What are your thoughts

[eaglesalumni]

Heard on the radio this morning that the Columbia Mo. Police Dept. was discontinuing the policy that required college degree's for it's officers. According to the report, the existing policy was getting them officers that didn't "look" like the people they served. The new policy is geared towards hiring more minorities.

Is this the direction we as a populous need to go? Requiring less education for our LEO's? Hiring based on race? Isn't this the very definition of racism?

Should standards be lowered so a certain group benefits?

As a whole, should we forget merit, and just go with race-based hiring?

What say you?

 

[Neutron Monster]

My general thought is that too many jobs require college degrees when they don't add much value to the job. I'm not sure I'd really call a requirement that cops get a college degree to be a merit based requirement. It functions more as a barrier to entry in the job than anything else - why should someone have to blow 40k on tuition at Mizzou to get to be a CoMo cop?

I'd rather police officers have training specific to their job over a period of time that is deemed appropriate by policing experts rather than a 4 year college degree that costs a lot.

I generally agree with their change for this reason.

My second thought is that policing is a little different than building widgets, and that there is value in having a police department that looks more like the broader population in the area it is serving. It's a matter of credibility and messaging as much as a matter of merit.

The news also reported that the police changed was designed to make it easier for veterans to be hired there, not just minorities.

 

[eaglesalumni]

My general thought is that too many jobs require college degrees when they don't add much value to the job. I'm not sure I'd really call a requirement that cops get a college degree to be a merit based requirement. It functions more as a barrier to entry in the job than anything else - why should someone have to blow 40k on tuition at Mizzou to get to be a CoMo cop?

I'd rather police officers have training specific to their job over a period of time that is deemed appropriate by policing experts rather than a 4 year college degree that costs a lot.

I generally agree with their change for this reason.

My second thought is that policing is a little different than building widgets, and that there is value in having a police department that looks more like the broader population in the area it is serving. It's a matter of credibility and messaging as much as a matter of merit.

The news also reported that the police changed was designed to make it easier for veterans to be hired there, not just minorities.

I for one believe we value a college degree too much for some vocations. I can agree there are some jobs where it is not needed. I also believe college is a great learning experience for lots of challenges that life throws our way.

However, I question the overall concept that we have to make it easier to get hired at any given job because we don't have the ethnic group we are looking for. Should all cops in Baltimore be black? Should all cops in Cut Bank Montana be white? Should everyone that works at HuHot's be Asian? That's ridiculous.

How are we going to extinguish racism, when we continue to use it as a yardstick in all things?

Are we going to continue to lesson the requirements of any given field to make it easier for minorities to succeed? This, in itself is racism.

That is the difference between being conservative and liberal. Conservatives want minorities to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. Liberals want to coddle them and move the goal post for them. To me, that is pretty condescending.

 

[Blizzard2.0]

Honestly, if it matters this much to the over all safety of society. It's worth the try.

 

[Neutron Monster]

I for one believe we value a college degree too much for some vocations. I can agree there are some jobs where it is not needed. I also believe college is a great learning experience for lots of challenges that life throws our way.

However, I question the overall concept that we have to make it easier to get hired at any given job because we don't have the ethnic group we are looking for. Should all cops in Baltimore be black? Should all cops in Cut Bank Montana be white? Should everyone that works at HuHot's be Asian? That's ridiculous.

How are we going to extinguish racism, when we continue to use it as a yardstick in all things?

Are we going to continue to lesson the requirements of any given field to make it easier for minorities to succeed? This, in itself is racism.

That is the difference between being conservative and liberal. Conservatives want minorities to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. Liberals want to coddle them and move the goal post for them. To me, that is pretty condescending.

I think your last point sounds like what people want in theory but it doesn't mirror how it actually works in practice. The point a lot of big companies and consultants would make about hiring and promotions is that the status quo does not treat everyone the same because of historical biases built into the process.

I.e. a requirement to have a college degree can sound great in theory but it does change your hiring pool to be less diverse - both racially and socioeconomically.

Companies cannot and should not think "25% of the people that live in county X are black so we need to have 25% of our employees be black." But it is quite reasonable to go, wow, only 5% of our new hires are black (or female, or whatever), is there something we are doing on our end that is biasing the results? You may not be doing anything wrong if you're hiring lawyers because you can't hire people who aren't admitted to the bar. But if you're selling cell phones at Best Buy and only 5% of the workforce is black? It's a fair question for a manager to ask.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Honestly, if it matters this much to the over all safety of society. It's worth the try.

I think policing is different on this than building widgets or performing surgery, yeah.

