSharry had to go work soon after primary school.

2. I recall Seán Lemass remarking that a Dáil composed wholly of university graduates would be a disaster ( or words to that effect, )

3. TDs from different backgrounds help to make a more effective and representative Dáil.

e.g. farmers are used to assessing facts, estimating future events, and making decisions day by day to survive. Same applies to other self employed business people.

Why denigrate publicans? They operate in a very competitive environment, have to comply with a plethora of regulations. At the end of the night they have to be diplomatic enough to be able to eject their customers while still retaining their future custom.

Agree with Oscar Bravo and others that Dáil would be better if more self-employed people were elected. Problem is that running a business especially these days is a full time commitment, leaving little time and energy for a political career.

Some highly educated people have difficulty in making decisions - prone to paralysis by analysis.

Albert Reynolds had the right approach - if the idea is good it can be put on one sheet of paper, not a 500 page report with an executive summary.


4. Disagree with the suggestion that parish pump politics is a rural speciality. E.g the Gregory deal negotiated by two Dublin politicians was the first major deal promising local goodies for electoral support.

paulaa

I am amazed at the sheer ignorance and bigotry shown by some on this thread towards the rural population .
This is the urban parish pump at work. There are very capable people living in the country who would do a far better job that the present lot. Politicians who have been born and raised in Dublin, if this thread is anything to go by, wouldn't have a clue about the needs of the country as a whole.

randylonghorn

southsiderosie wrote: »

To be honest, I wish more politicians studied history and actually took it seriously because we as human beings keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again.

Marry me!!1! :cool:

nuac wrote: »

Albert Reynolds had the right approach - if the idea is good it can be put on one sheet of paper, not a 500 page report with an executive summary.

I agree. It doesn't mean that the research shouldn't be done when necessary, but often ideas are so well buried under a book of waffle that they are lost, or everyone understands them differently, or those who want to resist them nit-pick about paragraph 5 on page 257 for 2 weeks ...

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

george bush has a degree, but to most he is not the brightest guy.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I was going for.

bladespin wrote: »

The US system is geared towards the student continuing into third level (as long as they want/can afford to) where ours is/was nmore geared towards the leaving and you can do whatever you like after that.

Are you kidding? A very large proportion of leaving cert students are solely interested in accumulating CAO points to put toward their third-level education. The actual subjects themselves are often seen as irrelevant and students will often opt for the “easier” options, which is precisely why this country is producing less and less leaving cert graduates with good grades in maths and science.

rantyface wrote: »

We especially need more doctors, other healthcare professionals, business people and scientists. I don't know why more don't run for election.

Because they’ve more important things to do (like keeping the economy ticking over)?

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Human behaviour is far less difficult to predict than QM.

And there was me thinking we were all composed of atoms.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Didn't DeValera have a degree in Maths and he was probably one of Ireland's best politician...

Oh sweet Jesus.

randylonghorn

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh sweet Jesus.

Lol!

Well, in fairness, he was able.

Whether one agrees with his policies and general philosophy / vision is a different question entirely!!

Killer Pigeon

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh sweet Jesus.

Well now come on, DeValera was one of the founding father, a very smart guy and clearly understood politics well. It was a good politician for his day.