 

[Neutron Monster]

I for one believe we value a college degree too much for some vocations. I can agree there are some jobs where it is not needed. I also believe college is a great learning experience for lots of challenges that life throws our way.

However, I question the overall concept that we have to make it easier to get hired at any given job because we don't have the ethnic group we are looking for. Should all cops in Baltimore be black? Should all cops in Cut Bank Montana be white? Should everyone that works at HuHot's be Asian? That's ridiculous.

How are we going to extinguish racism, when we continue to use it as a yardstick in all things?

Are we going to continue to lesson the requirements of any given field to make it easier for minorities to succeed? This, in itself is racism.

That is the difference between being conservative and liberal. Conservatives want minorities to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. Liberals want to coddle them and move the goal post for them. To me, that is pretty condescending.

Also, the problem with your comment on yardsticks is that the results on a lot of these measures are abjectly horrible and imply there is a clear problem. You can't wish that away by saying we shouldn't consider it or use them. How else do you monitor the success or failure of your efforts? Companies and the government can and should consider outcomes. They just have to be considered in context.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Two things can be true:

- America has vestiges of racism, sexism, etc. that are real. A lot of these tend to be covert rather than overt - overfocus on hiring college grads, hiring processes that are focused on hiring friends and acquaintances of the current less diverse workforce, having a workplace culture that does not support diverse views and backgrounds, having benefits/work policies that are not family friendly, etc.
- Some people and some organizations with generally good intentions use ham-handed, counterproductive methods to address the problem

https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail I love this article.

 

[eaglesalumni]

I think your last point sounds like what people want in theory but it doesn't mirror how it actually works in practice. The point a lot of big companies and consultants would make about hiring and promotions is that the status quo does not treat everyone the same because of historical biases built into the process.

I.e. a requirement to have a college degree can sound great in theory but it does change your hiring pool to be less diverse - both racially and socioeconomically.

Companies cannot and should not think "25% of the people that live in county X are black so we need to have 25% of our employees be black." But it is quite reasonable to go, wow, only 5% of our new hires are black (or female, or whatever), is there something we are doing on our end that is biasing the results? You may not be doing anything wrong if you're hiring lawyers because you can't hire people who aren't admitted to the bar. But if you're selling cell phones at Best Buy and only 5% of the workforce is black? It's a fair question for a manager to ask.

So, in a nutshell, you are saying we should lower standards instead of providing incentives for a person to better themselves through education.

 

[Steelblues89]

A college education only makes you book smart, it does not guarantee you always make good decisions in life or on the job. It does not say you will react better under pressure or under fire. I think it more important to have lots of common sense.

 

[eaglesalumni]

A college education only makes you book smart, it does not guarantee you always make good decisions in life or on the job. It does not say you will react better under pressure or under fire. I think it more important to have lots of common sense.

Nothing you say here is false. However, a person with a lot of common sense, who makes good decisions will still do that with a college degree.

Wouldn't we want the best and brightest people to be in positions of authority?

 

[Neutron Monster]

So, in a nutshell, you are saying we should lower standards instead of providing incentives for a person to better themselves through education.

No, what I'm saying is that education in a college does not magically make someone more prepared for lots of jobs. The hiring practices and incentives offered by an employer should reflect the skills that are needed to succeed in its workforce.

The requirement to have a college or graduate level education makes sense for lots of jobs - I don't want someone operating on my heart who isn't a certified cardiologist, nor do I think we should be making CPAs out of people who haven't taken a lot of college level accounting classes. But there's a lot of middle skill jobs where the college push is probably going too far. An associates degree, trade school, or some other focused educational effort would be fine. And employers should be more willing to hire people in as quasi-apprentices with some willingness to train them.

Policing is a good example of the sort of field where vocational training and on the job experience is probably more important than education at the University of Missouri.

 

[Steelblues89]

Nothing you say here is false. However, a person with a lot of common sense, who makes good decisions will still do that with a college degree.

Wouldn't we want the best and brightest people to be in positions of authority?

They put people in positions of authority all the time in the military without a college education and they do quite well. Just because you don't have a college education does not mean you are not bright, just means you don't have that piece of paper.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Nothing you say here is false. However, a person with a lot of common sense, who makes good decisions will still do that with a college degree.

Wouldn't we want the best and brightest people to be in positions of authority?

There's a difference between the standards needed to be a rank and file employee vs. those you might have for leadership.

 

[Neutron Monster]

They put people in positions of authority all the time in the military without a college education and they do quite well. Just because you don't have a college education does not mean you are not bright, just means you don't have that piece of paper.

The military is a very good example of an organization that understands the value of vocational training vs. an overemphasis on college education for the rank and file. But it recognizes that its overall leadership and certain parts of the military (lawyers, nurses, etc.) need to have additional expertise that can only come from college.

It's a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.

 

[Neutron Monster]

So, in a nutshell, you are saying we should lower standards instead of providing incentives for a person to better themselves through education.

Circling back to one thing here. "bettering yourself" has a cost. Education is expensive - not only are you paying to be in the classroom, but there's also an opportunity cost in lost wages (since you could be working instead of sitting in class or doing homework.) It is effectively a tax on employees to force them to get education to get a job. Government policy (i.e. police hiring) should not impose such a tax unless it makes sense to do so. There's lots of good examples of this not holding up.

Public educator pay is the classic case of this - the pay scale emphasizes getting master's degrees over being a good in-room teacher. Every decent study out there shows that this emphasis is totally misplaced - it does not promote improved student achievement.

There are private market implications here as well.

 

[eaglesalumni]

You make a valid argument and I can see your point in some of these examples. I myself have wondered why some employers demand a college education when it appears the skill set doesn't warrant it.

I am just not convinced this particular case is the best option. Earning a college degree takes time, hard work, studying, planning etc. and also allows a person to mature, respect authority, learn time management and develop new friends from different races or social backgrounds. All of these are positive.

Deciding it's too much trouble to accomplish, so I'll just take a 6 month course and be out on the street with a badge and firearm, are exactly who I do NOT want being an officer committed to keeping people safe.

 

[Neutron Monster]

You make a valid argument and I can see your point in some of these examples. I myself have wondered why some employers demand a college education when it appears the skill set doesn't warrant it.

I am just not convinced this particular case is the best option. Earning a college degree takes time, hard work, studying, planning etc. and also allows a person to mature, respect authority, learn time management and develop new friends from different races or social backgrounds. All of these are positive.

Deciding it's too much trouble to accomplish, so I'll just take a 6 month course and be out on the street with a badge and firearm, are exactly who I do NOT want being an officer committed to keeping people safe.

There are definitely positive correlations here, as you note. You had to be smart enough and organized enough to get through college. I suspect this is a decent part of why it is so prevalent as a requirement. Plus the US is not really short on college grads.

But a decent employer could do a decent job with their recruiting efforts to find some people with these skills who don't have the financial wherewithal to go to college. And you could focus your recruitment efforts on people who are a little more mature (no one is saying you have to go hire 18 year olds.) And you could put in place a program that helped your officers get a college education if you think it is important - that way it functions as less of a barrier to entry.

Also, I think I'm saying something different than what you are implying in your last post. I'm not saying you want lazy people. I'm saying that it is a substantial barrier to entry for some populations that we may want working as LEOs, and the ramifications of putting such a barrier up need to be considered.

 

[Steelblues89]

You make a valid argument and I can see your point in some of these examples. I myself have wondered why some employers demand a college education when it appears the skill set doesn't warrant it.

I am just not convinced this particular case is the best option. Earning a college degree takes time, hard work, studying, planning etc. and also allows a person to mature, respect authority, learn time management and develop new friends from different races or social backgrounds. All of these are positive.

Deciding it's too much trouble to accomplish, so I'll just take a 6 month course and be out on the street with a badge and firearm, are exactly who I do NOT want being an officer committed to keeping people safe.

One of the reasons police departments hire a high percentage of veterans is because they have been subjected to many of the things you mentioned. More mature, respect for authority, time management, and being friends of others of all social and racial backgrounds. They have heavy training in weapons and tactical maneuvers. As a war veteran and retired from a police force I can say that they have continuous training throughout their career as an officer in law, safety, and life saving. I also found that something that some lack is the ability to interact with the public in ways that will defuse a situation rather than inflame it. Not sure you can learn that with a degree unless its in psychology and human behavior. I do not have a degree but I do have lots of practical application in dealing with people. But like everything in life, your never too old to learn something new, and in law enforcement, every day you will learn something new.

 

[eaglesalumni]

One of the reasons police departments hire a high percentage of veterans is because they have been subjected to many of the things you mentioned. More mature, respect for authority, time management, and being friends of others of all social and racial backgrounds. They have heavy training in weapons and tactical maneuvers. As a war veteran and retired from a police force I can say that they have continuous training throughout their career as an officer in law, safety, and life saving. I also found that something that some lack is the ability to interact with the public in ways that will defuse a situation rather than inflame it. Not sure you can learn that with a degree unless its in psychology and human behavior. I do not have a degree but I do have lots of practical application in dealing with people. But like everything in life, your never too old to learn something new, and in law enforcement, every day you will learn something new.

Much respect to you sir. Thank you for your service.